Mister In Between

During the two years leading up to the November 2016 election, I began to grasp the Republican dialect of English. By the campaign’s last days, this had brought me to a better understanding of several burrs,  irritating them; so, by virtue of a then shared distrust, I decided that, after Trump’s defeat, I would make the following available to some Republicans. Since these matters are problematic, having them better addressed, brought me to this point anyway. So, by an old adage, I’ll be keeping my friends close . . . .

Not all suggestions here are red; some are blue, and there is at least one T-Red. That is especially so, if we let the reference, here, include Falling off a Twig posts not linked to this one. Dependent seems more descriptive of me than the other issue-by-issue  Independent: after all, of my various perspectives, many would have been missed without Republicans (red), Democrats (blue), Libertarians, or even President Elect Trump (T-Red).

In politics, two propositions, both assertable, often seem, by virtue of inner contradictions, to be irreconcilable; nonetheless sometimes, a third assertion emerges, peering down at them, and by that, they are indeed reconciled. This is the spirit of the dialectic; but for simplicity, I’ll answer to Mr. In Between. So, accentuate the positive; interdict the negative; and watch out for my name sake.


  • Abortion: To better understand me in what follows, click A Language of Freedom atop this page. It guides my understanding and, of course, I recommend it. There is a difference between a choice, regarding one’s person, and one taken from an arbitrary subset of all imaginable possibilities. In the theater of human rights, that difference, as measured by the difficulty incurred in eliciting respect for obligations corresponding to the one or the other, is immense. Therein lies the rub: expanding rights, burdened with defending the former, into that nothingness of illusory guarantors which is the latter, leaves those whose protection had been the basis of abortion’s original intent with less, and a far less of a less at that.

This latent deceit begs me to renew an old proposal. Consider your own obligation to anyone’s any choice, and bring it along. At the time of the Roe v. Wade decision, I proposed that:

  1. During the first trimester, the mother be allowed to choose abortion; or to either openly declare and have registered her inner bearing as a child, or delay these choices. The choice of abortion would allow her to abort without harassment, subtle or overt; while that of registration would, if her then unborn child were maimed or killed from an injury to her, bring to bear upon the injurer a scrutiny, which would have been extended were a born child maimed or killed, precluding (by contract law’s intrusion) only a murder trial. Any mother, wishing to have that option retained, would need a totally different contract.
  2. During the second trimester, if either the President or Governor of that state gives approval to abortions, the mother’s choices would be the same; otherwise, her inner bearing, if yet to be registered as a child, would, by state law, be or not be so registered. That law may defer in the matter to some person or group (e.g. the Governor).
  3. During the third trimester, if both the President and Governor give their approval to abortions, the mother’s choices are the same; otherwise, her inner bearing, if yet to be registered as a child, would, by state law, be or not be so registered. Again, that law may defer in the matter to some person or group.

There would be a need to protect the mother, from a misunderstood miscarriage; as well as a doctor from any malicious deceit as to registration, or the more difficult checking of trimester.

  • National Healthcare:  When Hillary Clinton first proposed a national healthcare system, I took on the project of its design, and now present and suggest, what has been an ongoing project, Healthcare: A Nationwide System. Implemented, its supply and demand side generosities would, by virtue of a more diverse and understood feedback, overtake those of the Obama initiative; however, as a bait (‘n switch), it’s worthless. I am a mathematician and inventor who brought the skills and understandings of both disciplines toward coordinating a more general set of skills and understandings into a method, by which both better health-need recognition, and healthcare delivery may be brought about.
  • Securing Our Southern Border: There are about two hundred nations in the world and, I would guess, three to four hundred international land and sea boundaries. Whenever someone, beginning in a particular country,  sneaks across one or more such boundaries to settle in another, each of said  countries is deprived of leadership feedback, corresponding to problems, relieved by the absence and new presence of that specific person.  Hardly racist, there is an imperative to restrict crossings until such feedback is collectively grasped at all levels by its corresponding country; but, if the specter of racism were pointed at one as a convenient distraction from a personal issue, knowing well that other issues were involved, sic T-Red upon any who would make of you their convenient racist. Or, to quote Sir Walter Raleigh, “Give them all the lie.”

For the United States, the problematic, international land boundary is with Mexico, and a best first step has always been to seal it. However, I propose that, instead of a wall, we build an unsophisticated, audio-visual, monitoring system, manned by persons or families in line, awaiting visas. Since this would offer them relief from being cut in on, and would more speedily issue their now reward-visas, such vigilance could hardly be considered tacky. Drug mules would also get swept up in this electronic net, but how could we ever out tacky those muling drugs. The line awaiting visas would move quickly and then slow as many Central Americans and drug mules choose to help resolve problems besetting their own countries directly.

  • Nuclear Power: Terrible mistakes have been made in harnessing nuclear energy, but its ability to balance energy sources, behooves our going forward with security protocols gleaned both from successful, worldwide programs and disasters. To this end, I recommend that a particular period be chosen (e.g. 3 years) and that, during each, in a consecutive sequence of such periods, two reactors be built and one dismantled. Furthermore, that reactors, whose placement would be considered reckless by today’s standards, go first, followed by those in poorer structural condition. Terrorism, being an equal opportunity deployer, would have little effect on the order of dismantlement, but must be considered along with earthquakes and tsunamis in future reactor design. My post, Reduction and Transportation of Nuclear Waste, addresses some safety issues.
  • Coal Power: For centuries the quest for coal had been a major part of mankind’s quest for survival; and it remains so, but how so?  An original need for warmth led to replacing manual pumps, needed to remove water leaking into coal mines, with an engine that would be on both the supply and demand side of coal. That steam engine drove the pump ; and later, powered steam boats, steam locomotives, and even steam automobiles.  Letting these gifts of coal slip from a posterity, devoid of authentic reminders, would be a calamity; but at the tipping point, staying seated at the coal table would bring on a never to be forgotten disaster. Ask not what coal can do for you, but whether such a doing may be found short of its oxidation. My post, Global Warming: Beyond Certainty, does not hide behind, nor speak for a cyclical future. Such cycles, be they finite or ever-growing, must speak for themselves, while in the particular future about which they speak.


  • Diplomatic Security: In hindsight, confronted with rioting in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton tried to balance two too many demands upon our relationship with Libya and the Islāmic world in general: first, that our troops not run around behaving much like an alien police force; and secondly, that the United States adhere to the diplomatic protocol of leaving to a country’s ruling body the handling of its citizens and insurgents.

What went unnoticed was that this protocol had come about in a period absent of insurgents hostile to a third country with diplomatic facilities present, and needed an adjustment for just such hostilities. For example, in nations where the United States is that third country under attack, we may: trust the ruling or governing body’s assurance of security; or present to its citizens our need for a warning system that would allow for the beefing up and relaxing of security at our diplomatic facilities. Lacking such trust or allowance, we should simply relinquish those facilities.

  • Nuclear Weapons: My post, Nuclear Assault, should be considered in clarifying the consequences that will attend states, with nuclear materials at hand, which flaunt disaster either by a lack of watchfulness, or an inability to control their own malicious temptation to so “lack.”
  • Internment and Refugee Camps: Among some, it is seems to be scientific fact that, once their fellow Americans misbehave, all others will do so to the ninth generation, at least, given half the chance. I say keep Guantanamo, so that we can fix the problem, both as it is and as it is perceived. Prisoner interrogation doesn’t need torture, but it does need a confidentiality which leaves much to the imagination.

Also, being driven by a different context, we don’t need to compete with Canada (fortunately), but we do need to shed an old burden, piled on by those who pitch the internment of Japanese Americans, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, as indicative of who we are. Was it unnecessarily rough? Would its being more gentle have trivialized what was to come, or given away a secret? We are ready to build a refugee camp for Syrians, all be they appropriated by criminals of the Caliphate who would enter by hiding among them. We are not interfering with the entry of citizens of particular Islamic countries, but with the entry of hiding places which happen to come from particular Islamic countries: different but, not so different from the internment of Japanese-Americans, 75 years ago. That may have been to prevent their being appropriated as cover for a clandestine sea invasion, from the Pacific coast, through California, Oregon and Washington, to the Rockies, by marines from the Imperial Japanese Army and/or Navy Read my In the Wake of Pearl Harbor. However, in the present case, such a camp may also prove to be an effective, hands-on class in ferreting out terrorists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s