MOVEMENT TO BAN OR BURN BOOKS GAINS MOMENTUM

Although we just barely survived our hangover from the previous election, we are again ready to embark on a new electoral journey in 2022. Primaries around the middle of the year, and a hotly contested midterm election scheduled for November. The issues are being developed while many of us are still asleep. In most states, aggressive gerrymandering set the parameters, and political action committees are digging in in support of a set of policy concerns sold as essential values for the survival of the country. The current focus is on a renewed interest in public education. What began as a misplaced concern with Critical Race Theory (CRT) (see my blog entry of July 13, 2021) morphed into opposition to mask mandates and other Covid-19 measures, and presently into a movement to ban "objectionable books" from school libraries and curricula, including social justice, gender, race and related history. We have even reached the point when newly elected school board members openly suggest that, in addition to removing dozens of books from library shelves, literature they reject as reprehensible ought to be burned. By essentially promoting thought control, we are slowly beginning to descent further into the quicksand of authoritarianism. Calls for book burning came from two school board members in Spotsylvania county, Virginia, following the election of Glenn Youngkin to governor. The election turned on parental control of school curricula after former governor Terry McAuliffe declared: "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach." Youngkin retorted that he would ban CRT on his first day in office. He also ran an ad featuring a local mother who tried to get "Beloved," the Pulitzer prize winning novel by Toni Morrison, removed from her son's A.P. English curriculum, claiming the book contained "some of the most explicit material you can imagine." This, of course, is true because the book depicts the horrors of slavery, which some parents would rather their children don't learn about. School board member Rabih Abuismail, supported by another member, Kirk Twigg, exclaimed that just removing books like this was not enough - "We should throw those books in a fire." The emergence of traditionally a-political school boards into the election year dialogue grew out of contentious, sometimes venomous, meetings dominated by parents opposed to regulations generated by the Covid-19 pandemic. School board members were routinely targeted, and ultimately threatened to be tried for treason for "poisoning the minds of children," when the discussion mutated into full-scale parental control issues. Unsupportive existing board members were being recalled in multiple states, while replacements appeared ready to take over, winning across the board, financially supported by national organizations like the "1776 Project PAC," which opposes CRT in education and which favors a more "patriotic curriculum." One of their slogans read: "The left is coming for our kids." It is not terribly surprising that in the heat of the moment, or for political expediency, the topic of book burning tends to emerge. In state after state books are being removed from circulation in response to parental objections. In Texas a school district even demanded that teachers using a book on the Holocaust must provide books with "an opposing perspective." At a time when burning books might appear as ignorant symbolic activities, since their content is usually still available on social media, the act itself sets a dangerous precedent. History is replete with similar acts designed to eradicate unwanted information or instigate unmistakable attempts at rewriting history. Book burning has a long and dark history, tied to censorship and oppressive regimes, most famously the one in Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler. On May 10, 1933, Fascist university students burned upward of 25,000 books on the Opern Platz in Berlin.These included works by Jewish authors like Albert Einstein, and those "corrupting influences" like Ernest Hemingway. Goebbels spoke at the event, telling the students: "You do well at this late hour to entrust to the flames the intellectual garbage of the past." (U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.) More recently, in 2006, "The Diary of Anne Frank" was burned in Pretzien, Germany, at a far-right summer festival. In this country, in 1956, on two occasions, books by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich were burned, overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In Drake, North Dakota, its school board had objectionable books thrown into the school furnace, including 32 copies of "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut and 60 copies of "Deliverance" by James Dickey. And in 2001, Harry Potter books were targets at of at least six book burnings. Parents occupying positions on local school boards want to control what their kids are being taught. Sometimes this desire leads to a contortion of history, as it did in Texas when, in 2010, textbooks were essentially rewritten using a new set of standards: "The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies." These standards were adopted in the printing of 48 million textbooks, insuring that students in that state would receive a vastly different view of history than those in most other states. Sometimes entire nations rewrite their own history, and destroy materials depicting their verifiable past. China is doing that right now. Hungary and Poland are beginning that process incrementally. They can, because revisionists are in control. As George Orwell wrote in "1984": "Who controls the past controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past." As historical content is being "reinterpreted" or "sanitized" to eliminate uncomfortable historic truths from adoption in our curricula, we are wasting significant teaching opportunities. In the words of one observer: "We should learn to get past our discomfiture and use the warts of our past as tools for a less blemished future." (Michael Rosenbaum, "Rewriting history and the pursuit of ignorance," The Hill, Feb. 26, 2015). Parents should certainly have control over the quality of their kids' education. However, they should not be empowered to erase or sanitize factual content and turn the process into a partisan political agenda item. Politicizing curricula and attempts at erasing unwanted information, be it by burning books or replacing their subject matter, are historically precursors to an autocratic future. Theo Wierdsma

SEASONAL NOSTALGIA, A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD

Each holiday season, the period following Thanksgiving, culminating in Christmas and New Year, including Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, becomes for many of us a time for nostalgic reflection. What triggers a multitude of sentimental recollections for me every year is the erection and trimming of our Christmas tree. Each ornament seems to elicit its own story, evoking its own set of wistful memories. There is the first ornament my wife and I displayed the year we got married, 41 years ago; pictures of past pets; commemorative decorations; sweeping collections of travel related items accumulated over the years; miniaturized exhibits of short-lived interests and hobbies; and some relics passed on by generations of ornament hoarders. In some ways, our annual Christmas tree reflects our accumulated history, and seems to remind us of our disposition at multiple intervals over time. It provides us with the sense that life has roots and continuity, awakening nostalgic feelings, usually invoking pleasant associations, although simultaneously regretting the passage of time. One of the downsides of retirement is that you have a lot of time on your hands to think about things. While caught up in bouts of nostalgia, it is not difficult to wonder whether it is actually healthy to reconnect with your past. Neither can you escape pondering how others process memories accentuated by seasonal sentiments. For centuries, nostalgia was treated as a "neurological disease." The noun "nostalgia" was first used in 1688 by a Swiss physician, Johannes Hofer, to describe a medical diagnosis for mercenary soldiers. He equated it to the German word "heimweh," or "homesickness," and attributed soldiers' mental and physical maladies to their longing to return home. By the 18th century, nostalgia was no longer considered a provincial disease. Physicians across Europe studied the nostalgic condition, often advancing different theories about evolving forms of homesickness. Nostalgia became an established pathology, a mental disorder that continued to afflict soldiers separated from home, or people displaced by the onset of modernity. Nostalgia was very familiar to Union and Confederate army doctors and surgeons during the Civil War as well. They recognized the condition as a legitimate mental disorder. Terminally ill soldiers were frequently diagnosed as dying from nostalgia. It was not until relatively recently that nostalgia as a condition became a field of study with a broader focus. Students now believe that nostalgia occurs universally, appears to be common around the world, and has positive qualities. It has been shown to counteract loneliness, boredom and anxiety. It tends to make people more generous to strangers and more tolerant of outsiders. It seems to be more prevalent on cold days, and can be induced through music. Some of which may suggest why the holiday season seems to be prime time for nostalgic reflection. (John Tierney, "What is Nostalgia Good For? Quite a Bit Research Shows," NY Times, July 8, 2013). It should be reassuring to recognize that people reflecting on memories this holiday season are no longer considered to be suffering from some type of pathological condition, and that for many the consequences tend to be positive. However, we should also acknowledge that nostalgic reminiscences are not necessarily the result of a deliberate act, but a process involuntarily evoked by the trappings of the season. For a growing number of individuals and families the contrast between their current condition and sentimental past experiences can be devastatingly painful. Hundreds, if not thousands, of families affected by the result of the disastrous tornadoes ripping through five states a week ago lost everything they held dear. Well over a hundred family members were killed, and entire communities were destroyed. Calamitous events of this magnitude are often amplified by seasonal sentiments for years to come. Close to 800,000 Covid related deaths are leaving voids at family gatherings, and more than 1,165 teens and children killed this year alone by never-ending gun violence won't take their seat at the dinner table this season. More than 553,000 homeless individuals may have their memories, but nothing to celebrate. And about 38 million Americans, including 12 million children, will go hungry. Countless others are struggling with their personal demons. Chances are that, unless impaired, most of these will experience their own nostalgic feelings, wondering "What could have been? What would have been? What if...? If only..." Those of us who are able and comfortable with our own nostalgic recollections ought to consider trying to make nostalgia work for some of those who are unable to reconcile their current situation with their past. This would be an excellent time to help those who need it create new memories. Theo Wierdsma

ARE MASS MIGRATIONS THE NEW NORMAL?

Few recent international developments have been as contentious and politically charged as the response to mass migration and the plight of refugees. Politicians and actual policy makers on all sides of the ideological spectrum have chimed in on the issue, and multiple administrations in the U.S. and the E.U. have been forced to include the subject in their respective agendas. From the very beginning of his election campaign, past President Donald Trump made clear that opposing uncontrolled migration was a prominent element of his electoral program. Most of us will remember his descent from the escalator chastising Mexico for bringing people to our border that were bringing drugs, crime, were rapists, and some were assumed to be good people. His obsession with building a wall on our Southern border continued to dominate his political objectives. President Biden's administration was forced to respond quickly when a flood of migrants, mostly Haitian nationals, began sheltering near Del Rio, Texas. The numbers were overwhelming. Ultimately, 30,000 were apprehended or expelled. About 8,000 willingly returned to Mexico, and 12,000 were allowed to enter to have their request for asylum evaluated. Meanwhile another 19,000 were waiting to cross the border into Panama. And few interested observers will forget the European refugee crisis, which began around 2011, and peaked in 2015 when more than 1.3 million refugees, mostly Syrians, entered Europe and destabilized the E.U. in the process. While much of this may be new to the casual observer, mass migration has gone on for centuries. The current movement of people is minuscule by comparison. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, during the slave trade, 12.8 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic. Beginning in the 1840s, the so-called "Great Atlantic Migration," brought in more than 3 million immigrants from Ireland and Germany. And between 1880 and 1910 an additional 17 million Europeans, mostly from Eastern Europe, followed. All in all, between 1820 and 1980, 37 million Europeans reached our shores. Over a period of 400 years, from the late 1600s through the 20th century, the northern half of Asia and parts of Africa were colonized by European migrants. The overseas migration of Europeans during this period exceeded 60 million people. Within recorded history, human migration transformed the entire aspects of lands and continents, and the racial, ethnic, and linguistic composition of their populations. Until fairly recently, there was a consensus among target countries that migration was a good thing - a central value to Western society. It was a given that letting immigrants in was beneficial for the society and the economy. Proponents saw increased economic growth, more flexible labor markets, filling vacancies in unpopular jobs. However, during the past decade or so, these principles are now being questioned - especially in the U.S. and Europe. New cultures, languages and economic demands of immigrants have roiled western societies during the past decade, making migration a new focus of international concern. Much of this seems to stem from a growing identity crisis among native born populations which are beginning to see dramatic shifts in their cultural composition as a result of an influx of non-white groups into their demographic make-up. Recent election results, dominated by populist candidates, reflect a growing reaction of predominantly white majorities in the U.S., France, the U.K. and Germany to their own demographic demise. While migration is a complex story, many are beginning to see it in simplistic terms. There are "natives" who belong, and "foreigners" who don't. In the U.S. and Europe we are now seeing the rise of openly anti-immigrant parties that are willing to pay fairly high costs in order to "regain control of their borders." Brexit in the U.K., Lega-Nord in Italy, Alternative for Germany (AFD), and the Party for Freedom in The Netherlands are just a few. In the mean time, autocrats are attempting to weaponize migrant movements, organizing or threatening to organize a sudden influx of refugees into another country with the intent of overwhelming its borders or causing political discomfort. Belarus dictator Aleksander Lukashenko is doing just that on the country's border with Poland. And almost daily we are confronted with the human tragedy of hundreds of desperate migrants drowning in the Mediterranean or languishing in detention camps. The current global estimate is that, in 2020, there were around 281 million international migrants in the world. This amounts to 3.6% of the global population. While this may be the culmination of what could be considered the new normal, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that, at some point, we could foresee a substantial turnaround in popular attitudes. The western world is getting older. The replacement fertility rate is dropping, especially in developed countries. Populations are not being replaced as needed. Soon we will be looking again for younger, skilled workers to keep our economies healthy. Multiple countries are already revising their immigration policies. We may have to come to grips with our identity problems out of necessity. Theo Wierdsma

EUROPEAN UNION BACK IN CRISIS MODE

The 27 member European Union, the strongest economic community in the world, is approaching a new set of predicaments - an imminent leadership crisis, and what amounts to a management dilemma reminiscent of the 2016 Brexit crisis. After 16 years in office, highly competent, authoritative, marginally charismatic German Chancellor Angela Merkel is retiring. As the dominant force in European politics for much of that time, Ms. Merkel's exit creates a significant power vacuum in the Union, which is rich in functionaries but light on visionaries, with few legitimate leaders to take her place. French president Emmanuel Macron will doubtlessly attempt to take over where the chancellor is leaving off. He has always shown a desire to be the dominant force in the EU, proposing multiple ideas for a more independent and integrated Europe. However, his leadership style has not always been well received, and he could be vulnerable domestically. Mr. Macron will be up for reelection in April next year, again facing opposition from far-right Marine Le Pen, leader of the "National Rally," a perennial euro-skeptic. His focus will most likely be predominantly on challenging domestic issues. Angela Merkel's potential replacements as chancellor are lesser known, unfamiliar players in European politics. Olaf Scholz, until recently Germany's finance minister in Merkel's coalition government, leader of the Social Democrats which won the last election, is the odds on favorite to take her place. His only conceivable rival is Armin Laschet, Ms. Merkel's successor as leader of the Christian Democrats, which lost the election by 1.6%. Neither one comes with significant EU credentials. By virtue of its dominant economic position within the EU, Germany's leadership is essential to the Union. Without Merkel's guidance, its influence will almost certainly diminish, leaving the organization potentially rudderless. This development comes at a time when the organization faces critical challenges on its eastern border. So much so that the term "polexit" has crept into the vernacular used in Warsaw and Brussels alike. While Poland's departure from the EU may still be unlikely, its government's six year long feud with EU leaders remain very real. Poland joined the EU in 2004. It has probably benefited more from this Union than any other member. However, in 2015, the conservative nationalist "Law and Justice" party took control of its government, and rapidly became an irritant to EU leaders in Brussels. The dispute originated largely over changes to the Polish judiciary system designed to give the ruling party greater control over the courts, seeking to "reform a corrupt and inefficient justice system." The European Commission believed that the changes would actually erode the country's democratic system of checks and balances. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Poland warned that the judicial reforms planned by the ruling party could result in Poland having to leave the EU, as it undermined the independence of its judiciary and challenged the primacy of EU law - a key condition for membership. Earlier this year, Poland's Constitutional Court, dominated by ruling party loyalists, challenged the notion that EU law supersedes the laws of the 27 member states with a ruling that some EU laws are incompatible with the nation's own constitution. And on October 7 of this year, its Constitutional Tribunal bluntly rejected the primacy of EU law. In response, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, stated that: "This ruling calls into question the foundation of the European Union. It is a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order." The legal battle between Poland and the EU has escalated into a full blown political crisis, even bigger than Brexit back in 2016, because it undermines the entire foundation of the EU. Thus far, as punishment, the organization has withheld about $42 billion in grants and loans from its coronavirus recovery fund. And last month, it asked the European Court of Justice to impose daily fines on Warsaw for defying its rulings. What counters the largely right-wing endorsement of a Polexit is that the EU remains overwhelmingly popular among Polish citizens. A national public opinion poll conducted in October found that 64.4% of those interviewed wanted to stay in the Union. Only 14.8% expressed a desire to leave. A majority, 42.6% to 36.9%, did indicate a preference for a 2nd national referendum. Poland's population generally seems to recognize that a departure from the EU would come with significant economic consequences. In 2018, 80% of its exports went to member states, while 58% of imports came from EU countries. Since 2004, the country has received an infusion of $127 billion - more than any other member. More than 2 million Poles have taken advantage of the freedom to work abroad. And, politically, its ties to NATO removed it from the influence of the Kremlin, something that could well change if the country returned to "unaffiliated" status in the harsh political reality of Central Europe. Poland is not alone in its challenge to the EU. Viktor Orban, Hungary's prime minister, has backed the "Law and Justice" party's position rejecting the supremacy of EU law, strongly suggesting that the EU must respect member states' identity. Adam Bodnar, a former ombudsman for citizens' rights, and law professor at the University of Warsaw, submits that the government may be in favor of European integration, but that it should just be economic - it is "not so interested in all the other aspects, such as political union and having respect for European values." Needless to say, the European Union has its hands full. Theo Wierdsma

TIME TO UNWIND

Scrutinizing the world-wide assault on democratic principles, the relative inactivity in our Congress, or periods of ignorance displayed by representatives of significant segments of the population, can be intense, sometimes emotional and often challenging. Every once in a while all of us need to take some time to unwind from it all, and focus on less contentious, less controversial debating points quarreling about what bothers us. For me, one of the ways to do this is by reviewing random words of wisdom expressed by others who struggled to communicate their insights for communal consumption. Some of these are profound, some irreverent, and others just plain funny. I have made a habit of collecting these over the years as I come across them, and decided to share some in this column. Citations are added when I have them. Be inspired, or simply enjoy! - "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." (Bernard Baruch). - "If you don't like me: remember - it's mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter." - "A man never steps so tall as when he stoops to help a boy." - "May those who love us, love us. And those who don't, may God turn their hearts. And if He doesn't turn their hearts, may He turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping." (Old Irish proverb). - "Human behavioral traits are shaped by evolution and passed along genetically." (Ed Wilson - "Sociobiology") - "Nothing in life is as important as you think it is when you are thinking about it." (Daniel Kahneman -"Thinking Fast and Slow") - "Don't make enemies by accident." - "Don't bother to hate what you think is contemptible." - "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." (Mark Twain). - "If only closed minds came with closed mouths." - "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog." (Twain) - "Life is a challenge. Smile when you still have teeth." - "It is not what you look at that matters, it's what you see." (Henry David Thoreau). - "Never look back unless you are planning to go that way." (Thoreau) - "Not all who wonder are lost." - "Don't believe everything you think." - "A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is defeated when he quits." (Richard Nixon). - "When you are dead in the water, you need to rock the boat." (TW). - "Position determines perspective." - "If you have to eat a frog, do it the first thing in the morning." (Twain). - "Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance." - "You were born an original. Don't die a copy." - "A man's reach should exceed his grasp." - "There comes a time when you have to choose between turning the page and closing the book." - "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." (John Lennon). - "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." - "The opposite for love is not hate, it's indifference." (Elie Wiesel). - "One death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic." - "Consequence is no coincidence." - "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow mindedness." - "Married men live longer but want to die more often." (old Russian proverb). - "Go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company." (Twain). - "If your parents did not have any children, there is a good chance you won't have any. (Clarence Day). - "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." (Sam Goldwyn). - "I hate being bipolar - it's awesome." - "The closest thing to eternal life is a government program." (Ronald Reagan). - "Penicillin - A gift for the man who has everything." (Bumper sticker). - "Let's eat grandma. Let's eat, grandma - Commas save lives." Theo Wierdsma

TOXIC POLARIZATION OBSTRUCTS CONGRESSIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Pernicious polarization, which divides society into mutually distrustful "Us versus Them" camps, in which political identity threatens to resemble social identity, is clogging up any attempt at compromise necessary to legislate in Congress. It is making a mockery of our political system. Hyper partisanship in Washington has evolved into a type of gridlock not seen since the run up to the Civil War in 1860. Today we can't agree on what pour problems are, much less on solutions. Even on infrastructure, there is a Democratic way to fill a pothole, and a Republican way to fill a pothole. Consequently, nothing gets done. In 1962, during John F. Kennedy's presidency, Congress passed 484 bills. In 2014, when Barack Obama was president, Congress passed 23 bills. If we are ever going to break through the effects of this polarized stagnation, we first ought to attempt to identify how and why we ended up here in the first place. The conservative 19th century German statesman Otto von Bismarck, who masterminded Germany's unification, used to express his belief that: "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best." Even during autocratic times this country's "iron chancellor" recognized that compromise was at the core of the decision making process. If we don't compromise, nothing gets done and nobody wins. In today's political world, compromise has become a dirty word. We no longer compromise, we demonize. Member of opposing parties, and sometimes even rival factions within parties, no longer see their political adversaries as just opposition, but as a genuine threat to the well-being of the country. As that happens, support for democratic norms fade, and "winning" becomes everything. Politics collapses into an all-out war of "Us against Them." It's all about the next election and scoring political points. Part of the issue is that the characteristics of our political parties have shifted significantly over time. In 1994, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than Democrats. In 2014, that number had changed to 92%. In 1994, 70% of Democrats were more liberal than Republicans. In 2014, this shifted to 94%. We used to acknowledge that "moderates" governed, and that "extremists" disrupted. We now tend to elect extremists. Some other underlying complications provoking this debilitating radicalization of our political process are economic, social and systemic in nature. Today, our elections are virtually supported by unlimited amounts of money used to produce prime-time campaign ads telling us whatever we want to hear, or whatever candidates want their audiences to believe. The 2010 Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case, holding essentially that corporations and other deep-pocket organizations can't be restricted in how much they can contribute to a campaign, undoubtedly assisted disproportionately to the accumulation of operating funds. Moreover, social media has provided convenient platforms for anyone to create, seldom fact-checked, sensationalist fake news to feed the frenzy with a complete lack of inhibition or restraint. And, since we are currently in the midst of "gerrymandering" season, political parties dominating their respective state governments are reapportioning congressional districts based on census data collected last year. This process can affect the future of sitting and prospective members of the House of Representatives. But the exercise has frequently resulted in parties redrawing district lines in a way that supports or advantages their existent constituency while restricting that of their political rivals. As a consequence, currently only 31 out of 435 House seats are competitive. The remainder are safe, limiting the potential for change. Ergo, the public no longer picks the politicians, the politicians pick the public. The economic downturn of the past decade, festering national security concerns, a growing identity crisis intensifying the divide between rural and urban population centers, fed by a destabilizing, unnerving rate of social change, have resulted in a perfect storm. Fear and paranoia have become the recurring refrain feeding hyper polarization. Fear has replaced facts and paranoia has taken the place of civility. Former Senator Daniel Moynihan used to admonish his colleagues that: "You are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts." Today many politicians and their constituents believe that they are, indeed, entitled to their own facts. The truth is what you want it to be. None of this serves to suggest that we have a patent on polarization. Democracies around the world have been under pressure from constituencies protesting the relative inefficiency of their respective governments. But, with arguable exception of Hungary, Poland and Turkey, polarization in other western democracies rarely reach the level of venom ubiquitous in our hyper partisan political environment. A lot of this emanates from our two-party electoral system. Most European democracies feature proportional representation, which effectively results in multi-party coalition governments in which polarization is much less pronounced or more diffused. If you dislike any of the political choices offered up to you, you could essentially start your own party, and if you manage to get 5% of the vote, you gain representation in Parliament, where you can state your case without demonizing others. During the past few decades, "Comparative Polarization" has become an active specialization in Political Science. While a complex subject, many academics agree that polarization is more intense in democratic systems with less proportional representation - like ours - than in systems where multiple parties vie for political power. The evidence suggests that breaking people into multiple groups, rather than two, tends to lessen animosity. The more binary the party system, the stronger the out-party hatred. Our Constitution does not prescribe a two party political system. However, it developed this way. Intra party rivalry could ultimately dismantle this system for the benefit of all. Although this outcome might outwardly appear relatively inefficient, it could potentially bring civil discourse back to Washington D.C. However, we should not hold our collective breath for this to happen any time soon. Theo Wierdsma

WHY DO WE FAIL TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY?

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson declared that the United States had to enter World War I to "make the world safe for democracy." Ever since, our foreign policy has included efforts to encourage democratic developments in foreign countries. In 2004, President George W. Bush announced that "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." And, more recently, President Joe Biden told world leaders at the Munich Security Conference that "we must demonstrate that democracy can still deliver for our people in this changed world." It is not much of a stretch to claim that ever since the Cold War our foreign policy establishment has used "democracy" as an export commodity, convinced that it is a substitute for violence, and, hence, a desirable objective to pursue. We favor democratic regime types because stable democracies tend to have better long-term economic growth records, and do much better in terms of protecting basic human rights. Democracies are less likely to kill vast numbers of their own citizens through famine or ill-planned acts of social engineering, because corrective information is more readily accessible, and officials can be held accountable. And even though democracies are just as likely to start wars as any other state, there is some (contested) evidence that they tend to not fight each other. On balance, many politicians believe that it would be better for most human beings if the number of democracies in the world increased. Lofty language and repetitively articulated political objectives aside, our efforts at transitioning undemocratic governments, including during our 20 year endeavor in Afghanistan, have largely failed. Political scientist Abraham Lowenthal, professor of international relations at U.S.C, stated the obvious when he concluded that "U.S. attempts to export democracy have been [unsuccessful], often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive." If we are convinced that pursuing such a policy objective should be dominant and desirable, we ought to question why we have such a poor success rate accomplishing it. The answers percolating to the surface include that these goals are largely naive, ignoring essential preconditions in target countries, and that our execution appears ill considered and even duplicitous. Critics have long recognized our ineffectiveness, lack of consistency, and a one-size-fits-all approach, while suspecting that we callously use "democracy" as justification for military intervention abroad. Over and over again we discovered that military involvement does not foster enduring regime change. The idea that the U.S. could march in, depose a despot-in-chief and his henchmen, write a new constitution, hold a few elections, and produce a stable democracy was always delusional. However, a lot of smart people bought the idea despite overwhelming evidence against it. If we are unwilling to believe that all of these are hopelessly naive, we must assume that much of the rhetoric is designed for domestic consumption. Otherwise, why would policy makers continue to attempt the same, mostly military, pursuits with a history of predictable negative outcomes, somehow expecting a different result every time? Policy wonks need to recognize that there is no quick, cheap or reliable way for outsiders to engineer a democratic transition, especially when the country in question has little or no prior experience with it and contains deep social divisions. A successful liberal democracy depends on a lot more than a written constitution and elections. To have any chance for success in another country, the prospective state needs to possess effective legal systems, have an established, broad commitment to pluralism - a system in which multiple sources of authority coexist, a decent level of income and education, and widespread confidence that political groups that lose out in a particular election have a decent chance of doing better in the future, and thus have an incentive to keep working within the system. Creating reasonably effective democracies took centuries in the West, and it was often a highly contentious, even violent process. Using force to spread democracy almost always triggers violent resistance from groups that have lost power, wealth or status in the course of democratic transition. Violence tends to empower leaders who are good at stopping the transition instead of those skilled at building institutions or promoting democratic values. Three decades after the end of the Cold War it is no longer clear that American style democracy has carried the day. Multiple studies suggest that many countries still want democracy, but not necessarily the American version. Research completed by the Eurasia Group Foundation, based on a survey of citizens in eight countries, concluded that we would be more successful if we promoted democracy around the world without the explicit American package, often delivered by our military. We should accept that each country will need to find its own path to adopt democracy. "Attraction" will prove more effective than "promotion" as a way to help the concept expand. In other words, we should lead by example. Former president Jimmy Carter put it succinctly: "The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation." Our democratic ideals are more likely emulated by others if we are widely regarded as just, prosperous, vibrant and tolerant, instead of displaying rampant inequality, the world's largest prison population, a decaying infrastructure, millions of qualified citizens excluded from voting and exhibiting one of the greatest income inequality in the developed world. Theo Wierdsma

BOUNTY HUNTING SEASON OPENS IN TEXAS

Senate Bill 8, a recently adopted Texas law. bans abortions starting around the sixth week of pregnancy, well before most women even realize they are expecting. While the intent of the legislation is to terminally restrict a woman's right to an abortion, it is designed to strategically sidestep "Roe v. Wade" by evading judicial review, shifting its enforcement from state authorities to the public, and deputizing ordinary citizens to do this. The law establishes a bounty system in which vigilante plaintiffs are allowed to sue anyone involved in performing abortions, and give them a financial incentive to do so. The statute offers a "cash prize" of at least $10,000 plus legal fees, with no requirement to pay the defendant's legal expenses if the suit is unsuccessful. Prospective complainants are not limited to suing the medical staff involved in the procedure, they could include family members, cab drivers and other facilitators as well. They don't even need to be Texas residents. As kids growing up during the decade immediately following World War II, being properly indoctrinated into a democratic mindset, we knew that this method of social control was generally employed by totalitarian regimes. The evidence was overwhelming that autocratic authority depended significantly on citizens enforcing state edicts by informing on each other. As the Nazis worked to consolidate their power and build a cohesive "national community," suppression of dissent played a key role. In 1933 they issued a directive that required Germans to turn in anyone who spoke against the party, its leaders, or the government. Those implicated tended to end up in special concentration camps for retraining or termination. Informants used compliance to help advance their standing in the Nazi hierarchy. Similar processes were developed during the war in Nazi occupied territories, especially when focused on the genocide of European Jews. In The Netherlands, around 1943, when the occupiers had trouble fulfilling their quota of Jewish captives, they inspired teams of "Jew hunters" who were paid Fl.7.50 per Jewish citizen turned into the German authorities. Greedy people talked and between 8,000 and 9,000 who had previously eluded capture were discovered and transported to extermination camps. (Ad van Liempt, "Kopgeld: Nederlandse Premiejagers op Zoek Naar Joden," 1943) In Poland, Jan Grabowski, in his book "Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German Occupied Poland," concluded that in his country "the great majority of Jews in hiding perished as a consequence of betrayal. They were denounced or simply seized, tied up and delivered by locals to the nearest station of the Polish police, or the German gendarmerie." Consequently, an estimated 200,000 Polish Jews that might have escaped otherwise ended up in termination camps. In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin's regime relied heavily on "mutual surveillance," urging families to report on each other and report "disloyalty." Many of the more than 14 million people that ended up in the Gulag were incarcerated as a result of "accusations" from neighbors. (Orlando Figes, "The Whisperers," 2007). In East Germany, the Stasi, its official state security service, depended largely on ordinary people to report activity that deviated from the government's political ideology. In a country of 16 million, 620,000 people worked undercover to help the country keep its people in check. Multiple other countries like Cuba, China, the Phillippines, Myanmar and others used similar means of social control. Although we are often tempted to exclude ourselves from these Orwellian systems of surveillance and censorship, supported by forcibly or enticingly indoctrinated mass attitudes, we should acknowledge similar developments in our own past. During the Salem witch trials (Feb 1692 - May 1693), as hysteria spread throughout colonial Massachusetts, more than 200 people were identified and accused by community members of being witches. Thirty were found guilty, and 19 were executed by hanging. It was virtually impossible to disprove charges of witchcraft, and defendants were convicted with no evidence, predominantly on the basis of observations by neighbors. The Red Scare of 1917-1920 and the McCarthy inquisition between 1950 and 1954 saw many accused, blacklisted and losing their jobs, although most in fact did not belong to the Communist Party. The frenzy unleashed by the Bolshevik revolution towards the end of World War I, was fueled by fear. In 1918 we passed the Sedition Act, which criminalized many forms of speech. It became illegal to use disloyal language, printed or spoken, about the government. President Harry Truman picked up on this same tenet when he instituted federal loyalty programs after World War II. These regulations opened the doors to unrestricted public snitching. Senator McCarthy took advantage of this when he interrogated accused Communists, whose names were provided by misguided patriots. Many reputations, careers, and livelihoods were unnecessarily lost during that sordid time in our history. After the September 11 attacks, the statement: "If you see something, say something," was readily recognized as an essential weapon in the war on terror. In 2011 Congress past a law that grants immunity from civil liability to persons acting in good faith when reporting suspicious activity. It is great to feel you can trust that everyone will do the right thing. But however well intended, this act also opens us up to substantial abuse. In the process of seeing this through, hundreds of individuals of middle eastern descent have been rounded up on unsubstantiated charges from informers fueled by fear and ignorance. It might well be premature to associate the Texas legislation with the excesses experienced in the mid-20th century European theater. But we do have our own history to consider as well. Over time, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people and careers would have survived if snitches, cowardly greedy informants and pseudo-patriotic citizens had decided not to follow through on bounty promises and surveillance mandates. By adopting this law, Texas kicked the door to abuse again wide open. One of the significant components of a healthy democracy is the rule of law. It seeks to treat all persons fairly and equally. SB8 incorporates an extra-legal vigilante system - without recourse for the accused, and no legal consequences for the accuser. individuals who file lawsuits under this law don't even need to claim legal standing. "Texas Right To Life," the biggest anti-abortion organization in the state, already set up a whistleblower website where anyone can unanimously leave tips about suspected illegal abortions. Moreover, this degenerative autocratic pandemic is rapidly spreading. As of early September, at least 7 other GOP controlled states are considering replicating this Texas law. It is disappointing, and indeed disturbing, that, in a country long established as the preeminent defender of democracy, a legislature dominated by a single political party feels the need to adopt autocratic principles to pursue its agenda and cement its power position. Theo Wierdsma

CURBING CANCEL CULTURE

Soon the "Name Exploration Subcommittee" of Cabrillo College's Governing Board will transition into the next phase of the process adopted to consider potentially changing our community college's name and identity. This controversial issue resurfaced mid-2020, and has continued as a topic of discussion of variable intensity ever since. While both sides of the debate have presented reasonable arguments, and while I don't question the sincerity of those proposing a name change, I do believe they are wrong, and possibly even counterproductive to their own cause. The subject emerged as an outgrowth of what has been referred to as "cancel culture," which has initiated drives to remove statues and names of historical figures deemed undesirable by a subset of our population. Some of this appears defensible as erasing the glorification of confederate "traitors" during the Civil War. However, the movement has become rudderless and is in danger of spiraling out of control. In January of this year, the San Francisco Board of Education voted 6-1 to rename 44 schools to "dismantle symbols of racism and white supremacy culture." Among those were some named after Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Dianne Feinstein. What proponents of the change object to is that the college was named after Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, the first European to explore present-day California as he navigated the coast and entered San Diego Bay in September of 1542. Before becoming a maritime explorer, Cabrillo fought as conquistador and captain of crossbowmen in the army of Herman Cortes during the Spanish-Aztec War of 1519-21. As reward for services rendered, the king of Spain introduced Cabrillo to the encomienda system, granting a long-term lease of property, which included the right to the use of indigenous slave labor. Slave labor became the basis of his wealth. Compared to today's values, Cabrillo was a cruel man who took advantage of the norms in place during the time in which he lived, and who was recognized for historical firsts almost a century before the colonization of North America began. Digging deeper into the life of this historic figure will expose the cruelty associated with the time period in which he lived. However, that misses the point. What the anti-Cabrillo advocates are engaged in is not just a form of "cancel culture," it is what some historians refer to as "presentism," an uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. It means looking backward in time to condemn or condone historical figures for living in their own time in history, instead of adopting today's attitudes and norms. Historians strive to understand what people said and did in the context of the time they lived in, not criticize them for failing to live in our time. So, where do we draw the line? At least twelve of our presidents were slave owners at some point during their lives. These included Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others. By the time George Washington died in 1799, there were 317 enslaved people at his Mount Vernon estate. Should we tear down the Washington Monument? Rename Washington State? Remove George Washington from the dollar bill? Thirty-one counties and 241 townships carry his name... At the time, our Constitution, the law of the land, supported slavery. Until 1808 it prohibited Congress from regulating the international slave trade (Art. I, sect. 9). Until Reconstruction, the Fugitive Slave Clause (Art. IV, sect. 2) guaranteed the right of slave owners to pursue and reclaim their slaves anywhere throughout the country. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Declaration was arguably a political statement, not a moral one. He only freed the slaves in rebellious states. We tend to interpret only what we want to believe... Harry Truman approved the use of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 105,000 civilians and maiming 94,000 more. But we contextualize... Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers, who made positive contributions to modern political theory, physics, economic and psychology, was openly supportive of slavery, and saw women as subject to men. Shakespeare, in "The Merchant of Venice," used highly stereotypical, pejorative depictions of Jewish people. Shylock, its main character, openly personifies anti-semitic prejudices of the time. But we continue to produce the play. And so it goes. Renaming Cabrillo College is not just a local concern, it is more consequential than that. Removing a name does not erase history, but it does remove opportunities to learn from it. Leland Stanford Jr., a "robber baron" and namesake of Stanford University, has been held responsible for ruthlessly exploiting and mistreating thousands of Chinese workers when constructing the Central Pacific railroad line. The Stanford student body, on numerous occasions, decided to use his history for teachable moments rather than opting to erase them. Cecil Rhodes, philanthropic contributor to the University of Cape Town and Oxford University, a profound racist and advocate of the "English master race," still retains his statue above a doorway on the front of Oxford's Rhodes Building, left in place because "we should learn from the past, rather than censoring history." Aside from the substantial cost and the overwhelming logistical issues involved, changing our college's name would do a disservice to thousands of alumni and stakeholders who, when referring to "Cabrillo," invoke the name of the institution. not honor a historic figure who lived five centuries ago. Don't change the name and erase what would provide important material for teachable moments. Theo Wierdsma

CONFRONTING HOMELESSNESS

As Californians attempt to cope with a multitude of vexing challenges, the plight of the homeless remains near the top of the list. While nationally, in 2020, 580,466 Americans experienced homelessness on any given night, 151,278 of these suffered in California alone. Nationwide, these statistics reveal a 2.2% increase over 2019. But, during the same period, homelessness in California grew by 6.8%, and surged 16.2% since 2007. Even though billions of dollars were spent on attempting to solve this problem, attempts to mitigate this crisis at any level have thus far proven relatively ineffective. One in nine Americans live in California. One in four homeless live in California. As some of what is being attempted appears to have a limited effect, it has been tempting to approach the subject from a wider perspective and study what, if anything, has worked elsewhere. This seemed reasonable. However, it turns out that our closest allies in the European Union are facing many of the same problems we do. According to "Feantsa", the "European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless", at least 700,000 homeless people are sleeping rough or in emergency or temporary accommodations every night in the E.U. (2019 numbers). Most of these are in the U.K., the fewest in Germany, if we don't count the approximately 441,000 asylum seekers and refugees in temporary housing. This last observation actually points at a significant obstacle analysts are forced to wrestle with. Few states adopt a universal definition of homelessness. Cross country comparisons don't necessarily measure comparable data. When the European Parliament called on E.U. member states to stop homelessness by 2030, the first bullet point in its resolution stipulated the need to develop a common definition to "improve data collection and coherent indicators to be able to better understand and assess the extend of the problem." In this country, many states use the definition provided in the "McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act" of 1987, which identifies the homeless as "individuals who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence." But multiple states include a variety of other qualifying categories in their calculations, and eleven states don't define it at all. These differences aren't just confusing academic debating points, they can have a significant practical effect on the allocation of resources. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a much narrower definition of homelessness than what is used by the the Department of Education (ED), which forms the basis of funding allocation to school districts. HUD estimates that there are 500,000 homeless. ED reports that 1.36 million children experience some form of homelessness. When the "Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development" (OECD) attempted to execute a count of homeless across countries, 16 countries included people temporarily living with family and friends, 15 included people living in institutions and 15 also covered those living in non-conventional dwellings. It is clear that there appears to be little agreement on how to define the concept of homelessness. Most researchers do agree, however, that homelessness is a complex social problem with a variety of underlying economic and social factors. such as lack of affordable housing, poverty, uncertain physical and mental health and addictions. One can argue about cause and effect, or whether the severe stress people face when they lose shelter and are forced to live exposed on the streets wreak havoc on their mental health and leads to substance abuse. However, the most significant cause remains the cost of housing. William Yu, an economist at UCLA, identified a direct correlation between the cost of housing and homelessness. For instance, in West Virginia, which has one of the lowest homeless rates, the medium home value is $98,300. In California, which has the highest rate, the medium rate is $548,700. In Mississippi, which has the highest poverty rate of any state, the homeless rate is also among the lowest. Homelessness experts agree that emergency shelters are mostly just a band-aid. Permanent supportive housing is the long term solution. This conclusion has led to the development of one of the most promising strategies to mitigate this evolving crisis - identified as "Housing First." This model seeks to move homeless people into permanent housing as quickly as possible, before addressing other issues. The approach was first developed in New York during the early nineties, and has successfully trickled through to a number of cities, states and some countries. Those opposed to this scenario criticize its expense, and decry what they identify as a reduced focus on the human care most homeless need. Proponents argue that giving people homes rather than first getting them "ready" for housing by placing them in shelters, rehab or half-way houses makes much more sense. Overseas, Finland, the only E.U. member state with decreasing numbers of homeless, has used this strategy deliberately and effectively for years. Its homeless count shrunk from 19,000 earlier this century to 4,600 today. In this country, Utah is on track to become the first state in the nation to eradicate homelessness. Using the same concept, its homeless count has decreased by 72% since 2005, at greatly reduced expense. It used to cost Salt Lake City more than $20,000 a year to take care of chronically homeless. It now costs the state just $8,000 to put them into permanent housing. Daniel G. Garrett, Assistant Professor of finance at the Wharton School of Business, concluded that providing permanent supportive housing to the homeless community actually saves the taxpayer money: healthcare cost is reduced by 59%, emergency department expenses are reduced by 61%, and the number of general inpatient hospitalizations decrease by 77%. The point is, there is a way forward. The question remains whether our decision makers are willing to attempt to fundamentally change how we confront our acute homelessness crisis. Theo Wierdsma

CHILD SOLDIERS - A PERSISTENT OUTRAGE

It is not terribly difficult to uncover disturbing feature articles in our news coverage these days. A recently published Associated Press op-ed by Sam Mednick, highlighting the chronic, but rarely publicized, unsettling subject of child combatants, as manifested in Burkina Faso, West Africa, stood out. His story poignantly summarized the experience of a 43 year-old mother who fortunately survived an attack by kids, trained to be assassins, during which 160 of her neighbors were killed. Fundamentally, the narrative exposed a subject matter that has been around, unabated, for centuries. Throughout history and in many cultures, children have been involved in military campaigns. For much of the time these entanglements were unregulated. The U.N., in the "Convention on The Rights of the Child" (CRC) made an attempt at establishing parameters by defining this group to be composed of young people under the age of 18, while the "International Criminal Court" declared that the recruitment or use of children under 15 was considered a war crime. Nevertheless, most warring parties took little notice. For a significant number of armed forces involved in combat, the temptation to recruit, abduct, and train under-aged fighters appear irresistible. Recruiters target children from troubled areas or conflict zones, who are accustomed to violence, and who have few educational or work opportunities. Child soldiers come cheap. They are more easily manipulated when forced into combat, and who, ultimately, are considered expendable. Besides being used as fighters, they become informants, looters, messengers, spies, cooks, sex slaves, and may end up employed to clear mine fields or are forced to become suicide bombers. Not all inductees are involuntary participants. Many are attempting to escape from grim socioeconomic conditions at home. To some, joining active military forces is considered to be a rite of passage into adulthood. Others are searching for identity, expressing the need to belong to something resembling a family. And there are those who seek refuge or who are looking for revenge after seeing friends and family killed. And there always are a few who feel compelled to go to war to show loyalty to a new country they immigrated into. Some observers readily dismiss the topic of child soldiers as an outgrowth of persistent post-colonial conflicts across many parts of Africa. And, indeed, a 2003 U.N. study concluded that up to half of all children involved with armed forces world-wide came from Africa. This amounted to an estimated 100,000 children in 2004, and grew to 120,000 four years later. Today, most of these are found predominantly in the Central African Republic, the Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan. However, it is not just an African problem. The use of child soldiers is far more widespread than the scant attention it typically receives. Statistics produced by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in 2005 concluded that 23% of armed organizations in the world (84 out of a total of 366) use children age 15 and under in combat roles. Eighteen percent of the total (64 of 366) use children 12 and under. There is no reason to believe that these totals have changed significantly since. A U.N. report published in June 2020 summarized that there were still an estimated 250,000child soldiers employed in 20 countries world-wide, while, according to "Child Soldiers International," 50 countries still allow children to be recruited into armed forces. Although Africa may still be considered to be the epicenter of half the problem, the Americas (Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and others), Europe (Chechnya, Kosovo, Macedonia, and the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey), the Middle East and Central Asia (Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria) and Asia - (especially Myanmar, where more than 75,000 child soldiers - 20% of its total recruits - are under 15) make up the other half. (P.W. Singer, "The New Faces of War," AFT, Winter 2005-2006). This is, of course, nothing new. During the American Civil War, between 250,000 and 420,000 males under the age of 18 were involved in the fighting. An estimated 100,000 Union soldiers were 15 years old or younger. As many as 250,000 boys under the age of 18 served in the British army during World War I. (Recruitment officers were paid two shillings and sixpence for each new recruit and were not terribly scrupulous when signing up under-aged children.) Towards the end of World War II, Nazi Germany removed huge numbers of youths from schools and sent them out on what were essentially suicide missions. And children as young as 8 years old were reportedly captured by American troops as the fighting came to a close. The Japanese imperial army mobilized students aged 14-17, and ordered schools to force almost all students to "volunteer" to become soldiers.The numbers are all over the place. While doing the research you are readily overwhelmed by letters home written by very young soldiers who were rapidly stripped of their illusions of adventure and the glory of battle. Decades ago, Graca Machel, former First Lady of South Africa and wife of Nelson Mandela, in her function as "Special Expert" for the U.N. on this topic, summed up the outrage this appalling condition deserves to generate as follows: "These statistics are shocking enough, but more chilling is the conclusion to be drawn from them: more and more of the world is being sucked into a desolate moral vacuum, This is a space devoid of the most basic human values; a space in which children are slaughtered, raped, and maimed; a space in which children are exploited as soldiers; a space in which children are starved and exposed to extreme brutality. Such unregulated terror and violence speak of deliberate victimization. There are few further depths to which humanity can sink." Theo Wierdsma

TIME TO CLOSE GUANTANAMO

In response to the September 11 attacks, which killed 2,996, the U.S., joined by troops from the U.K., launched "Operation Enduring Freedom," and invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. While in pursuit of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda fighters, most of which escaped to neighboring Pakistan, the Taliban was driven from power and scattered throughout the countryside. In the process, the U.S. and an expanding contingent of coalition members, captured, held, and expressed the desire to interrogate a large number of suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban combatants, but needed to a find a place to do this. Guantanamo, a 45 square mile U.S. naval base on the south-east coast of Cuba, which the U.S. had been leasing since 1903, was considered to be perfect for this purpose. Guantanamo was secure and far from the front lines of battle. It was technically outside of U.S. territory, yet under complete U.S. control. In legal terms, the Bush administration considered it a zone in which its personnel could conduct detention and interrogation operations with few legal and judicial constraints. Moreover, the administration decided that the Geneva Convention would not apply to the conflict at hand. On January 11, 2002, the first flight with 20 detainees landed at Guantanamo. This total grew to a peak of 780 inmates before it began to shrink. Ultimately, President Bush released 540 prisoners, President Obama transferred 200, and President Trump got rid of 1. Today 39 captives remain. Many are being held without having been charged or tried. Of these, 17 are held in indefinite "law of war" detention as enemy combatants. They are neither facing tribunal charges nor being recommended for release. Another 10 have been recommended for transfer. They are no longer considered a threat to U.S. security, but they are still incarcerated. Of the remaining 12, 3 face proposed charges and 9 have been charged or convicted. The latter group includes Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Mohammed's trial was set to begin January 11, 2021, but it has been postponed because of myriad pretrial motions and complications related to the pandemic. Pressure to close the Guantanamo detention center has been building from the outset.. Early on, even President Bush admitted that the detention facility had become a "propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies." Retired Major General Michael Lehnert, the first commander of the prison camp, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting in March of 2016, was quoted to have concluded that "Guantanamo was a mistake. History will reflect that. It was created in the early days as a consequence of fear, anger, and political expediency. It ignored centuries of rule of law and international agreements. It does not make us safer and it sullies who we are as a nation." A major segment of consequential office holders, including President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Senator McCain and others over time also indicated they wanted it closed. The Biden administration picked up where Obama left off, launching a National Security Council review with the intent of closing the facility before the president leaves office. The timing seems appropriate. Since we have officially announced the end of our war in Afghanistan, continued detention of prisoners of war is no longer justifiable. Under the rules of war, combatants can only hold prisoners of war without trial until the war ends. These are supposedly held in preventive detention to stop them from returning to the battle field. They should be released upon cessation of hostilities. (Article 118 of the Geneva Convention). While closing the Guantanamo detention camp is arguably desirable from a number of viewpoints, actually doing it proves complicated. Our moral authority as a nation was seriously compromised when we used torture to obtain information and secure confessions. Guantanamo undermined our security by diminishing international cooperation and alienating Muslim communities. Legally we are skirting the law by denying habeas corpus rights to inmates not being charged, even though the Supreme Court specifically held that federal law applies in these cases. (Rasul v. Bush (2004) and re-affirmed in Boumedienne v. Bush (2008)). Moreover, the cost of keeping the facility open amounts to $13 million per prisoner per year. At $540 million Guantanamo is the most expensive prison on earth. Objections to closing the camp are practical, legal and political. Sending remaining detainees back to their home country may not be easy. They may not all be welcome and could be endangered upon their return. Transferring others to the U.S. mainland for prosecution could also be an issue. Some could be found innocent, simply because confessions were secured under torture. Politically closing Guantanamo remains controversial as well. In 2015, the Senate passed a defense appropriations bill which specifically prohibited the transfer of detainees to the U.S., or the use of funds to build or modify a prison on the mainland to house those detainees. However, there probably are ways to get around these prohibitions. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's statement during his January confirmation hearing that the administration would seek the closure of Guantanamo's detention facility drew a letter of rebuke signed by 7 Republican House members. They expressed their concern that those released would "become rock stars in the Islamist extremist world, posing an even greater threat to America and the world." This probably remains a sentiment held by many. But, after 20 years with a rapidly aging detainee contingent, we ought to cut to the chase, try and convict the master minds behind the 9/11 attacks, transfer or release the remaining prisoners, and close the facility down! The advantages far outweigh any potential ramifications. The place has been an albatross around our collective neck for too long. Theo Wierdsma

THE ESSENCE OF "CRITICAL RACE THEORY”

Well ahead of the 2022 election cycle, our culture wars are already intensifying. One of the not-so-subtle political dog whistles permeating partisan bickering focuses on what is referred to as "Critical Race Theory" (CRT), which relatively recently morphed from an obscure academic discussion point on the left into a political rallying cry on the right. The concept theorizes that racism is not just demonstrated acts of individual bias or prejudice, but is rather embedded in our institutions, policies and legal systems. In short, it suggests that it is systemic. During the 1970s, legal scholars, activists and lawyers, frustrated with the limitations of the civil-rights movement, tried to understand why civil-rights-era victories had stalled and were being eroded. They were exasperated by traditional civil-rights discussions, which predicted that racism would stop once we stop thinking about race. In other words, ignore skin color in everything and the problem of racism will eventually disappear. Acknowledging this incrementalist approach, a growing number of them banned together and developed a coherent framework within which to confront our history of race and racism, and provide us with the ability to think about present-day implications. In light of last year's police killing of George Floyd, 240 other African Americans and 159 Hispanic Americans, parents and educators grappled with the question of how to handle conversations about race and racism in schools. "Critical Race Theory" provided an available academic framework within which to pursue this effort. Politicians and conservative pundits quickly latched onto the concept, arguing that its teachings are un-American, in spite of the fact that there is very little evidence that it is actually being taught to K-12 public school students. In many classrooms the subject never even comes up.However, facts don't matter in today's political environment. CRT opponents now use the term as a catch-all phrase for virtually all examinations of systemic racism. Opponents have argued that "Critical Race Theory" is a Marxist framework that suggests that our nation is inherently evil and that white people should feel guilty for their skin color. More than two dozen states have passed or introduced bills that aim to stymie educational discussions about race, racism and systemic oppression in the U.S. The Florida law specifically stipulates that educators cannot teach "Critical Race Theory." The GOP-controlled legislature in Tennessee passed a sweeping law banning educators from discussing racism, sexism, bias and other social issues with students altogether. Some bills explicitly prevent the teaching of the New York Times' "1619 project," which was launched in August of 2019, to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the English colony of Virginia. Its aim was to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of African-Americans at the very center of our national narrative. And Senators Tom Cotton, Marsha Blackburn and Mitch McConnell recently reintroduced the "Saving American History Act," which would block federal funds to schools teaching about this project. Overall, the mantra seems to be that the subject is divisive, and that it is even racist to examine the role of race in U.S. systems and structures. That doing so would teach kids to hate their country and to hate each other. Academic supporters of the concept suggest that there is nothing in "Critical Race Theory" that promotes any of the adverse consequences critics are blaming it for. Kimberle Crenshaw, law professor at the UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School, a founding CRT theorist, admonishes that: "When you're really serious about addressing a problem, the last thing you do is punish people for building the tools to see the problem, to analyze the problem and to develop the capacity to remove the problem. "Critical Race Theory" is not a coherent school of thought. It is simply an effort to confront our history of race and racism and to give us the capacity to think about its implications." During a different time, it was political scientist and U.S. National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who argued that the term "war on terror" was intended to deliberately generate a culture of fear, because it "obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue." We could draw a direct parallel to the situation today, given that we are involved in a culture war, and that a significant slice of the electorate has no clue about the essence of "Critical Race Theory," other than what their manipulators suggest. We have to assume that the application of this political dog whistle is solely intended to elicit fear and mobilize constituents in advance of next year's elections. Theo Wierdsma

DOOMSDAY LOOMS FOR AFGHAN ALLIES

In April, President Biden announced that, after being engaged there for twenty years, the U.S. would withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan by September 11 of this year. When we initiated this war on October 7, 2001, our objectives were to dismantle al qaeda, remove the Taliban from power and remake the country into a democracy. While we had some successes early on, we ultimately ended up frustrated. As the British found out almost 200 years ago, and the Soviet Union more recently, the political, cultural and geographic complexity of Afghanistan is such that foreign powers have an insurmountable task of putting their own stamp on the country. During the process of trying, we spent $2.26 trillion, lost 2,312 lives, while the local Afghan population suffered in excess of 6,400 casualties. Following our departure, Afghanistan anticipates only a limited number of possible outcomes: a takeover of the country by the Taliban, which has grown in strength and gained control over progressively more territory ever since the announcement was made; a defeat of the Taliban by the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, which is having an increasingly more difficult job without the support of U.S. air power; or a resurgent civil war. On the U.S. side, President Biden's announcement was largely met with relief. Pursuit of our mission had rapidly become indefensible, and the feeling that it was time to bring the troops home already prevailed. But what is relief for some, converts to anxiety among the 50,000 plus Afghans who served with our military units during the past twenty years. Of these, 18,000 and up to 53,000 family members are nervously attempting to obtain the necessary visas to leave the country for the U.S.. Most fear assassination by Taliban militia who view them as traitors. There have already been at least 300 targeted killings of people who worked with us. If we don't get our act together and get them out, many more could end up being slaughtered. The timetable for withdrawal already accelerated. At the current rate we could complete our exit as soon as some time in July. Regardless, even if we run the operation out until the September 11 completion target, there are at most three months left. Not enough time for our State Department to process the admitted backlog of 18,000 Special Immigrant Visa applications. By law, these applications need to be approved or denied within nine months. However, they have instead taken three to five years to get resolved. A significant problem has been that many applicants lack appropriate documentation of their work background. Afghans who worked with the CIA or other spy agencies face especially difficult hurdles, since they often have no tangible proof of who they worked with. Many operatives never used their real names. Besides, a significant number of applicants can't produce the money for required medical screenings. In the mean time, the embassy staff in Kabul has already been decimated. It faced increased violence and threats as troops began leaving the country. Thus far it only managed to process about 20% of visa requests. Officials insist that the embassy will continue to process the S.I.V. program even after all U.S. troops have left the country. But continued security threats could well hamper that effort. The Taliban issued a statement of its own, urging Afghans to remain in the country: "The Islamic Emirate would like to inform all the above people that they should show remorse for their past actions and must not engage in such activities in the future that amount to treason against Islam and the country. But none should currently desert the country. The Islamic Emirate will not perturb them, but calls them to return to their normal lives, and if they have expertise in any field, to serve the country. They shall not be in any danger on our part." As might be expected, few in or out of Afghanistan trust the veracity of this declaration. With time running out and the logistics of successfully managing the overwhelming visa backlog unrealistically remote, the potential of a calamitous outcome is becoming more apparent. While pulling out our troops well ahead of schedule may garner some political points at home, if part of our objective is, as it should be, to protect our Afghan allies, this expedited withdrawal ought to be discouraged. Time will be of the essence. We will need all the time we can muster to get the job done. And given the virtual impossibility of completing the visa application process, we should instead focus on getting our interpreters and other co-workers out of the country before we leave. Visas can be processed elsewhere. We need to begin to evacuate those in danger. We can do this. We have done this before. Toward the end of the Vietnam war, during "Operation New Life," we evacuated 111,000 Vietnamese to Guam. Preceding the capture of Saigon by the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), "Operation Frequent Wind" evacuated almost all of the American civilian and military personnel, along with thousands of Vietnamese civilians. And when Saddam Hussein's regime attacked Iraq's Kurdish region, the U.S. military evacuated about 6,600 Iraqi Kurds to Guam as well. The process is not new. It just takes political will to set it in motion. A growing number of decision makers have apparently already reached the conclusion that evacuation is the moral and only rational choice. Processing visa applications can certainly be accomplished in a third country or U.S. territory. The State Department and the Department of Defense are reportedly drawing up plans to do just that. There is little time left, and the logistics of such an undertaking in a country experiencing rapidly advancing Taliban control would still be challenging. However, if we fail to protect and extricate our Afghan allies, we are effectively sentencing them and their families to a very uncertain future, including death. That outcome would have a lasting impact on our future partnerships and global reputation. Theo Wierdsma

QANON GOES MAINSTREAM

When Marjorie Taylor Greene was elected to represent Georgia's 14th Congressional District, most observers wrote it off as an aberration. Her victory was considered a fluke, and not terribly impressive, since she ran unopposed in one of the country's most conservative districts. Posing as an openly committed devotee of QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory, was so far off center that few expected her beliefs to be consequential, even in our unstable political environment. Who could subscribe to conspiracy theories blended with so-called inside information from an anonymous government official posing as "Q"? Conspiracies like: The federal government has been infiltrated by a satanic, child trafficking ring peopled by Democrats, deep state denizens, and Satan worshipping pedophiles and cannibals; the believe in an adrenochrome conspiracy, spreading the theory that the blood of kidnapped children is being harvested by liberal elites for a drug called adrenochrome, which is actually extracted from the pituitary gland, which offers a psychedelic experience, and holds the promise of immortality for those who take it; the assertion that Covid vaccines are part of Bill Gates' plan for mind control; that the furniture company Wayfair is smuggling trafficked children in its cabinets; that California's wildfires are not natural, but are caused by Jewish space lasers, and so on. QAnon's premise is that we can't trust the people in power; we can't trust the information we've been given; and the only way to save society is to destroy its institutions. Its philosophy is that our hunches can be as or more correct as what we know through reason or evidence. Nobody would believe all this, right? Wrong! What started as an online obsession for the far-right fringe has grown beyond its origins in the dark corners of the internet. Kathryn Olmsted, a U.C. Davis history professor who specializes in the subject, suggested that "what is different now compared to other conspiracy theories in the past is that now there are people in power who are actually spreading the conspiracy theory." The handwriting seems to have been on the wall for some time. During the 2020 election cycle at least two dozen QAnon converts ran for congressional seats. Aside from Marjorie Taylor Greene, only one other candidate was successful: Lauren Boebert, in Colorado's 3rd District. Both of these are up for reelection next year. However, undeterred, QAnon supporters are already counting on the GOP's embrace of the conspiracy theory, and throwing their hats in the ring for a seat in Congress in 2022. Estimates are that, thus far, 19 converts are already poised to run. All but one on the Republican ticket. One independent in Nevada is running under the "Patriot Party of Nevada" banner. Five of these are competing in Florida. What is gradually becoming clear, is that the QAnon conspiracy is no longer the property of a lunatic fringe. In 2020, Time Magazine declared "Q" one of the 25 most influential people on the internet. In March of 2019, "QAnon,: An Invitation to a Great Awaking," a book written by twelve anonymous QAnon followers, peaked at #2 on Amazon's list of best selling books. A December, 2020 NPR/IPSOS poll found that one in three Americans believed in some of the key tenets of its ideology. And the American Enterprise Institute reported that 29% of Republicans surveyed agreed that former President Trump has been secretly fighting a group of child traffickers. The emergence of QAnon can not be dismissed as yet another conspiracy theory, or be relegated to simple expressions of our well documented history of "anti intellectualism. (See Richard Hofstadter, 1963). It is much more than that. The FBI has identified QAnon as a potential terrorist threat.The American University produced a report that revealed a "growing, violent threat from [the] QAnon movement to public safety and democracy," specifying: "creating and amplifying cultural and political divisions; introducing and spreading disinformation and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories; and mobilizing and motivating extreme violence." In keeping with the movement's philosophy, which elevates hunches and conspiracy theories over scientific evidence, converts have been manipulated to trust that their beliefs need not change in response to evidence. This makes us more susceptible to conspiracy theories, science denial and extremism. (Andy Norman, "The Case of America's Post-Truth Predicament," Scientific American, May 18, 2021.) As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. aptly observed: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Or, to quote the 19th century teacher and philosopher Amos Bonson Alcott, "the ignorance of once ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." We have a lot of work to do before this anomaly undermines our already fragile democratic system. Theo Wierdsma

VACCINE PASSPORTS PERMIT NORMALCY

Mid May, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released an updated health guidance acknowledging that fully vaccinated people no longer needed to wear a mask or stay away from others in most settings, whether outdoors or indoors. During a press conference, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walinsky proclaimed: "If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things you stopped doing because of the pandemic. We have all longed for this moment, when we can get back to some sense of normalcy." While, on the face of it, this is great news for all of us who are duly vaccinated, for many venues potentially benefiting from the CDC's updated guidance, it begs the question: "Short of trusting the so-called honor system, how can we tell if someone is actually vaccinated?" Municipalities across the country inevitably reacted by re-opening a discussion about creating systems that would help verify someone's vaccination status. Some, like Santa Clara County, put the onus on employers, requiring them to find out which of their workers have gotten their shots, and to treat those who refuse to reveal that information to be treated as if they have not. At the other extreme, states like Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Texas, South Carolina and Arkansas actually passed legislation prohibiting local governments from requiring proof of vaccination. Nevertheless, businesses, regardless of size, struggle to separate the fully inoculated from those who are not, either by choice or circumstance. Establishments concerned about the safety of their employees and patrons are not allowing people into their facilities unless they are able to prove they have had their shots. Many are beginning to insist that we establish some form of vaccine passport, either in the form of a signed and stamped document or a QR code stored on our phones. This form of documentation has become especially important for travel and for entrance into large venues like sports arenas or concert halls. Internationally, Israel, which is virtually fully vaccinated, introduced a "green pass," enabling people to use facilities like gyms and hotels, while Bahrain, China and Greece also already require similar documentation. The UK and the EU are close to establishing a "digital green certificate" to facilitate opening up their economies. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently lamented that Covid passports would likely become a "fact of life" in overseas travel. Given the devastating financial losses incurred by the travel industry, and the realization that many markets, especially in Europe, rely on tourism for much of their economy, airlines and travel organizations are increasing their push for adoption of some form of universally accepted proof of vaccination for the traveling public. In the mean time, domestically, venues like Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles and a growing number of sporting facilities elsewhere are setting aside special seating areas for those who are inoculated, to allow them to enjoy games side by side with other fans the way they used to pre-pandemic. For those supporting this form of documentation, vaccine passports are the way back to normality. Those opposed argue that requiring these leads to unnecessary government interference. When introduced for travel, it could be too easily extended and abused. They consider its requirement punishment for not getting vaccinated, and fear that it would create a two-tier society where only some people can participate in normal activities or access employment opportunities., which could have major ethical implications. Whatever the opposition throws at the discussion about the desirability of a standard proof of vaccination, private industry seems to forge ahead in support of the idea. Some cruise lines have already stipulated that no one can board their ships without proof of vaccination. Norwegian Cruise Lines is even threatening to keep its ships out of Florida ports if the state stands by a law prohibiting businesses requiring vaccines in exchange for services. Airlines are eager to introduce vaccine passports, which, in their view, are the "golden tickets" for reopening borders and allowing for international travel that will help local economies and the global hospitality begin to recover from the adverse effects of the pandemic. Or, as a bar owner in Washington was reported to have said: "As we hit a plateau with vaccines, we can't sit and wait for all of the non believers. If we are going to convince them, it's going to be through them not being able to do the things that vaccinated people are able to do." Theo Wierdsma

GUN VIOLENCE CONTINUES UNABATED

Shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre in December of 2012, I published an article demanding that assault weapons be regulated. Adam Lanza, the 20 year old assassin at Sandy Hook, killed 26 people, including 20 children ranging in age between 6 and 7 years old. By March of 2018, about 7,000 more children had died by gunfire, more than the total number of combat casualties suffered by our military since September 11, 2001. At the time I reported that our citizenry owned 270 million, or 30%, of all privately owned firearms in the world. Since then, these totals have steadily climbed to 428 million or 46%. We now own 120 firearms for every 100 citizens. Many fair-minded Americans have expressed their concern about gun violence and support for rational gun control measures. In a recent poll, in excess of 83% of those interviewed support background checks for private and gun show sales, 72% favor requiring licensing before gun purchases are consummated and 57% would ban assault weapons altogether. Nevertheless, our politicians don't seem to notice. Little or no progress has been made. During the first four months of 2021, gun activity in the U.S. has already resulted in 6,300 deaths and 175 mass shootings. Vociferous opposition by opponents of any restrictions on gun ownership proclaim that any mandate would do little to reduce these morbid statistics. In which case I submit that assault weapons are military and have no business being included in civilian arsenals. Two weeks after 35 people were killed during a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, then Australian prime minister John Howard ushered in a semi-automatic weapons ban. That same year, 1996, a massacre in a Scottish school in Dunblane killed 16 children and one teacher. The following year private ownership of most handguns was banned in Great Britain. And, in response to the March 15, 2019 mosque massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand, which killed 51 at the hand of a white supremacist, prime minister Jacinda Ardern introduced an Arms Amendment Act which made assault weapons illegal, and initiated a national buy-back program. The Amendment became law on April 10 of that same year. In this country, the day after "Sandy Hook," and, subsequently, following most massacres, the demand for assault weapons exploded, causing one weapons dealer to observe that he sold more AR-15 and AK-47 rifles in one week than he would normally sell in one year. What sets us apart from all other developed countries is accessibility, our Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association, and, perhaps, a residual frontier mentality. What dominates the discussion, however, is the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." During the Revolutionary War era, "militias" referred to groups of men banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and, eventually, states. James Madison proposed the Second Amendment to empower state militias, expressing a concern of a too powerful central government, and establishing the principle that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens. The Amendment was modeled after a condition found in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which, in turn, was a reaction to King James II, a Catholic, who had attempted to disarm his Protestant opposition. There are only three countries that protect the right to bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala and the United States. Mexico currently forbids ownership of military weapons, prohibits the carrying of weapons in some inhabited places, and only has one gun shop in the entire country, located in a heavily guarded army base in Mexico City. Guatemala allows its citizens to purchase guns. However, a purchase requires government approval, and gun owners need to re-apply and re-qualify for firearm licenses every couple of years. The real meaning of the wording of our Second Amendment is not at all self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary. For most of our legal history, the consensus has been that the right to bear arms was not an individual right, but rather a right for those called to military service, the militia. In 1991, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, stated that the idea that there was an individual right to bear arms was "a fraud," and if it had been up to him there would never have been a Second Amendment. Over time, however, under pressure of gun-rights advocates, spearheaded by the NRA, this perspective gradually changed. In 2008, in "District of Columbia v. Heller," in a 5-4 decision, the Court held that there is a constitutional right to have a hand gun in one's home for self-protection. But the Court did not say that this right was absolute, and intimated that governmental restrictions might be appropriate. Nonetheless, even that position seems to be changing as some justices appear to have developed evolving views on the subject. Just last month the current Court agreed to review New York State's restrictions limiting the carrying of concealed weapons - a law enacted in 2012 in response to the Sandy Hook massacre. In the mean time our statistics continue to go through the roof. The U.K registers roughly 150 gun related deaths per year. We average 109 deaths every day. Every year we record 14 times more gun related deaths than the European Union, which has 180 million more citizens. In 2012 we averaged about 32-thousand gun deaths every year. Last year this number reached 44-thousand. It is time for our politicians to stop dusting off their stock responses to every recurring mass shooting, get out from under the thumb of the NRA, and come up with sensible gun control legislation, or, otherwise, we may as well make "Amazing Grace" our new national anthem. Theo Wierdsma

SANCTIONING HATE SPEECH

One of the highlights of the recently televised Academy Awards Ceremony was the powerful speech delivered by multi-talented Tyler Perry as he accepted the "Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award." His message centered on "refusing hate," and refusing to succumb to "blanket judgments," something his mother had taught him as a boy growing up. His moving story about a homeless woman who had approached him for help more than a decade ago, who told him she thought he would hate her for asking for help, resonated emotionally with many in the audience. Tyler Perry's poignant message couldn't help but make us reflect on the current state of affairs in many parts of the world where "hate speech" seems to dominate much of every day's communication. Our own country is no exception. Most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech recognized in the First Amendment to our Constitution. There is no legal definition of "hate speech" under U.S. law. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to recognize a fine line between free speech and hate speech. Free speech encourages debate, whereas hate speech incites violence. Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability - constitutionally protected characteristics under anti-discrimination laws. Because of the latter, some would argue that First Amendment protection should not apply to hate speech. However, our Supreme Court, in "Matal v. Tam" in 2017, reaffirmed that there is no exception for hate speech in the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment, and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of a speaker's viewpoint. Government can't bar hate speech unless it is direct, personal, and either truly threatening or violently provocative. Hate crimes, however, don't violate the First Amendment because they are based on actions rather than expressions of opinion. This exception also includes intimidating symbolic actions, like cross burning, that are intended to make victims fear for their lives. Legal challenges covering freedom of speech have been plentiful. Over time, the Supreme Court has issued dozens of opinions, while the ACLU, since 1940, has filed more than 150 cases. With technology constantly in transition, the response to these challenges have become more and more nuanced. Richard Stengel, a former editor for Time magazine, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, on Oct.29, 2019, writes: "The First Amendment protects the "thoughts that we hate," but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw." Zachary Laub, publications editor for the Brennan Center of the Council of Foreign Relations, published results of research intended to establish correlations between hate speech posted on-line and the increase in violence toward minorities, including mass shootings, lynchings and ethnic cleansing. He hypothesized the connection between anti-refugee Facebook posts by the far-right "Alternative for Germany" party and attacks on refugees in that country, white supremacy on-line communications and the killing of 9 black clergy and worshipers in Charleston by Dylann Roof, the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue killing of 11 by Robert Bowers, and the 2019 mosque shooting in New Zealand that killed 49. It seems credible to propose that social media have a tendency to catalyze hate crimes, and that previously rendered legal opinions about hate speech and freedom of speech may need to be revisited. As the digital age continues to evolve, the application of freedom of speech to hate speech becomes more controversial. Attempts at developing a national hate speech law face opposition because questions arise about who will decide what constitutes hate speech. Decisions by social media companies to restrict certain content face charges of censorship. Nevertheless, we might argue that unregulated hate speech normalizes prejudice and encourages discrimination. Ultimately, we need to consider that the rise of extremism may be inevitable if hate speech continues to be legally protected. Theo Wierdsma