Tag Archives: history

Nine-Eleven: Forever Etched Upon the American Psyche Redux ’26

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

This legacy post originally appeared in this space on September 7, 2011, commenting on the 10th Anniversary of Nine-Eleven. It was re-purposed and presented September 11, 2013, September 13, 2017, September 12, 2018, September 11, 2019, September 8, 2021 (20th Anniversary), September 14, 2022, September 13, 2023, September 11, 2024, September 10, 2025, and today, September 9, 2026 (25th Anniversary).

As I re-post this vintage edition, I am reminded that every September, the American calendar pauses before a date that is more than a marker of time. In a couple of days, we will observe Nine-Eleven. September 11 is an open wound, a civics lesson, and a recurring summons to remember. Twenty-five years, a quarter century after the attacks of 2001, Nine-Eleven remains forever etched upon the American psyche because it was not merely an assault on buildings, airplanes, or institutions. It was an assault on the country’s sense of itself: its confidence, its assumptions of distance from foreign violence, and its expectation that ordinary mornings would remain ordinary.

The horror unfolded with stunning compression. In the span of roughly eighty-one minutes, hijacked aircraft transformed familiar places into scenes of devastation: the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The official death toll of the attacks stands at 2,977 victims, not including the 19 hijackers, while thousands more were injured or left to carry the physical, emotional, and psychological consequences of that day. The number 2,997, often cited when the hijackers are included, captures the total dead on the day itself, but it still cannot measure the human breadth of the loss.

Those numbers are chilling because each one represents a life interrupted: passengers and crew members, office workers, military and civilian personnel at the Pentagon, firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and bystanders whose final acts were folded into a national memory of shock and sacrifice. The losses at the World Trade Center were especially staggering, including hundreds of first responders who entered danger while others were trying to escape. Cantor Fitzgerald lost more employees than any other employer, and the painstaking work of identifying remains continued for years, a reminder that grief after Nine-Eleven did not end when the fires stopped burning.

America’s response was immediate, emotional, and structural. Congress designated September 11 as Patriot Day through Public Law 107-89, asking that the flag be flown at half-staff and that a moment of silence honor those killed. Later, the observance also became associated with a National Day of Service and Remembrance, shifting the day from mere recollection toward purposeful action. The symbolism matters: a nation wounded by spectacular violence chose not only to mourn, but also to serve.

Institutionally, Nine-Eleven remade the architecture of American security. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 marked one of the most consequential reorganizations of the federal government in modern history. Its mission drew together counterterrorism, border security, immigration and customs enforcement, cybersecurity, transportation security, and disaster preparedness under a new umbrella. The change reflected a transformed worldview: security was no longer imagined primarily as something maintained overseas; it became something practiced daily at airports, ports, public buildings, digital networks, and ordinary civic spaces.

The attacks also propelled the United States into the long era of the Global War on Terror. Afghanistan became the first major battlefield after U.S., British, and coalition forces began military operations in October 2001. Iraq followed, and the struggle against terrorism reshaped diplomacy, defense policy, intelligence gathering, civil liberties debates, and the daily lives of service members and their families. The war in Afghanistan ultimately became the longest war in American history, ending for U.S. forces in 2021 after two decades of shifting strategy, sacrifice, frustration, and unresolved questions about what victory can mean in such conflicts.

Nine-Eleven also changed the way Americans spoke about vulnerability. Before the attacks, many citizens understood terrorism as something that happened elsewhere, in distant capitals or contested regions. Afterward, the nation absorbed the knowledge that oceans, military power, intelligence networks, and national confidence could not guarantee immunity. The result was a more guarded America: more vigilant, more suspicious, more prepared, and at times more divided over the proper balance between security and liberty.

Yet the story of Nine-Eleven is not only about injury or fear. It is also about the human instinct to respond. In New York, Arlington, Pennsylvania, and communities across the nation, people donated blood, searched for the missing, comforted strangers, raised families without loved ones, entered military service, volunteered in civic life, and kept telling the stories of those who died. The passengers and crew of Flight 93, who resisted the hijackers and prevented their aircraft from reaching its intended target, remain part of the nation’s moral vocabulary because they demonstrated courage under conditions no one should have to face.

More than two decades later, the absence of another Nine-Eleven-scale attack on U.S. soil is significant, but it should not be mistaken for closure. Prevention has involved vigilance, intelligence work, public awareness, and sometimes simple fortune. At the same time, the long aftermath has included illnesses among first responders and survivors, unresolved trauma, political conflict over war powers and surveillance, and the enduring obligation to remember the victims as people rather than statistics.

It would be irresponsible to tell this story without noting breaking new information. On the eve of the eve of this twenty-fifth anniversary, another hard truth entered the public record. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration released more than 170,000 pages of post-Nine-Eleven air-quality documents suggesting that officials knew conditions around Ground Zero were unsafe even as residents, workers, and responders were reassured that the air was safe to breathe (ABC News; The Guardian). Possible motivations were painfully clear: to restore confidence, reopen Lower Manhattan, project governmental control, speed economic recovery, and limit legal exposure, a concern reflected in reporting on internal city discussions about liability (ABC News; CBS New York). Yet the impacts were profound. People returned too soon; many worked without adequate protection; trust in public assurances was damaged; and illnesses linked to the dust, smoke, asbestos, and toxins of Ground Zero became part of the lasting casualty list of Nine-Eleven (CDC World Trade Center Health Program; National September 11 Memorial & Museum). This revelation does not diminish the heroism of that day. It deepens the moral obligation to tell the whole truth about what followed.

That is why every effort should be made to resist allowing Patriot Day to become routine. If remembrance becomes only ceremony, it risks flattening grief into ritual. If service becomes only a slogan, it risks losing the deeper meaning of civic repair. The better observance is one that holds several truths at once: the attacks were evil; the losses were unbearable; the response was courageous; the consequences were complicated; and the duty to remember belongs not only to those who lived through the day, but also to generations who inherited its world.

On this twenty-fifth anniversary, Nine-Eleven remains a day America will never forget because it changed how the nation sees danger, sacrifice, government, war, and community. It taught, brutally, that history can turn in a single morning. It also taught that remembrance is not passive. To remember well is to honor the dead, tell the truth about the costs, support those still living with the aftermath, and recommit to the work of building a country worthy of the lives it mourns. That is the enduring charge of Nine-Eleven: never forget, but also never stop serving.

In summary, Nine-Eleven endures as both memory and mandate: a day of devastating loss, national awakening, institutional transformation, and continuing responsibility. Its meaning is found not only in the statistics, the wars, or the policy changes that followed, but also in the lives remembered, the service rendered, and the civic obligation to remain vigilant without surrendering compassion, community, or democratic purpose. ”Nine-Eleven: Forever Etched Upon the American Psyche Redux ’26!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by visiting http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page, enter your email address in the designated space, and click “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your inbox.
For further reading and research, consider:
• National September 11 Memorial & Museum — official memorial, museum, educational resources, and stories of remembrance.
• Britannica: September 11 Attacks Facts — concise factual background, casualty figures, and historical context.
• HISTORY: 9/11 Timeline — a chronology of the attacks as events unfolded on September 11, 2001.
• Department of Homeland Security: History — official background on the creation and mission of DHS after 9/11.
• ABC News — reporting on New York City’s release of post-9/11 air-quality records and the Harding Memo.
• The Guardian — reporting on Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s release of more than 170,000 pages of municipal records.
• CDC World Trade Center Health Program — background on 9/11 toxins, exposure pathways, and health impacts.
• National September 11 Memorial & Museum: Illness and Advocacy After 9/11 — 

Nine-Eleven: Forever Etched Upon the American Psyche Redux ’26

*This formulation of this post was augmented by the use of AI.

Laura Loomer’s Degrading Attacks Deserve More Than Condemnation: Let’s See How That Goes

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Laura Loomer’s recent attacks on Florida Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon and other Black women in public life were not simply ugly politics. They were an attempt to belittle, degrade, and strip accomplished public officials of dignity by reducing them to racist and sexist caricatures. Reports said Loomer targeted Nixon, U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley, former Rep. Cori Bush, and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with language that fused racial contempt, gender abuse, and crude stereotypes into a single performance of dehumanization. She described the five women as “ghetto, entitled, race-obsessed, destructive Black b—hes” and claimed they were unfit for the power they hold.

The distinction of fusing those elements matters. Calling the episode “controversial” is accurate but is also far too mild. Loomer’s rhetoric was degrading because it did not argue with these women’s records, ideas, votes, or judicial reasoning. It attacked their humanity. It relied on familiar anti-Black tropes meant to portray Black women as disorderly, unintelligent, angry, or unworthy of authority. The goal was not persuasion; it was humiliation. In that sense, the language functioned less like political commentary and more like a public attempt to put Black women “back in their place.”

Loomer’s criticism appears to have been sparked in part by Nixon’s opposition to resolutions honoring conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Nixon had argued that Kirk’s remarks about Black people were harmful and that honoring him risked validating white supremacist politics. Loomer could have answered that argument with evidence, context, or political disagreement. Instead, she chose degradation. By escalating from a public policy dispute to racialized insult, she revealed how quickly some political actors abandon debate when a Black woman asserts moral authority.

Nixon’s response was notable because she refused to accept the terms of the attack. She insisted on being addressed by her elected title, a demand that cut to the heart of the matter. Loomer’s rhetoric was designed to deny status, seriousness, and legitimacy. Nixon’s insistence on “Representative” restored the basic fact that she is not a prop in someone else’s spectacle. She is an elected official, a Senate candidate, and possibly the first Black person to represent Florida in the U.S. Senate. 

However, when Nixon told Loomer to address her as “Representative,” Loomer responded with another racial stereotype. She escalated the exchange, invoking “Ebonics” and telling Nixon she might need to bark at her and tug her leash for the lawmaker to understand. Moreover, Loomer continued attacking Nixon and on Sunday said she stood by her remarks.

The backlash exposed a political line so blatant that at least one figure not known for delicate rhetoric felt compelled to condemn it. Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene rejected Loomer’s comments as hateful and racist. 

Meanwhile Maryland Gov. Wes Moore accused Loomer of turning racism into a business model for attention and clicks. Those responses underscored the central problem: when racism is packaged as provocation, it can become profitable, repeatable, and politically useful unless people across the spectrum refuse to normalize it.

Loomer’s refusal to apologize made the degradation even clearer. A sincere critic might clarify, retract, or reconsider. Loomer instead, using the classic Trump model, amplified, using similarly themed remarks and continuing the exchange, treating the outrage itself as proof of relevance. That is the machinery of modern political cruelty: say something demeaning, wait for condemnation, then claim victimhood or free-speech martyrdom while the original targets absorb the cost. Black women are expected to endure the insult, answer it with poise, and then continue governing as if the attack were just another day online.

That expectation is precisely why the episode deserves more than a passing rebuke. Loomer’s rhetoric was not merely rude, excessive, or politically incorrect. It was degrading in its purpose and dehumanizing in its effect. It attempted to convert Black women’s public leadership into an object of ridicule. Nixon’s answer points toward the only adequate response: name the racism, reject the spectacle, and insist that public life cannot function if racial and sexist humiliation is treated as entertainment. Condemnation is necessary, but it is not nearly enough, unless it is paired with a refusal to reward the conduct that made the condemnation necessary in the first place. “Laura Loomer’s Degrading Attacks Deserve More Than Condemnation: Let’s See How That Goes!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches. Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Laura Loomer’s Degrading Attacks Deserve More Than Condemnation: Let’s See How That Goes

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Obama Played the Inexperience Card (Edition X)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s time to Break It Down!

Note: This is a reprised, amended, and expanded presentation of my original blog post, a version of which I have subsequently shared eight times.

Happy 19th Anniversary “Break It Down!”

Today, in acknowledgment of another anniversary of this publication, as I have often done in years past, I am revisiting my inaugural post.

Before launching into that post, it is only fitting to add a little context. My original blog entry centered on a young lion named Barack Obama, then still emerging on the national stage, moving toward what would, for all practical purposes, become his era.

Tempus fugit—time flies. Today marks a significant milestone in the life and development of “Break It Down!” I began this blog on August 20, 2007, on something close to a lark—almost a dare. That was exactly nineteen years and 990 editions ago, come tomorrow. Since I have told the backstory several times over the years, I will spare readers the full recounting today.

What I will note, however, is that on that summer evening I spent five paragraphs considering the experience—or, more accurately, the perceived lack of it—of then Senator Barack Obama as he navigated the early stages of his historic presidential campaign.

In a nutshell, Post #1 consisted of five brisk paragraphs and a sign-off:

“In an apparent, calculated act of derring-do, Obama declares the virtue of inexperience. Gotta love it!

Personal footnote of recollection: I remember Jimmy Carter running the classic “anti-Washington” campaign in 1975–76—one built, in part, around his lack of Capitol Hill experience. And you know what? It worked.

The problem was that once President Carter sent many of the reigning bureaucrats and policy wonks home, he was left with an assembly of newcomers who did not fully understand how to get things done in Washington. 

The result was that a very smart man, a genuine humanitarian, and an otherwise successful leader presided over what was widely perceived at the time as a disastrous presidency. His single term was fraught with serious challenges—the Shah of Iran, double-digit inflation, runaway gas prices, and the outrageous interest-rate and mortgage morass—as well as public-relations gaffes, from the infamous killer rabbit story to the failed helicopter rescue attempt.

Fortunately for former President Carter, he lived long enough and did enough good work after leaving office to distance himself from much of that unremarkable one-term tenure, which ended with a resounding defeat at the hands of the cowboy actor, the Teflon guy.”

Of course, none of that had anything directly to do with Obama—except in the unlikely event that he prevailed. If he did, I wrote, let us hope he would not take the inexperience thing too far. As President George W. Bush constantly reminded us, getting to the White House is one thing; providing prudent and effective leadership once there is quite another. In hindsight, of course, we know President Obama not only prevailed but went on to win re-election and serve a second term.

As we are now endeavoring to navigate a sometimes tortuous and always unpredictable second year of 45/47’s second term—separated from his first term by Joe Biden’s solo run—we are buffeted by the collective exigencies of the TACO tariff policy, the Day 1 Promise Series, the mass-immigration morass, trying on new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh who will wrap up his first Quarter in office within the week, the continued broadside attacks on the Smithsonian museums, especially the National Museum of African American History and Culture, constant efforts to deflect attention from the infamous so-called Epstein Files, the circuitous saga of installing a new Attorney General and former (or current personal counsel) Todd Blanche, the now you see him, now you don’t fiasco of hiding POTUS in a catering truck, only to ensconce him on a “third” plane, while leaving the press corps and several staffers on the erstwhile Air Force-1, which in effect, was temporarily reduced to a decoy plane, and finally, traversing Mr. Trump’s war-of-choice with Iran and the quest to determine if the Strait of Hormuz will ever again be open again, as it was before Trump joined Netanyahu in a launching an attack on Iran. It is enough to make one say, “Where is Obama when you need him?” I kid, I kid.

Barack Obama, whom many Democrats—and even some Republicans—regard as a sterling orator, won wide acclaim more than two decades ago, in 2004, when he addressed the Democratic National Convention in Boston. At the time, he was an aspiring U.S. Senate candidate, fresh off an unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary. That victory catapulted him into rising-star status within Democratic Party circles, and he leveraged that newfound celebrity into a speaking role at the 2004 convention, where he delivered in spectacular fashion. He went on to win his Senate race in Illinois and served four years before mounting his successful 2008 presidential campaign.

For context, here is how national news outlets framed the Democratic presidential campaign on August 20, 2007:

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Debate in Iowa

Obama posits virtue of inexperience: What rivals criticized as naiveté; he presented as a break from the status quo.

At that Iowa debate, Obama attempted to turn his perceived lack of national experience into a strength. Challenged by rivals over his readiness and recent foreign-policy comments, he argued that Washington experience alone had not prevented the country from making grave mistakes. “Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney,” Obama said, pointing to those who had helped lead the nation into the Iraq War. His broader point was that conventional thinking had become a habit in Washington—and that habit, he suggested, was part of the problem.

Senator Christopher Dodd countered that a president would not have time to get ready after taking office. Former Senator John Edwards, while acknowledging that Obama’s views added something to the debate, warned against airing hypothetical solutions to serious foreign-policy problems. Obama, for his part, held firm: experience mattered, but judgment mattered too.

Reflecting now on the 2008 campaign, I am struck again by how swiftly time and events pass. I am reminded, especially, of how a supremely confident senator from Illinois approached his moment. That moment propelled me to write the words, “Obama Played the Inexperience Card!” In the years since, he has gained an enormous amount of experience—political, presidential, historical, and otherwise. “Obama Played the Inexperience Card – Edition X!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches.Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Obama Played the Inexperience Card (Edition X)

This post was augmented by AI.

A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Reports published this week described an unusual security operation surrounding President Trump’s departure from Ankara, Turkey, after last month’s NATO summit. The public-facing story began normally: cameras saw Trump enter an older Air Force One (AF-1) aircraft, and journalists and some staff members believed they were traveling on the same plane as the president. Behind that familiar departure ritual, however, officials reportedly carried out a carefully staged diversion that moved him onto a third aircraft before the flight left Turkey.

The reported ruse, which one outlet dubbed “Three Plane Monty, centered on misdirection. Trump had arrived in Turkey on a newer, Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8 that had been adapted for presidential use. But before leaving Ankara he announced that he would use an older AF-1 aircraft instead, describing the choice as being “for old time’s sake.” That explanation implied the switch was sentimental or logistical rather than urgent. 

The older jet then became the visible stage for the deception: it was positioned for departure. Press and staff were aboard, and Trump entered it in full view of cameras.

According to reporting, the key move happened only after Trump boarded the decoy aircraft. A catering truck, the kind normally used to load meals and supplies onto planes, was positioned on the far side of the jet, away from the cameras’ main view. Through that ordinary-looking service vehicle, the president was reportedly moved out of sight and transported to a different aircraft, later identified in reports as an Air Force C-32A, a military version of the Boeing 757. That third plane—not the older AF-1 that the public and press believed he was using—carried him from Ankara to Royal Air Force Mildenhall in the United Kingdom.

That visible performance mattered because the ruse depended on more than moving the president from one aircraft to another. It required everyone watching to believe the ordinary sequence of presidential travel was unfolding exactly as expected.

The reason for the deception, according to news reports, was a credible threat tied to Iran and allied proxies. U.S. officials were said to have been concerned that adversaries might deploy a Surface-to-Air (SAM) to target the aircraft believed to be carrying the president as it left Turkey. 

By allowing observers to believe Trump was aboard the older AF-1 while placing him on a separate military jet, security planners reduced the risk that any hostile actor could confidently identify his actual location. In that sense, the ruse was less about secrecy for its own sake than about creating uncertainty at a moment when certainty could have been dangerous.

The operation also reportedly left some people on the decoy aircraft unaware of the switch. Journalists and certain White House staff members traveled on the older AF-1 believing Trump was onboard. Reports said press cabin window shades were kept closed, reinforcing the controlled environment around the movement. 

The deception allegedly continued even after the separate aircraft landed. Before deplaning, Trump was returned to AF-1, allowing passengers on the decoy flight to remain unaware that he had not actually traveled with them. That final step made the operation more complete: the ruse did not end once the third plane was airborne but continued until the normal appearance of presidential travel could be restored. If accurate, that detail illustrates how presidential security can rely not only on armored vehicles, secure communications, and military aircraft, but also on ordinary-looking objects and routine airport procedures.

Some aboard the decoy flight reportedly did not realize that the president was absent, because the transfer had been concealed. Once the details emerged, the reaction was a mix of surprise, curiosity, and recognition that the secrecy had been deliberate rather than accidental. 

For journalists in particular, the episode underscored how limited a view even the traveling press corps may have during sensitive security movements: they can witness the visible ceremony of departure while remaining unaware of the operational decisions taking place just out of sight.

Public discussion of the episode has focused on both the seriousness of the threat and the sensitivity of revealing such protective methods. Officials quoted in news reports expressed frustration that classified tactics had entered public view, warning that disclosure could make similar operations harder in the future. That reaction echoed concerns expressed after initial reports emerged that security concerns has caused ditching the Qatari-gifted plane in favor of a previous AF-1. The Trump Administration DOJ issued and subsequently rescinded subpoenas targeting The New York Times reporters for security leaks. The current response was more of the same.

The incident offered a rare glimpse into the layered nature of presidential travel security. The visible aircraft, the stated explanation, the press arrangements, the service truck, the third plane, and the return to Air Force One all formed parts of a single deception plan. The result was a departure that appeared routine from one angle but, according to the reporting, was designed to conceal the president’s true route until the illusion was no longer needed.

At the highest level, the operation was a success. The President was unscathed, and protecting POTUS is always critical at all costs. The press corps and anyone else traveling in a Presidential Party does so with full knowledge that they may be subject to heightened danger. Most, however, do not expect to be used as a decoy, and/or placed in that position unknowingly. One could certainly make the case that by traveling on AF-1, an aircraft designed with a plethora of defensive and offensive capabilities, the journalists and staff members were best positioned to survive an enemy assault, should one have come. Still, to place the working press, and even administration staff (presuming they didn’t know either) in that position unknowingly, is in a word, unseemly. Of course, considering Trump sees much of the media as the enemy of the people, it doesn’t exactly land as a surprise. “A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches.

A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away

This post was augmented by AI.

The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

Posted on by
1

BREAK IT DOWN!

The controversy surrounding Rep. Max Miller has become a revealing dilemma for Republicans: how to balance loyalty, political survival, and the hard limits of Trump-era defiance. Miller, an Ohio Republican and former aide to Donald Trump, is facing intense pressure over allegations made by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno. Miller has denied wrongdoing, but the accusations have triggered calls for him to leave Congress and abandon his reelection campaign. The dispute has also drawn in Trump himself, whose public sympathy and private political realism point in different directions.

Publicly, Trump has avoided an outright break with Miller. Asked about the allegations, he described Miller as a good person and framed the matter as a painful family dispute. Privately, however, multiple reports said Trump phoned Miller and warned that his political position had deteriorated. According to accounts of the call, Trump told Miller that the race would be difficult and that he was not sure Miller would be able to pull it out. That warning sharpened the dilemma: Trump could stand by a loyal ally and risk a damaged seat or acknowledge that loyalty does not always translate into electability.

Miller’s response deepened the dilemma rather than resolving it. In a CNN interview, Miller said he reminded Trump of the resilience Trump showed in 2016, when many political observers believed his campaign could collapse after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. Trump refused to quit, weathered the scandal, and went on to win the presidency as the 45th president of the United States. Miller’s point was clear: if Trump could survive a moment that seemed politically fatal, Miller argued, then he too should not be expected to retreat simply because party leaders feared the consequences.

The comparison is politically useful for Miller, but it is also risky. Trump’s 2016 survival became a central myth of his movement: never apologize, never retreat, and trust that supporters will filter scandal through partisan loyalty. By invoking that example, Miller is trying to cast his own refusal to step aside as strength rather than stubbornness. He has insisted that his constituents know him better than national commentators do, and he has argued that the race will be decided locally rather than by pressure from Washington, cable news, or the extended Moreno family feud.

Still, Miller’s situation is not simply a matter of campaign grit. Republicans reportedly fear that keeping him on the ballot could place an otherwise winnable Ohio seat at risk. The deadline for replacing him has added urgency to the pressure campaign. If Miller withdraws in time, party leaders could seek another nominee; if he stays, the party may be forced to defend a candidate under a harsh spotlight. That explains why Trump’s private warning carried such significance. It suggested not a moral judgment, but a hard political calculation: Miller might be loyal, but loyalty does not guarantee electability.

The episode captures a familiar tension in Republican politics. Trump’s brand rewards defiance, yet Republican strategists still worry about swing voters, suburban discomfort, and the down-ballot consequences of scandal. Miller is betting that the Trump model of endurance remains transferable. His critics are betting that this case is different, and that allegations involving family violence cannot be absorbed through partisan messaging alone. Whether Miller’s invocation of 2016 proves shrewd or self-defeating will depend on whether voters see him as resilient, reckless, or simply too damaged to continue.

For now, the imbroglio has turned Miller’s campaign into more than one Ohio House race. It has become a dilemma about how far the Trump model of political survival can be stretched. When Trump told Miller winning would be difficult, Miller answered with Trump’s own biography: the Access Hollywood tape, the calls to quit, the refusal to leave, and the eventual victory. It was in effect, the ultimate “Be like Trump retort. 

Miller’s repeated refrain is, he is not leaving the race; he is confident he will win. Regardless of whether he is that confident, or he has picked the ironic moment to be a poseur and engage in classic Trumpian bluster, that answer forces members of the Grand Old Party to choose between two lessons from the Trump era: never surrender under pressure or recognize when damage to a candidate may damage the party as well. “The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.” 

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Miller_(politician)

The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

The Color of Free Speech in America

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

On July 4, 250 members of the Patriot Front marched through the streets of Washington, D.C. One poignant photo captured by Reuters photographer Cheney Orr featured a young (unidentified) Black woman in a DC train car, loaded with masked members of the White Supremist group. She did not avert her eyes. Rather she sat in solemnity amid the cowards who refused to reveal their faces…ostensibly because they may be your neighbor, your relative, your boss, or perhaps, even your subordinate. The Trump administration has not condemned this act, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called the march an expression of free speech.

Considering that Trump and the GOP have promoted recent efforts to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, weaken the Voting Rights Act, and challenge majority-Black voting districts, characterizing a White Supremacist march as free speech is, well, special. 

The strategies, if you want to call the march a strategy, may appear to belong to different worlds. One is a street demonstration by an openly white nationalist organization; the others involve formal politics, litigation, legislation, and administrative policy. Yet comparing them reveals an important tension in American public life: extremist movements often express racial hierarchy in blunt symbolic terms, while mainstream political actors can pursue race-conscious outcomes through the language of colorblindness, institutional neutrality, or anti-discrimination.

Patriot Front’s march was explicit theater. Reports described masked members carrying Confederate flags, chanting “Reclaim America,” and presenting themselves as defenders of a supposedly endangered national identity. The group has been identified by civil rights monitors and news organizations as white supremacist and anti-immigrant. Its message depends on spectacle: uniforms, flags, synchronized movement, and the occupation of symbolic space on Independence Day. The point is not merely to argue policy but to project intimidation and belonging—who counts as “real” America and who does not.

By contrast, Republican opposition to DEI, race-conscious voting protections, and Black-majority districts is usually framed in institutional and legal terms. DEI programs are criticized as unfair preferences or ideological bureaucracy. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is challenged as an improper use of race in districting. Majority-Black districts are described by opponents as racial gerrymanders rather than remedies for vote dilution. This position presents itself as a defense of equal treatment: government, schools, and employers should not classify people by race, even for remedial purposes.

The contrast, then, is one of style, legitimacy, and mechanism, but January 6, 2021, complicates the boundary between symbolic politics and political violence. Patriot Front operates outside the mainstream and uses openly exclusionary symbolism. GOP policy arguments operate through courts, state legislatures, school boards, executive orders, and agency rules. Yet the attack on the U.S. Capitol showed how claims about a stolen election, when amplified by political leaders and accepted by organized supporters, can move from speech into coercive action. The First Amendment protects protest, assembly, petitioning government, and even harsh or offensive political expression; it does not protect violence, true threats, or incitement directed toward imminent lawless action. That is of course, unless the President of the United States opts to grant clemency to roughly 1600 convicted January 6th defendants, which Trump did by signing Presidential Proclamation 10887, on his first day in office, January 20, 2025. The vast majority received full pardons, while there were 14 commutations, and several hundred dismissals of pending prosecutions.  

This First Amendment distinction is essential to the comparison. Patriot Front members have a constitutional right to march and express hateful views so long as they do not engage in violence, targeted intimidation, or unlawful conduct. Likewise, Republicans have a constitutional right to argue that DEI programs are unfair, that race-conscious districting is unconstitutional, or that voting-rights law has gone too far. But constitutional protection for speech does not settle the moral or democratic consequences of that speech. The question is not simply whether a march, slogan, lawsuit, or campaign message is legally permitted. It is whether the protected expression is being used to expand democratic participation or to normalize the exclusion of disfavored groups from equal citizenship.

Moreover, the comparison becomes sharper when one looks at consequences rather than language. Eliminating DEI can reduce institutional efforts to address racial exclusion in hiring, education, contracting, and workplace culture. Weakening the Voting Rights Act makes it harder for Black voters to challenge maps that dilute their political power. Eliminating majority-Black districts can reduce Black representation, especially in Southern states where racially polarized voting remains significant. Even if the stated rationale is colorblindness, the practical effect likely results in preserving or restore existing racial disparities.

While that does not mean the GOP position and Patriot Front’s ideology are identical…it does demonstrate how they may achieve similar ends. It is important to distinguish a political party’s legal arguments from a white supremacist movement’s open racial nationalism. Many conservatives say they sincerely believe DEI programs are divisive and that race-based districting conflicts with equal protection principles. A democratic society must allow debate over how best to remedy discrimination. But the distinction in motive does not erase the overlap in effect when both approaches weaken tools designed to counter racial hierarchy.

The central difference is that Patriot Front dramatizes white grievance as an identity movement, while anti-DEI and anti-Voting Rights Act politics translate similar anxieties into policy. The central similarity is that both can narrow the meaning of equal citizenship. 

January 6 adds another warning: democratic speech becomes dangerous when it is used not to persuade voters, but to delegitimize votes, intimidate public officials, or overturn lawful political outcomes. One form of exclusion marches through the capital under white nationalist symbols; another dismantles institutions created to expand participation and representation; still another attacks the peaceful transfer of power while invoking constitutional freedom. In that sense, the issue is not only whether racism is shouted in the streets, argued in court, or defended as free expression. The deeper question is whether American democracy will protect the First Amendment while also defending the voting rights, representative districts, and civic remedies necessary to make equality real. The answer will go a long way in determining “The Color of Free Speech in America!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

The Color of Free Speech in America

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

America at 250: Celebration, Memory, and Debate

Posted on by
1

BREAK IT DOWN!

The famed O’Jays released a song in 1975 entitled Livin’ For The Weekend. It was arguably one of the R&B anthems for the Bicentennial, spending two weeks atop the Charts in 1976. As is the case this year, the holiday landed on the weekend (Sunday). This Saturday July 4, 2026,  United States will mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a milestone often called the semi-quincentennial. Like the centennial in 1876 and the bicentennial in 1976, the anniversary invites Americans to celebrate endurance: a republic that has survived civil war, economic depression, global conflict, social upheaval, and repeated tests of democratic institutions. The occasion naturally calls for fireworks, parades, public ceremonies, museum exhibits, and renewed attention to the founding ideals of liberty, equality, and self-government. Yet America’s 250th birthday is not only a party. It is also a national argument about memory, identity, and the meaning of patriotism.

The central promise of the anniversary is civic reflection. The Declaration’s claim that “all men are created equal” remains one of the most powerful statements in world history, even though the nation that adopted it tolerated slavery, excluded women from political rights, displaced Native peoples, and restricted citizenship for many groups. Over 250 years, Americans have repeatedly used the founding language to demand a fuller democracy. Abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights leaders, labor organizers, immigrants, veterans, and ordinary citizens have all appealed to the nation’s founding principles while insisting that those principles be made real. In that sense, the anniversary should honor both the founders’ achievement and the generations who challenged the country to live up to it.

That balance is where many controversies begin. Some Americans want the semi-quincentennial to emphasize unity, military strength, national pride, and gratitude for the country’s accomplishments. Others worry that a purely celebratory approach not only promotes selective history, but actually endeavors to re-write history, minimizing slavery, Indigenous dispossession, racial segregation, immigration struggles, and conflicts over civil liberties. Critics of official commemorations have argued that some events risk replacing historical complexity with patriotic spectacle, aka, in some circles, performative patriotism. Supporters answer that national anniversaries should inspire confidence rather than deepen division, and that excessive criticism can obscure the country’s extraordinary experiment in constitutional government. Odd that those supporters have no problem contesting the celebration of some of the elements that have clearly contributed to making America…America. Elements such as those highlighted in the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which the current administration has pushed to be scrubbed, DEI, which the administration has forcefully worked to roll back, the Voting Rights Act, which has been reduced to only a shell of its former iteration, don’t forget the indignities foisted upon Black Americans during the episode we now know as Juneteenth, and finally, one of the storylines of this week, Birthright Citizenship, which President Trump attempted to eliminate by Executive Order, but which was at least temporarily spared by virtue of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling.  

Another controversy involves politics. Although national birthday celebrations are usually presented as nonpartisan, the 250th anniversary has unfolded during a sharply polarized era. Disputes have arisen over who controls the official narrative, how public and private money is raised and spent, and whether major events are being used to promote a particular political leader or movement rather than the nation as a whole. Debates over competing organizations, donor transparency, and the tone of large public gatherings show that commemoration is never neutral. The way a country tells its story reveals what it values, what it fears, and whom it chooses to include.

A useful anniversary should do more than praise or condemn. It should create space for honest patriotism: love of country strong enough to celebrate achievement and mature enough to see failure. America’s 250th anniversary can be meaningful if it resists two temptations–the temptation to turn history into propaganda and the temptation to treat the nation’s flaws as its whole story. The United States has always been unfinished. Its founding ideals were imperfectly applied, but they also gave later generations a language for reform. To commemorate 250 years well is to recognize that democracy depends on memory, argument, participation, and renewal. The best birthday gift Americans can give their country is not unquestioning applause, but a renewed commitment to making its promises truer. Ready or not, Saturday is coming. “America at 250: Celebration, Memory, and Debate!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

America at 250: Celebration, Memory, and Debate

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Men’s Health: A Compelling Quality of Life Issue – Redux ’26

Posted on by
Reply

It’s time to Break It Down!

Today’s post revisits an edition I posted nearly 15 years ago, on June 29, 2011. The matter is as poignant now as it was then…and it was pressing at the time.

(Disclaimer: This post contains references that are graphic in nature, and which may be considered offensive; reader discretion is advised). It’s also long.

We welcomed the first day of summer Sunday, and in less than two weeks we will enter the much-vaunted dog days, a 40-day period running from July 3 to August 11, that typically comprises the hottest and most humid stretch of summer. June, however, is also Men’s Health Month; a time when there is an emphasis on raising awareness about preventable health problems, for which men and boys are encouraged to seek early detection and treatment. The initiative stresses the critical need for regular medical check-ups, proactive physical health and breaking the stigma surrounding mental health struggles.

One action step of particular importance is the Colonoscopy, which is the endoscopic test of the colon and the distal part of the small bowel with a camera.  The procedure is recommended for men over age 50, on a periodic basis; every 10 years if no irregularities are found, and more frequently if non-benign polyps or other issues arise during the test.  I have had severel, and they have been scheduled as a regular sequential step in my Annual Physical regimen, not from any kind of alert or scare.  That is as it should be.  

This is not intended to provide a by blow-by-blow of the procedure.  I am addressing this topic to provide a public service, based upon factors I have observed both anecdotally and from numerous data streams. Men in general and African American men in particular, are notorious for neglecting our health.  There are too many reasons to enumerate, but a few include:

·         Distrust of doctors (Some black men still routinely reference the Tuskegee Experiment)

·        Fear…of doctors, of medicine, of bad news, of pain, of surgery, of anesthesia, and of the  

       unknown 

·      Unawareness of early warning signs

·      No primary care provider

·      Lack of health care benefits (African Americans are more likely to be 

       Unemployed or Underemployed, and therefore less likely to have insurance)

·       Misplaced priorities (some men take better care of their homes and/or cars than 

      they do their personal health)

·       Good intentions; bad execution (Many of us “intend” to” schedule an appointment 

      to see a doctor, but don’t)

·       Procrastination (Delay, delay, delay)

·       Superman complex (The perception that one is young, healthy, and totally bullet 

      proof)

·       We are on a super-secret suicide mission (Not really; we just act like it)

Those are 10 of my own very unscientific, totally straight off the top of my head reasons.  After setting them to paper, I decided to look for an expert opinion…OK; I checked to see what a doctor thought.  Not surprisingly (to me anyway), there was a fair amount of overlap.  

Dr. Sharon Orrange, Assistant Professor of Clinical General Internal Medicine at the University of  Southern California has weighed in with what she believes are “The 10 Real Reasons Men Don’t Go to the Doctor.”  Since she actually practices medicine, I will allocate more weight to her opinion than mine…though keep in mind, I do have the inherent advantage of being a man.  Dr. Orrange’s 10most compelling (or real, as she puts it) reasons are:

1.     You are afraid we will pit our finger up your butt.  We will, especially if you are over 40 or have any complaints related to your bowel movements.  Yes, you get a rectal exam after the age of 40 once a year for a feel of your prostate and so we can check your stool for microscopic blood that you can’t see.

2.     You are afraid we will examine your balls.  We will, if you are 40 or younger. The peak age for testicular cancer is 18-40 so guidelines recommend you get a once-a-year testicular exam. Don’t worry it won’t hurt at all.

3.    I feel FINE.  I am glad you feel fine, but you can feel FINE with high cholesterol, high blood pressure and elevated blood sugars.  Your mother or wife won’t feel fine when they are taking care of you after you have a stroke.  Don’t wait until you feel awful to come see us.

4.     Going to the Doctor is a chick thing.  Many of you feel this way but remember we live longer than you do.  If doctor visits are a chick thing well, then, nursing homes are a guy thing.  You have to get over this.  It’s true, the waiting room magazines are not for guys, but when you come see us you will see that many of the medical assistants, doctors, phlebotomists and medical records folks are men.  Real men go to doctors.

5.     You are embarrassed to talk about what’s going on with you.  The bright red blood on the toilet paper when you wipe, the red itchy rash in your groin and on your feet, the problems you have at times getting a boner, getting up at night a few times to pee, we hear it all the time.  You are not alone and our job is to show you how common this is and help fix it for you.

6.     You don’t find the office hours convenient.  I get this and urge you to find a doctor who is accessible and can work around your office hours.  Seriously though. The average guy watches 16 hours of TV a week, you can come for a 30-minute visit once a year and maybe a couple of follow-up visits as needed.

7.     Going to the Doctor is giving in to your nagging wife.  I had a patient who gave his wife a copy of his Lipitor prescription for her 20th Anniversary, thinking that taking care of his medical issues was a GIFT to her. It is true, women, rightly so, nag their dads, brothers, and husbands to go to the doctor because they are tired of square dancing with women at the assisted living facilities.

8.     You don’t realize we are here for prevention.  You don’t have to be sick to come see us and if you establish a relationship with us, you have easy access when you do get sick.  Once a year we can touch base with you to discuss age-appropriate screening which we KNOW helps keep you well.

9.     You don’t have a relationship with a physician.  If you are not attached to a regular physician by the age of 40 you are more likely to get in trouble.  Unlike women who need annual pap smears and contraception, you haven’t had to see someone regularly from the age of 18-30.  Find someone your friends use or enlist your partners help to find someone that might be a connection.  You want someone accessible and younger physicians are much more likely to e-mail so look until you find the right match.

10. You think we will pick on you for your habits.  Drinking a 12-pack on the weekends, not exercising and eating bad foods, among other things, do not promote good health.  These things are not as uncommon as you might expect.  We will put you on a long leash and let you pick and choose the habits to get rid of as needed.

If you are a Doctor Dodger, the reality is, it is of little consequence whether your reasons for doing so more closely resemble Dr. Orrange’s list or mine.  If your recalcitrance leads to a preventable heart attack, some form of cancer, or a stroke, you will have contributed directly to reducing your quality of life, as well as that of your family members.  Such actions could also lead to premature death.  It really is pretty simple; fear, embarrassment, death (sooner rather than later)…pick one dude!

Let’s be clear here, human beings are not immortal.  Psalms 90:10 advises us: “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”  Proponents of the Bill Maher School of Thought dismiss such biblical advisory as akin to magic, wizardry, or witchcraft.  But I am reasonably certain even Mr. Maher would concede that we all will die. I also bet he has a primary care provider.

The point of seeing health professionals on a regular basis is not to live forever; none of us will.  Rather, the idea is to leverage the best possible existence out of our all too brief time here on earth.

As most of us know, women live longer than men.  Once upon a time, this was largely attributable to the rigors of backbreaking manual labor, or going off to war, and long before that, due to the results of men losing too many battles with the lions or other members of the Wild Kingdom, in the quest to determine who would eat…and who would be dinner.  

None of those historical tableaus align with today’s American reality.  No, the underlying contemporary contributory factors for those of us now living in the USA are that poor exercise habits, irresponsible dietary choices, too much smoking and drinking, and eschewing regular checkups and prevention screenings combine to lead to a lower quality of life (health wise), and ultimately, to a shortened lifespan; on average five years less than for women.

According to a 2007 Harris Interactive survey that included over 1,100 men, the American Academy of Family Physicians found that:

·         Many men go to the Doctor only when they are very sick

·         Before they did, many of these men waited several days to see if they felt better

·         Most of these men had a regular doctor

·         Most had currently active health insurance

·         Most said they felt comfortable talking to their physician

In an even more recent survey, conducted by Esquire magazine in January of this 2011, researchers found that:

·         Roughly half of American men ages 18-50 had no primary care physician

·         One third had not had a check-up in more than a year

·         More than 40% had never had their cholesterol checked

·         70% had never had a prostate exam

Do you perchance know the leading causes of death in America?  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2007, the breakdown looked like this:

 Number of/causes of death:

·         Heart disease: 616,067

·         Cancer: 562,875

·         Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952

·         Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924

·         Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706

·         Alzheimer’s disease: 74,632

·         Diabetes: 71,382

·         Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717

·         Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448

·         Septicemia: 34,828

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2007

Based on CDC research, Heart Disease and Cancer, the top two causes of death in the United States in 2007, led to nearly twice as many deaths as the cumulative totals of causes 3 through 10.  In fact, the number of deaths attributable to Heart Disease alone, (616,067), nearly equaled the total for causes 3 through 10 (667,589).  

It is important to recognize that the relative death rate for men is higher than that for women for all of the Top 10 causes.  While there are hereditary factors that contribute to individual proclivity to develop Heart Disease, a timely and committed change in lifestyle in concert with an appropriate medical remediation, prevention, and/or maintenance strategy can help most men (and women) live a relatively normal life.

Yes, this is a cause that requires you to think of (and act) for yourself first.  But in doing so, your wife, or significant other, your children, your siblings, your parents, your friends, your co-workers, your career, your civic association, your fraternity, and yes, your state of mind, will all benefit. 

In summary, this post is a cry for help on behalf of men.  Perhaps, more aptly stated, it is a call for men to step up and help themselves.  As a general rule, ours is an interdependent society.  That means, someone, somewhere relies upon you.  So, men, I urge you to unite on behalf of a cause that while intuitively selfish, is intellectually selfless.  I entreat you to recognize this undeniable truth; “Men’s Health: A Compelling Quality of Life Issue – Redux ‘26!” 

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com.  A new post is published each Wednesday.  For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:            

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonoscopy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(anatomy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endoscopy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ileum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCD_camera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoidoscopy

http://www.medicinenet.com/disease_prevention_in_men/page5.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/colon_cancer_screening/article.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/mens_health/article.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/disease_prevention_in_men/article.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/human_body_quiz/quiz.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/disease_prevention_in_men/page6.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/triglyceride_test/article.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercholesterolemia

http://www.theschwartzcenterblog.com/2011/06/why-men-dont-go-to-doctor.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher

http://www.usc.edu/health/internal/doctors/profile.html?id=2184

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephritis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrotic_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepsis

Men’s Health: A Compelling Quality of Life Issue – Redux ’26

If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?

Posted on by
Reply

“BREAK IT DOWN!”

A couple of weeks ago, I penned a post entitled, “It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It”(https://thesphinxofcharlotte.com/2026/05/20/its-a-great-deal-if-you-can-get-it/). Yesterday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made an announcement that suggests it may not be possible to get it. At least, not all of it.

The decision to abandon the Justice Department’s proposed “anti-weaponization” fund while preserving the separate ban on audits of President Donald Trump’s past tax returns underscores a familiar pattern in Washington: when a controversial package becomes politically toxic, officials often jettison the most visible liability while trying to preserve the quieter but more consequential benefit. Recent reporting indicates that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers the administration would no longer proceed with the roughly $1.776 billion fund after backlash from Republican senators as well as broader criticism that it could become a vehicle for politically sympathetic claimants, including people tied to January 6. At the same time, Blanche said the agreement shielding Trump and his family from future audits of previously filed returns would stay in place.

That split matters. The fund was always the easier target because it was public, expensive, and symbolically explosive. The Department of Justice had framed it as a mechanism to compensate victims of alleged government “lawfare,” but critics across the political spectrum saw it as a slush fund in waiting. The strongest objections were not just legal but political: lawmakers worried about taxpayer money being used to reward allies of the president or individuals who would become instant symbols of partisan grievance.

Once that perception hardened, the fund became a burden on the administration’s broader agenda, especially as Republican legislators signaled it could complicate unrelated negotiations over immigration and spending. In short, the fund generated immediate heat and limited upside. Dropping it was a way to defuse the loudest controversy.

The audit ban, however, appears to be the provision the administration most wanted to preserve. Unlike the fund, it does not require creating a new bureaucracy, distributing money, or defending visible payouts. Yet it may be far more significant in practical terms. Reporting on the settlement indicates that the IRS is barred from auditing returns filed before May 18, 2026, covering Trump, certain family members, trusts, and businesses. 

Legal and tax experts have described that kind of prospective immunity from examination as extraordinary and difficult to reverse. Because the provision is embedded in a settlement agreement rather than a headline-grabbing public program, its political profile is lower—even though its long-term implications may be greater. It diminishes scrutiny, if not controversy.

Seen that way, dropping the anti-weaponization fund while keeping the tax-audit shield is less a retreat than a recalibration. The administration appears to have concluded that it could sacrifice the most combustible piece of the arrangement while retaining the part that most directly benefits Trump and his family. Politically, that may blunt some immediate criticism, because the discarded provision was easier to explain in one shocking number: nearly $1.8 billion. But substantively, the surviving clause may prove more important, because it narrows the government’s ability to examine past tax matters involving the sitting president. If the fund was the flashpoint, the audit ban is the legacy provision. And that is why the real story is not only what was dropped, but what remains. But not so fast. Mr. Blanche was asked whether he would provide a written memo detailing the decision to forego the nearly $2 billion settlement? He declined. No disrespect to the Acting AG, but this non-legal scholar’s inquiring mind wonders, “If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You (Edition IX)!

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Please enjoy a reprised edition of “Break It Down!” This post was originally published May 30, 2012 at: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com, reposted on May 27, 2015 at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com as “Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Told You!,“ again on May 31, 2017, on May 29, 2019, on May 27, 2020 as Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You, again on May 31, 2023, on May 29, 2024, and last on May 28, 2025.

OK, so Memorial Day was earlier this week. You may be familiar with my holiday week philosophy, which is: make it easy on the readers, who are always otherwise engaged, no matter the holiday. Of course, in the process, I am also giving myself a break. That makes for a natural win-win scenario.

With that overarching thought in mind, I will endeavor to apply three elementary rules of communication:

  • Utilize the KISS Principle, AKA, Keep It Short & Simple (also Keep It Simple Stupid).
  • Convey new or “not widely circulated” information.
  • Always remember to emphasize points 1 and 2 above.

Memorial Day is a federal holiday to honor America’s fallen soldiers. It originated after the Civil War. Falling between Easter and Independence Day, it is often equated with a late spring break, or a pre-summer respite.

The weekend typically includes a cornucopia of sports.  For example this week included the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600, the NBA Playoffs, College Men’s Baseball playoffs, and College Women’s Softball competition, as well as others, such as the ACC Men’s Baseball Tournament Championship, and NCAA Women’s Lacrosse. 

Historically, there have been a plethora of other activities thrown into the mix. Uppermost for college hoops fans is the Transfer Portal and European League recruitment, with a dose of NBA Combine. As a result, the holiday is sometimes almost lost in the shuffle. 

But wait; not here. Memorial Day has a special cultural significance. In fact, it is because of that nexus we should pay special homage to this late spring holiday. 

In the annals of Trump 2.0, in which Don and his consiglieres are running it back, in new and improved (in his opinion) fashion. One of the more pronounced features of this new high octane Round 2 is a full-frontal assault on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and the recent attack on minority voting districts. To date, the most visible aspect of this slash and burn effort is to target and un-exist positions, programs, and services, and now voting districts designed to assist, employ, or augment Black voter choice.

The irony here is, the first well-known observance of a Memorial Day type was held May 1, 1865, in Charleston, South Carolina. Over 250 Union soldiers that had been prisoners of war, died in Charleston, and were quickly buried in makeshift graves. A group of blacks, mostly freedmen, organized the observance and led cleanup and landscaping of the burial site.

Most of the nearly 10,000 people who attended were freedmen and their families. Of that number, 3.000 were children, newly enrolled in freedman’s schools. Mutual aid societies, black ministers, and white Northern missionaries were also in attendance.

David W. Blight, Professor of American History at Yale University, and Director of the school’s Gilder-Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, & Abolition, described the day this way:

“This was the first Memorial Day. African Americans invented Memorial Day in Charleston, South Carolina. What you have there is black Americans recently freed from slavery announcing to the world with their flowers, their feet, and their songs what the War had been about. What they basically were creating was the Independence Day of a Second American Revolution.”

Professor Blight conceded there is no evidence that the Charleston event led directly to the establishment of Memorial Day across the country.  But the record is clear they formed the earliest truly large-scale event, complete with media coverage.  Their effort was the prototype, if not the catalyst.

Having said that, I believe I honored the rules established above for this post:

  • Told this story in a direct and uncomplicated fashion
  • Presented information I am confident most readers did not know
  • Recognized points 1 and 2, were accomplished and closed the post

Enjoy your bonus time and be sure to reflect on “Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You (Edition IX)!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Memorial_Day

http://www.davidwblight.com/

http://www.snopes.com/military/memorialday.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/story2014/05/25/1301862/-Memorial-Day-Has-African-American-Roots-First-One-Was-Conducted-By-Former-Slaves#

http://en.wiktionary.org/

wiki/KISS_principle

wiki/American_Civil_War

http://www.yale.edu/glc/index.htm

http://www.civilwarhome.com/freedmen.htm

Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You (Edition IX)!