Tag: politics

Our First Amendment Freedom of Speech

President Trump seems to disregard our constitution generally but his attack on its guarantee of our freedom of speech is particularly dangerous. Its importance to our freedoms and democratic governance is so well-known and obvious that I will not bother to defend it. Trump has increasingly utilized his executive power and the administrative apparatus to target, penalize, or attempt to silence his critics, political opponents, and media organizations.

Through executive orders, directives, and appointees, the administration has ordered investigations into political adversaries and former officials who publicly criticized him. This includes directive-backed investigations targeting former government security officials like Chris Krebs (who contradicted election fraud claims) and first-term Trump official Miles Taylor.

Trump has repeatedly stripped high-ranking former officials and critics—such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey—of their security clearances, access to classified briefings, or government protection details after they issued public criticism. The Department of Justice is pursuing criminal prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey on trumped up (no pun intended, maybe) charges.

Executive actions have targeted non-profit think tanks, advocacy groups, and legal firms that represented positions adverse to the administration or published critical reports, including threats to target their tax-exempt statuses or initiate government reviews.

In an excellent and damning critique of Trump’s use of executive power to silence his critics Walter Olsen reported that “Donald Trump says he’s going to sue a private think tank over a report criticizing his policies. The report, from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, enraged him by arguing that his decision to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C. doesn’t really deserve credit for the city’s drop in violent crime rates since then because rates had been falling steeply before he acted.”  https://www.facebook.com/share/p/191KXwjiEJ/

Executive agencies have been leveraged to exert pressure on disfavored press. Measures have included revoking White House press credentials for journalists and news outlets covering the administration critically, threatening the regulatory status or FCC licenses of major broadcast networks, and directing federal agencies to limit media access.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth (after some thought and a glass of wine I have decided not to use any of the adjectives that I think apply to him) has largely shut down a free press in his department.  When he issued directives requiring journalists to obtain official approval before publishing military information—even unclassified details—and prohibiting unapproved gathering of information, most journalists walked out and took legal action. Dozens of major news outlets across the political spectrum—including The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News—refused to sign the pledge. Media organizations issued joint statements condemning the directive as an unconstitutional attempt at prior restraint and an assault on First Amendment press freedoms.

Media organizations challenged the policy in court (New York Times v. Department of Defense). In March 2026, a federal district judge ruled that the DOD rules amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and censorship, ordering the restoration of press credentials for journalists who refused to sign.

More recently “the longtime publisher of Stars and Stripes announced he’s stepping down weeks after the Pentagon installed an active-duty Navy captain at the military newspaper, an atypical appointment that staffers, board members and Democratic lawmakers say risks further eroding the publication’s independence from the government.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/08/20/democrats-sound-alarm-about-new-leader-uniform-stars-stripes/

Step by step the direction Trump is taking the country remains clear.

Where is Trump Going?

From Trump’s first days of his second term I have worried about where he was taking us.

 “US President-elect Donald Trump’s trade policy challenges the post-war global trading system. By rejecting the World Trade Organization’s principles of non-discrimination and reciprocity, Trump proposes a power-based approach that would fundamentally alter international economic relations, risking the predictability and fairness that have underpinned global trade for seven decades.” “How Trump threatens the world trading system” Fortunately our Supreme Court has blocked some of Trump’s outrageous tariff threats. Congress has been missing in action.

But Trump hasn’t stopped there.  Though promising to end our “forever wars” and restraint in our international relations, Trump is coming on as the most aggressive President in memory. Many people have been understandably astonished by Donald Trump’s recently proclaimed desires to ‘take back’ the Panama Canal ‘in full, quickly and without question’ and to take over the self-governing Danish territory of Greenland. More shockingly he has launched attacks wherever he wants without regard for international law or the requirement of Congressional approval.

In the 66 bombings of boats heading to the US in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, the US has killed 215 people. In an unprovoked bombing of Iran jointly with Israel, in February of this year, Trump launched a war without Congressional approval that we are still stuck in leaving us with greatly reduced military capacity. “President Trump said today [Aug 17, 2026] that he was ’not in a hurry’ to strike a new deal with Iran now that his preliminary truce with the country has reached its official expiration date. He also took aim at Oman, an American ally on the Arabian Peninsula that has been attempting to mediate negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.

“’If Oman gets in the way,’ the president said, ‘we’ll bomb the shit out of them.’ His comments, in an interview with Fox News, underscored how difficult it has been to end a conflict that Trump said would be over months ago.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/17

 “Trump separately on Monday doubled down on the idea that the U.S. has total control of the Strait of Hormuz and on the possibility it could be turned into a U.S. territory.

“We control it with the blockade, and I like the idea of declaring it a territory,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office…. President Trump posted an image of a map labeling the Strait of Hormuz as a U.S. territory early on Tuesday in an apparent effort to double down on his calls to annex the waterway.” https://thehill.com/6034221 Trump is rapidly losing allies who would not support our war in Iran (Spain, South Korea, and Oman). France and Germany have also criticized the war. The Soviet Union was never so bold.

In addition, the Trump administration has exited or initiated withdrawal from a series of major international treaties, conventions, and accords:

Arms Control & Security

  • Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): Withdrew in 2018, re-imposing economic sanctions on Iran.
  • Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Exited in 2019, citing non-compliance by Russia.
  • Open Skies Treaty: Withdrew in 2020, citing Russian violations and restrictions on surveillance flights over key regions.

Climate & Environment

  • Paris Climate Agreement: First withdrew in 2017 (effective 2020; reinstated under Biden); exited a second time on his first day back in office in 2025.
  • UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Ordered the U.S. exit in January 2026 as part of a broader withdrawal from climate-focused international bodies.

International Agreements & Compacts

  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. signature in 2017 before the trade deal was ratified by Congress.
  • UN Global Compact on Migration: Opted out in 2017, stating the agreement compromised U.S. sovereignty over immigration policy.
  • OECD Global Minimum Tax Agreement: Rescinded U.S. support and commitments to the agreement upon taking office in 2025.

An example, of Trump’s disregard for the international rule of law, the US State Department just announced: “sanctions against the president of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and another official amid the Trump administration’s campaign to dismantle the international body. Sanctions were imposed on ICC President Tomoko Akane, a Japanese national, and ICC senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese national who was investigating alleged war crimes carried out by Israel, said Rubio in a statement.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/rubio-announces-sanctions-against-international-criminal-court-president-6076592

Trump has delivered on his promise to tighten our borders and removed illegal immigrants. Deportations and voluntary exits jumped from over 460,000 and 700,000 in 2023 and 2024 to over 2,500,000 in 2025 of which and estimated 1.9 million were self exits.

However, the behavior of masked ICE agents, including the deaths of over 30 people in ICE custody in 2025 have created a public outcry. In 2024 and earlier, the majority of ICE arrests focused on those with criminal records. In 2025, the government stated that 70% of ICE arrests involved individuals with criminal charges or convictions. However, independent analyses of 2025 data suggested that only 23% of those targeted in broader sweeps actually had prior criminal convictions, with many of those being for minor traffic or immigration offenses.

While Trump is complaining about our balance of payments deficits, his immigration policies are making it worse. One of our important exports are tourists to the US who spend for food, accommodations and other goods and services while here. The number of tourists in 2025 was 5.5% lower than in 2024. Trump’s clamp down on student visas is bound to reduce their number this year and going forward. https://wcoats.blog/2026/07/30/foreign-students/

Putting his name on the Kennedy Center was sort of harmless (but distasteful) but then shutting it down all together is much less so, and, and as is so often the case with Trump, hard to understand. The United States Institute of Peace is now the Donald J Trump Institute of Peace. Then there are programs he has created in his name: Trump accounts, Trump Gold Card, TrumpRx, Trump National Parks pass, etc. But he hasn’t stopped there, creating the “Trump-class” battleship. His picture hangs from many government buildings. Though it violates the tradition of the U.S. Treasurer, currently Brandon Beach, signing our currency notes, Trump will do so in the future. While most of these displays of Trump’s name might be taken as the actions of an immature child, his proposal to issue special one-dollar coins with his likeness seems to violate more than just good taste.

Far more dangerous than indulging his ego are Trump’s use of government power to punish his “enemies” (those who criticize him). We have gotten used to Trump using his Truth Social or X/twitter accounts to damn and/or label as stupid or evil those who have criticized him, but he has used the power of his office to much more seriously attack his enemies or to force compliance with his policy views.

For example, after firing FBI director James Comey, who oversaw the probe of ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly called for investigations of Comey over alleged leaks and handling of memos, and his current Justice Department has pursued renewed inquiries. Similarly motivated DOJ indictments or investigations have been made against Trump appointed officials John Bolton, Letitia James, Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, and others who played leading roles in Russia‑related or Ukraine‑related investigations. These are just the tip of the spear. https://wcoats.blog/2026/04/20/trumps-record-so-far/

Trump’s wealth has increased $2.2 billion in the first year of his second term. Ralph Nader told Chuck Schumer that: “You should have described his huge loot as $1.1 million an hour. That’s right, $1.1 million an hour based on a 40-hour work week over one year. (And remember, Trump spends a lot of his time on his vengeance missions, his golf game, and napping—so a 40-hour work week is a generous estimate.)” https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/08/17/1-1-million-an-hour-trumps-personal-profit-in-2025/

About 65% of this was from Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures. The office that regulates the nation’s banks is run by a man Trump appointed, and he just gave World Liberty Financial, the family’s own crypto venture, preliminary approval to operate as a trust bank. If you want an insider trading advantage, you can pay Trump $100,000 per month for early access to his Truth Social messages on social media.

Trump’s corruption worries me less than his steady strengthening of his control over the government. One of his first acts was firing all Inspector Generals, independent officials who audit government programs in order to prevent fraud and find waste. Many of the Defense Department’s (now called the War Department—guess why?) best generals and admirals have been fired. The new head of the Justice Department was previously Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney.

The Trump Treasury Department has just [Aug 17] permanently exempted American companies from disclosing who actually owns them — effectively gutting the Corporate Transparency Act, a bipartisan anti-money-laundering law passed with overwhelming support in 2020. The rule doesn’t just halt enforcement; it deletes all beneficial ownership data already submitted. Where is all this headed? Trump now jokes about a third term. Ha, ha.

While Trump has done many things that are worrisome and we should object to, he made many campaign promises that he has not delivered. Should we be thankful?? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/08/18/opinion/trump-economy-campaign-promises.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

While I increasingly worry about all of this, Trump’s destruction of the Kennedy Center hurts me personally the most. I am too old to worry too much about the rest.

Econ 101: Capitalism and Socialism

The popularity of socialism seems on the rise. Is it justified?

Starting from the top, the difference between capitalism and socialism is who decides how our resources (capital and labor) are allocated. Under capitalism the private owners of a country’s resources decide how to use what they own. They are driven by the desire to maximize profit. Under socialism public owners (government) of our resources decide how to deploy them. They are driven by…. Well let’s see.

Capitalists (company shareholders and the management they employ) seek out the goods and services the public want and the cheapest way to provide them. Entrepreneurs develop new products and services they hope the public will want and will pay for. The government’s role is to protect private property, enforce freely-agreed contracts, provide infrastructure that facilitates trade, and enforce law and order (including defense from potential foreign invaders). Freely negotiated prices reflecting supply and demand provide capitalist with essential information in their search for maximum profits.

While capitalists own the capital they deploy, they must attract and hire the labor who work with it. Consistent with their pursuit of maximum profit they seek the most productive (skillful) workers at the lowest cost (wages). While a worker’s wage is a very important part of their willingness to accept a particular job, every other aspect of the conditions of their employment is important as well. Thus, their employer has a profit incentive to establish with employees the least-costly way of satisfying those demands. These incentives (private ownership and profit maximization) have maximized the incomes of capitalist economies. https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/02/econ-101-profits/

The incomes of the average person hardly changed from poverty levels for thousands of year. But with the advent of capitalism and the industrial revolution average income in the United States over the last 250 years increased 50 to 60 times.

Some capitalists have become very rich. For seventeen years Bill Gates was the richest man in the world. Was that a bad thing–a price we had to pay for the benefits of capitalism? I have always and continue to think that I have benefited from Gates’ Microsoft products (Windows, Word, Excell, PowerPoint to name a few) far more than I have paid for them. But that is the nature of capitalist free market transactions: win-win.

In Socialist economies, the “government” owns much of the economy’s capital (e.g., government grocery stores, or airplane factories), and determines how to allocate much of its resources (what to build and produce—e.g., silicon chip factories). While the government might seek to determine what the public wants, it will also determine what it thinks it should have.

But who is the government and what are the incentives it faces when making its decisions? The government consists of elected politicians (in democracies) with the power to make laws, the public officials they appoint to various agencies to implement them, and the workers those officials employ. The primary incentive for politicians is to get elected and reelected. Presumably that depends on supporting (and actually implementing) the policies most voters in each congressional district want. Voters might support policies they think are in the country’s best interest or in their own personal best interest.

Many of the voters in the state of Washington work for Boeing aircraft and might favor government programs that direct tax money to that company. Boeing has a large complex a few blocks from where I live in Pentagon City Virginia (half a mile from the Pentagon). It builds nothing there but seems to keep its workers busy.

Unlike the profits from sales by private firms to their customers, which result from the voluntary purchases of satisfied customers, the goods and services provided to the public by governments are rarely paid for by the recipient. Nor are their costs paid for by the politicians or officials who provide them. Therefore, the incentives of governments (politicians, officials, employees) are very different than those of private firms.  This is true of any government but the scale of what is directed by socialist governments is significantly greater.

Consider the implications of these incentives for the workers hired by socialist governments. By the way, in 2024, the US federal government employed just over 3.0 million people (excluding 1.3 active-duty military personnel). State and local governments employed an additional 20 million, or a combined 7.1% of the total population.  As government officials are not spending their own money, their incentives for choosing workers can be quite different than are those for private capitalists. Hiring friends and relatives may be more rewarding to public sector bosses than those who are most qualified and hard working.

The incentives for corruption in large governments are significant. Thus, the American constitution provides checks and balances between the congress, executive, and courts. Moreover, congress has established additional oversight of executive branch agencies in an effort to keep them honest. Unfortunately, in January 2025, President Trump abruptly fired at least seventeen presidentially appointed inspectors general from major cabinet departments and federal agencies without providing the 30-day advance notice or substantive rationale required by the Inspector General Act. And by the way, Trump’s net worth and business revenues have surged during his second term, with financial analysts estimating he brought in roughly $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion during his first year back in office alone, pushing his overall net worth to an estimated $6.5 billion. This does not include our tax money he has used to put his name, picture, and gold all over the place. This is a failed businessman who declared bankruptcy six time. Just sayin.  

Even if a Socialist government is led by honest people truly committed to the general public’s interest, they lack the market prices that guide capitalists when deciding what would be “best.” Moreover, they are not likely to offer multiple options when choosing policies to impose on the public. It is unlikely that a socialist government will establish a range of different policies to satisfy different tastes. The top-down decision making of socialist governments is more likely to impose uniform approaches to the provision of goods and services and rules. In capitalist economies we are freer to choose among a wide variety of e.g., stores following different approaches to satisfying their customers.

When choosing capitalist or socialist economies, we want to know which has been more successful in allocating our resources to their most productive and desired uses. Given the differences in the incentives faced by each outlined above, have socialist governments been better at “choosing winners” than capitalists? The answer from the real world is overwhelmingly clear.

Given the different incentives faced by each, it should not be surprising that the economic well-being of capitalist and socialist economies has been dramatically different. The most dramatic comparison of the economies of two otherwise similar countries are the former East and West Germany and North and South Korea. In 1989, the year before East and West German merged into the Federal Republic of Germany, percapita income of West Germany was about double that of East German. The differences are much more dramatic between North and South Korea. In 2024 percapita income in North Korea was only 3.4% of South Korea’s.

Perhaps those promoting socialism do so thinking that it would better service the poor. This has not been true, but it does suggest that capitalist societies need to provide well-considered safety nets for those who stumble. The U.S. does not have a perfect set of safety net policies by any means. I advocate a Universal Basic Income and a government financed by a consumption (rather than income) tax. These maximize the freedom of choice and incentive to work. https://wcoats.blog/2023/01/15/fair-tax-act-of-2023/

Econ 101: Profits

Is it a bad thing for oil company profits to increase when oil prices jump?

A country’s economic wellbeing—its national income and standard of living—is maximized when its economic resources (capital and labor) are allocated to their most profitable uses. When that is the case, no other use of capital and labor can increase the value of total output. This includes goods produced for export in order to pay for goods and services imported.

An economy that has maximized its output in this way (allocated all its resources to their most productive uses), will suffer a drop in income if a tax causes a change in this resource allocation. As an example, consider a tax (called a tariff) on the importation of certain medicines now produced abroad. In fact, President Trump is threatening a 100% tariff on imported generic drugs, with the rate rising to 200% later, if manufacturers do not move production to the U.S. Hopefully it is obvious that if the existing allocation of resources between products and whether they are produced here or there is optimal (maximizing output), then shifting the production of the drugs now produced in India (for example) to the U.S. will result in a fall in our aggregate income. The resources devoted to producing what ever we exported (to pay for our drug imports) would have to be shifted to domestic production of the drugs now imported. We will lose the comparative advantage of the existing allocation. The reallocation will reduce overall output. In short, if the allocation was optimal to begin with, the tariff and reallocation will reduce aggregate income. It is a bad idea.

But what about the jump in oil company profits because of the Iran war induced increase in the price of oil?  When resources are optimally allocated, risk-adjusted profits will be the same everywhere because resources will be moved to where profits are higher (thus lowering them) until they are the same everywhere (risk-adjusted). Oil prices have increased because of the war-related fall in the supply of crude oil. Nothing has changed in the cost of lifting and supplying existing non-war-related supplies of crude. In the real world, of course all kinds of things are changing all the time and it is very desirable for resource allocations to change as well in response. That is precisely what chasing profits does.

The increase in profits from producing the same amount crude in the U.S. from the increase in the world price of oil, creates a profit incentive to allocate more resources to finding and pumping it up. That is very desirable for easing the current supply shortage. An increase in profit is a market incentive to increase the resources devoted to producing something. It would be counterproductive to interfere with that very desirable response.

Sec Hegseth

Several residents in my condo work in the Pentagon or are in the Navy. They have complained to me that Sec Hegseth has fired some of the most outstanding Generals in our military. I asked Walter Slocombe, who was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the Clinton Administration, what he thought about that. Here is his reply.

“Re firings.  The military like other huge complex organizations is shaped by its top leadership and civilian control includes choosing top level promotions.  And it’s legitimate for the Secretary of Defense to pick officers partly on the basis of whether he believes candidate shares his policy views.

“That said it is dangerous to make these choices largely on that factor.  The risk is great of incubating political cliques in the associated with parties or individual politicians.  (I had the impression the Bundeswehr had some of this.)

“Moreover its important the top leadership feel free to be candid with the civilians (while being equally committed to execute decisions once made.)  Hegseth goes way over the line in prioritizing loyalty.

“In addition he apparently believes virtually any woman or minority in a senior job is a “DEI hire.”  That means the senior officers will be even more heavily white than is now the case.  It seems clear that Hegseth systematically rejects recommendation for promotions of non-white males.

“Principles aside going in that direction that ignores the very real facts about the demography of the military–30% of enlisted are Black and 18% are Hispanic.  But only 25% of officers are black or Hispanic.  And only 11% of generals and admirals are minorities or Hispanic.  That disparity inevitably affects perspectives in the force.  It’s not that officers % must exactly match enlisted but that explicit discrimination is very bad for morale.”

Scoring the Iran War

What did we gain from the Iran war and what was the cost (so far)? Why did we launch this war? What was our objective and have we achieved it?

From a NYTimes article and JD Vance speech the US budgetary cost of our illegal attack on Iran was about $150 billion. This year’s conflict cost five to six thousand lives. This does not include the economic cost to the world from oil shortages and food shortages expected from the shortage of fertilizer, etc. NYTimes – Iran war costs

In evaluating what we gained from the war it is hard to know whether to treat the negative outcome as a negative gain or an additional cost. Prior to this war the Straits of Hormuz were open and passage was free. While Iran seems to have agreed to reopen them, they have now clearly demonstrated the potential to close them or charge for passage as potential future choke points. While Iran may be giving up its financing of friends in the neighborhood (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Yemen), and this would be an import gain, it has established its military strength to defend itself while the US has demonstrated its vulnerability.

More importantly, Iran is now judged by many to be more likely to build an atomic bomb. The Iran Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama administration, which insured that Iran would not do so for at least ten years, was overturned during the first Trump administration. Hopefully such assurances can be reestablished during the 60 day negotiations still ahead. Though such a bomb would violate Islamic doctrine, the need for such protection has been greatly increased by US/Israel aggressions. But the MOU agreed to this week provides no assurance that a new agreement would be any better than the one Trump killed in May 2018. The Washington Post’s careful analysis suggests that it is not promising that a new agreement will be any better than the old one:  Trump condemned Obama’s Iran deal-here’s how his own compares

In an interview at the opening of his Presidential Library in Chicago, former President Obama stated that: “it feels like we are back where we were before we started the war, except maybe a little worse off…”  The Hill-Obama on Trump Iran war Obama’s assessment was not including the costs of the war noted above.

US support of Israel has been very costly. Virtually the whole amaworld, other than the US, has condemned Israel’s behavior in recent years. The number of Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza alone since the Oct 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas that killed 1,200, is hard to estimate in part because so many remain buried under the rubble. As reported in an interesting effort to estimate deaths, over half of those killed were women and children, Ralph Nadar stated that: “The recent report by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, referred to a consensus of 680,000 deaths.  Fatalities by Israel-vast Gaza genocide-deliberately undercounted These deaths don’t include those in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, which continue to this day despite a so-called cease fire.

More broadly the damage to America’s reputation because of our support of Israel’s bloody attacks of its Palestinian, Lebanon, and Syrian neighbors has been further increased by its illegal attacks on Iran. Our rapid decline continues.

According to Ian Bremmer: “The cease-fire does not mark the end of this chapter of conflict and regional division in the Middle East; it is instead driving a geopolitical realignment along new fault lines.

“More outcomes? A more polarized and fractured Middle East. Iran in a stronger strategic position. And American partners shaken by erratic and unpredictable conduct.

“The war has accelerated the collapse of the US-anchored order that held the Middle East together for decades. That arrangement kept oil flowing, rival powers out of the region, and Washington the broker of everything that mattered – from Iranian containment to the more recent Arab-Israeli normalization process. It was already fraying before the fighting started. The war broke it.”   Linkedin – What actually mattered

The General’s Son

In the book “The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” by Miko Peled, the General refers to Major General Mattityahu “Matti” Peled (1923–1995), an Israeli military commander who became a prominent peace activist, academic, and politician. A key architect of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, he later transitioned into a radical advocate for Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and a two-state solution.

Like his father, Miko was also an avid Zionist who believed in peaceful relations with his Arab neighbors in two sovereign states. When Milo’s niece Smadar was killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber in 1997, Miko’s reaction to his grief tells us all we need to know to understand the heart of this book. Rather than expressing hatred toward the Palestinian murderer of his beloved niece, he felt shame and anger toward his fellow Israelis for driving a Palestinian boy to take his own life in this way. The book relays Miko’s journey upto and beyond this tragedy and sets out a more balanced history than you might have heard.

Having settled in San Diego to teach karate, Miko began to participate in mixed Jewish/Arab groups (San Diego Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group) discussing their experiences in and hopes for Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) and became hopeful for two sovereign states living peacefully next to each other. When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat meet with President Bill Clinton at Camp David in Maryland, Miko was sure peace was at hand. When the talks fail to achieve agreement and Clinton seems to blame Arafat, Miko is shocked.

“Arafat had been consistent for years. For the sake of peace he was willing to give up the dream of all Palestinians to return to their homes and their land in Palestine. He was willing to recognize Israel, the state that destroyed Palestine, took his people’s land, and turned them into a nation of refugees. He was ready to establish an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza—which make up only 22 percent of the Palestinian homeland—with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.

“He was ready to do all this, but he was not going to settle for anything less. He had always been clear about what he saw as the terms for peace.

“In the end, it turned out that… what the Israelis had demanded at Camp David was tantamount to total Palestinian surrender…. Barak demanded that Arafat sign an agreement to end the conflict forever and in return, he would be permitted to establish a Palestinian state on an area of land that could not be defined clearly because it was broken into pockets with no geographic continuity. Instead of Arab East Jerusalem, he would receive a small suburb of East Jerusalem as his capital. To that Yasser Arafat refused to agree.” (p. 126)

Miko’s love of Israel and increasing exposure to Palestinians (both in San Diego and in the West Bank, which he visited often to teach Karate and promote mutual understanding) exposed him to the shocking mistreatment of Palestinians in their own land. His compassionate heart and wisdom led him to strongly advocate the two-state solution to the struggles between the Arabs and Jews occupying the area.

During a visit to Ramallah to meet Abu Ali Shahin, Fatah commander and leader of the Palestine political prisoners for more the two decades, Miko exclaimed that: “Immediately after the war, while still in uniform, my father said that Israel must recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. He said that if we don’t do this, the Israeli army would become an occupation army and would resort to brutal means to enforce the IsraeliOslo occupation on the Palestinian people. He said this while still in uniform and he never stopped saying it and advocating for Palestinian rights till he died.” (p. 229)

In my own work with the IMF helping to establish the Palestine Monetary Authority called for by the Oslo Accord, I was disheartened to observe Israel’s abusive treatment of the Palestinians. The Oslo Accord itself did not provide for a fully independent and sovereign state for the Palestinians (themselves semitic children of Abraham). It provided what was hoped would be the first trust-building steps toward such a true state. However, Israel carved up the West Bank with highways only usable by Israelis. Palestinians driving to their new capital of Ramallah had to wait hours to enter via the Israeli-controlled check point. With my UN passport I could sail in via the Israeli entrance with no wait. Israel isolated the Palestinian population of the WBGS in every way imaginable.

Though declared illegal by the UN, Israeli Jews increasingly stole Palestinian land to establish Jewish settlements, carving up and often destroying Palestinian farms in the process. The number of Jews living in illegal settlements in the West Bank grew from about 80,000 in 1990 to almost 530,000 in 2025. But this pales compared to the shocking mistreatment reported by Miko.

At the end of Miko’s meeting with the 72-year-old Fatah leader, Abu, Ali Shahin, stated:

“We all belong to this land and need to live together. No one is safe in one Jewish state. Judaism is a religion, and I am speaking of a secular state of all its citizens. That is the only way to live here. Being Jewish or Muslim or Christian or atheist, that is a personal choice, not for me to dictate and not to be dictated to me. I don’t want a priest or a rabbi or a sheikh to govern my life. We belong in this land, and we need to live here as equals.”

Miko then writes: “This was not the first time I had heard someone talk of the ‘one secular democratic state,’ as the right solution. It was the part of the Fatah manifesto to create a secular democracy in all of Palestine. In the past, I could not stomach it, but the more I met impressive, intelligent people like Abu Ali, people who were driven by principle, the more I thought that there was no point, indeed no future, in dividing the people and the land. Not to mention the fact that the settlements and the facts on the ground had succeeded in erasing the West Bank as a viable area in which a Palestinian state could be established.”

In my book on my travels in the area, “Palestine: The Oslo Accords Before and After”, I still strongly supported a two-state solution. But when I asked George Abed, my IMF colleague then Governor of the Palestine Monetary Authority I was there to help create, if he would write the Foreword to my book, he declined, saying the book was unfair to the Palestinians. I have now come to accept that he was right.

This book was published in 2012. From that year (January 2012) until October 6, 2023 Palestinians killed about 300 Israelis, who killed about 3,900 Palestinians. From the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel until now (June 2, 2026), Palestinians killed about 1,400 Israelis (of whom 1,200 were killed during Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack), who then killed about 75,000 Palestinians. The status quo is clearly not working for Israelis or for Palestinians.

The United States, home to about as many Jews as there are in Israel, is a secular state with large populations of Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and other religious groups. Our constitution forbids the government from adopting any one of them. They have each flourished. I have reluctantly concluded that Israel must annex the West Bank of Gaza and give full and equal citizenship and rights to all Arabs and Jews living there. “A one state solution”,  “A one state solution – 2”.

The wars and ethnic cleansing now underway by the Netanyahu government is not only destroying Israel, but also dragging the United States down with it and I haven’t even mentioned Iran.

SCOTUS – Louisiana v. Callais

“The Supreme Court’s invalidation of Louisiana’s congressional map has triggered a swirling debate about just how fundamentally the justices altered the Voting Rights Act landscape.” This and following quotes are from The Hill article: the hill – regulating voting-rights-act-supreme-court – SCOTUS-Decision  

The court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais was adopted by 6 – 3 of the judges.

I am quite amazed how dramatically differently some people have characterized the decision’s result.

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [as Amended in 1982] has enabled groups to force states to draw additional majority-minority districts for decades,” despite the 15th Amendment to US constitution in 1870, which prohibited the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”, effectively protecting the voting rights of Blacks.

Section 2 “bars voting maps that give a racial minority ‘less opportunity than other members of the electorate’ to elect their preferred candidate.”

In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that multi-member legislative districts in North Carolina violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. The landmark ruling established a critical three-part legal test to determine if an electoral map illegally discriminates against minority voters.

To prove a violation of Section 2, plaintiffs must satisfy the following three preconditions:

  1. Numerosity and Compactness: The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a voting majority in a single-member district.
  2. Political Cohesion: The minority group must show that it is politically cohesive, meaning they largely vote for the same candidates.
  3. Majority Bloc Voting: The plaintiffs must prove that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority group’s preferred candidates

After Thornburg v. Gingles, plaintiffs could prove vote dilution by showing that a minority group was large and compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably drawn district, was politically cohesive, and faced bloc voting by the majority that usually defeated its preferred candidates.

That framework gave civil-rights groups a litigation template: draw an “illustrative” majority-minority district, show polarized voting, and argue that the state had cracked or packed minority voters so they could not elect their preferred candidate. If they won their case, the remedy often required the state to create an additional majority-minority district, even though Section 2 formally says it does not create a right to proportional representation.

In its recent Louisiana v. Callais ruling the Court held that Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and that Section 2 did not require Louisiana to draw it. The Court majority said that Voting Rights Act compliance can be a compelling interest only when Section 2 is properly construed, and it tightened the Gingles test by requiring race-neutral illustrative maps, closer adherence to state districting goals such as compactness, incumbency protection, and partisan objectives, and evidence separating racial bloc voting from ordinary partisan voting.

The practical effect is that plaintiffs can no longer easily say, “Here is a compact majority-minority district; therefore, the state must draw it.” After Callais, they must show that the alternative map satisfies the state’s nonracial redistricting criteria, that the voting polarization is racial rather than merely partisan, and that the totality of circumstances points to present-day legally relevant discrimination rather than mainly historical disadvantage.

A “majority-minority district” is one in which a racial minority (blacks, Asian, Hispanics, etc.) constitute a majority of the voters. The presumption seems to be that, for example, only (or mostly) blacks will vote for a black candidate. That is clearly a racist view. Barack Obama, for example, was elected President of the United States by a majority of white voters.

I am really shocked at how overtly racist the opposition to the court’s decision is. “’Unfortunately, we are talking about rolling back to an era of Jim Crow, and I don’t believe I’m overstating that,’ Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights project, But Jim Crow laws were used to segregate blacks and whites. Majority-minority districts move in the same direction. The court’s weakening of the arguments for such districts is the opposite of a Jim Crow law. Voters are motivated by many things, but I have more confidence than does Ms. Lakin in voters choosing the candidate they think best and most effectively supports the policies they support, whether the voter is black, white, or yellow whatever the color of the candidate.

“House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the law was ‘largely gone,’ telling reporters the decision was ‘designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of choice.’” Good grief.

Here is an excellent discussion of this issue: “The supreme court’s vote ruling empowers minorities”

National Science Foundation

On Friday, April 24, President Trump fired all 24 members of the National Science Foundation Board without saying why their staggered six year terms were not honored. Unlike executive branch departments, such as Treasury, Defense (now called Dept of War), Education, etc., which rightly should reflect the policy preferences of the President, the NSF, like the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, was carefully designed to be nonpartisan for good reason. A Forbes article by John Drake nicely explains the purpose of such design.

“Most people outside the research enterprise have never heard of the NSB, so it’s worth saying what it is. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 created NSF with two heads: a director and a board. Jointly they set the strategic direction of an agency that now distributes roughly $9 billion annually in federal research funding, approve its budget submissions, and authorize new major programs. The board’s members are nominated for their distinguished records in science, engineering, education, and public affairs, drawn from industry and universities, and confirmed to staggered six-year terms so that scientific research priorities are set by the long arc of scientific progress rather than the election cycle. The statute requires that members be chosen “solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service.”

“That last phrase is the one I keep returning to.

“American scientist, inventor and administrator Vannevar Bush (1890 – 1974), whose ‘differential analyser’ was a forerunner of the computer, served as director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development throughout World War II and authored an influential report that led to the founding of the National Science Foundation. More American scientific preeminence is often discussed as if it were a product of talent or funding. It is really a product of institutions, the unglamorous architecture of boards, charters, terms of service, peer review and statutory independence that the postwar generation built deliberately. The structure traces to Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report Science, the Endless Frontier, which argued that federal science required governance insulated from political pressure and stability of support beyond any single budget cycle. The five-year fight to translate Bush’s vision into law turned largely on questions of independence and accountability, and the staggered six-year terms were part of the resulting compromise. Six-year terms exist for a reason. Staggered appointments exist for a reason. “Solely on the basis of distinguished service” is in the founding statute for a reason.

“The board’s function has been contested before, but always on the existing terms. As recently as 2022, scholars were debating how to modernize the board’s role, proposing to reduce its management duties and make NSF look more like other federal agencies. But other federal agencies are precisely the ones most exposed to political control. Their leaders serve at the pleasure of the president. Their priorities shift with each administration. The whole reason NSF’s structure is unusual is that the postwar designers did not want science funding to work that way. Even the would-be reformers recognized this: they proposed keeping the board’s staggered terms and statutory independence intact.

“These structures depend on a shared understanding, across administrations and across parties, that some institutions are worth preserving even when they constrain you. When that understanding lapses, the structures themselves do not survive long.

“On May 5, the National Science Board is scheduled to meet. There is no agenda, and at the moment, no board. That absence is the thing worth attending to, beyond the news of any particular firing. The question is not who sits on the board. The question is whether the kind of board the 1950 Act envisioned still exists in practice, and what American science looks like if it does not.” 2026/04/25/ “Trump fired the entire national science board-here’s why that matters”

At a minimum, when the President takes such action, the public should be given an explanation for why he thought it was justified. Ideally such a dramatic step should be preceded by a public discussion of the pros and cons of doing so.  This is not Trump’s style.

It my opinion Elon Musk’s DOGE downsizing of government (9% reduction in Federal employees before some had to be rehired and reducing the federal budget by claimed savings between roughly 160–215 billion dollars, counting job cuts, contract and lease cancellations, asset sales, and grant reductions) did more harm than good. Musk initially talked about cutting “at least 2 trillion dollars” from the federal budget, later revising goals down to around 1 trillion and then still lower, but actual savings fell far short of any of those targets.

A CBS‑covered analysis by a nonpartisan research group estimated that while DOGE claimed about 160 billion dollars in gross savings, its actions would also impose roughly 135 billion dollars in additional costs in the same fiscal year (for example through deferred‑resignation pay, disruption, and lost enforcement/revenue), implying a net savings nearer 25 billion dollars in that window.

But the real tragedy is that the opportunity to carefully evaluate and publicly debate whether government agencies were performing beneficial functions and doing so as efficiently as possible was totally missed. I offer the example of USAID, with whom I have worked both as a contractor and across the table as a collaborator. In my experience they have done an outstanding job serving America’s foreign policy interests:  https://wcoats.blog/2025/02/17/usaid/

The Trump administration has not operated in the traditional manor of our best (or even mediocre) Presidents. Even Kings are usually more careful in justifying and explaining their dictates.

Gerrymandering

The United States has flourished and grown to almost the highest GDP per capital in the world (exceeded only by tiny Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ireland, Singapore, and Iceland) because of the individual freedom of its citizens to act in their own interest and whose property and freedoms are protected by a government to which they gave limited powers. Historically individuals only had the rights and freedoms handed down to them by their Kings/rulers.

The preservation of the rule of law under our Constitution is essential for our continued flourishing. It is eroding.

The U.S. House of Representatives has 430 members of which currently 217 are Republicans and 212 are Democrats (one is independent). These numbers have changed slightly because of recent “resignations.” The number of representatives from each state depends on its population at the end of each decade’s Census. Each state is geographically divided into the number of congressional districts matching its number of representatives. While states may approach the drawing of its congressional districts in its own way, there are some criteria that must be observed.

1. Federal Mandatory Criteria

These rules apply to every state, regardless of their internal policies:

  • Equal Population: Based on the principle of “one person, one vote,” districts must be as nearly equal in population as practicable. This is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and upheld by Supreme Court cases like Wesberry v. Sanders.
  • Race and Ethnicity (The Voting Rights Act): Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, districts cannot be drawn in a way that dilutes the voting power of racial or language minorities. In some cases, this requires the creation of “majority-minority” districts.

2. Traditional Districting Principles

Most states also follow “traditional” principles to keep districts logical and representative. These vary by state law:

  • Contiguity: All parts of a district must be physically connected. You shouldn’t have to leave the district to get to another part of it.
  • Compactness: Districts should be geographically “tight” rather than sprawling or having jagged, “finger-like” extensions (though this is frequently debated in court).
  • Respect for Political Subdivisions: Mapmakers often try to avoid splitting counties, cities, or towns between multiple districts.
  • Communities of Interest: This is the effort to keep groups with shared social, economic, or cultural interests together so they have a unified voice in Congress.

If district lines are drawn to concentrate likely Republican or Democrat voters into one or a few districts, their voting strength in other districts would be reduced. In this way the likely number of Republican or Democrat representatives from the state can often be increased or decreased, a practice known as gerrymandering. Such political concentration has also favored the election of candidates with more extreme views within their party hollowing out the center.

 “Ordinarily, states draw new congressional lines once every 10 years, at the start of the decade when they receive new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year, Trump pressed Republican-led states to break with that tradition and gerrymander their districts to help his party maintain its narrow control of the House.

“The push resulted in better lines for the GOP in five districts in Texas, two in Ohio and one each in Missouri and North Carolina. Democrats responded by persuading voters to approve new maps that would give Democrats the edge in five seats in California and four in Virginia.”  Washington Post  Redistricting in Virginia

While I have been a free market, limited government Republican all my life until Trump’s first campaign in 2016, I was not willing to vote for him and changed my party to Libertarian. Given my disappointment with the Republican Party’s unwillingness to use its constitutional authority to vote on tariffs and war among other things, I am hopeful that the Democrats will take control of Congress in the midterm elections later this year. None the less I voted No on Virginia’s referendum on a midterm redistricting that is expected to give Democrats 4 additional seats in the House. Why? Gaining House seats by questionable (The Supreme Court may reverse all of this) mid-decade redistricting rather than by convincing voters to change their votes diminishes the rule of law I so strongly defend.

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) reacted with dismay Tuesday evening when informed during an appearance on NewsNation’s “Cuomo” that a Democratic redistricting initiative had passed in Virginia, declaring, “We all lose at this point.”

“Even The Washington Post has said the ‘yes’ campaign is, in their words, brazenly dishonest.”  David Weigel, Semafor