"Confused? You Won't Be..."

Lately, I've been considering the implications of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022).  You may or may not know that this case had to do with the "right" to seek an abortion, as affirmed in Roe v. Wade (1973) (1, 2).    

On its face, the language used in the opinion is pretty straightforward.  However, when one looks at another part of the Constitution, the meaning of this passage gets a bit murky. 

For reference, let's examine Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, a section of text that is commonly known as the "Supremacy Clause".   

To wit:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (3).    

The gist of this is twofold.  

First, when it comes to conflicts between state constitutions and the federal constitution, it is the latter set of laws that take precedence.  

Second, the individual states have the right to make laws for themselves, as long as the federal constitution hasn't already weighed in on the matter at hand.  Again, in such cases, it is the federal law that is superior.    

Returning back to the decision in Dobbs, we find the language of the Court to be the following:    

"Held: The (US) Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives".  

As you can see, this is somewhat confusing in the fact that the Court referred the issue to the states, yet notably mentioned that Roe was overruled.  In my (strictly unprofessional) opinion, this calls for some clarification.  

Having examined the context of this ruling, this is what I believe the Court meant/should've specifically said:    

"There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically confers a right to abortion.  Thus, the several states may determine this issue for themselves, deciding on a state-by-state basis whether to overrule Roe and Casey".  

In short, the assembled justices should've declared that because the federal constitution doesn't weigh in on abortion, it is not specifically within the authority of the Court to overrule Roe.  That question is left to each individual state, and the elected representatives within such states.    

Unfortunately, abortion for any purpose is legal in Connecticut, up until about five months after conception (that is, the second trimester).  I oppose this, and would like to see a law enacted that limits such abortions to when they are needed to save the life of the mother (4, 5).    

Sadly, both incumbent Democrat Governor Ned Lamont and Republican challenger Bob Stefanowski have said that they support the current law (6, 7).  

So there it is.  Hopefully, the above explanation makes the issue a bit more clear for you.  

Open Letter to Mr. David Crockett, Conrad Thompson, et al

I'm up early today because I need to write about something that is on my conscience.  As the subject line states, you may consider this an open letter to those concerned.  

As an avid wrestling fan, I have for years admired the career of one Ric Flair.  Whether he has been in WWE, WCW, Impact, or NWA/Jim Crockett Promotions, Flair has always been the greatest pure professional wrestler ever.  His style and accomplishments speak for themselves; indeed, there is nothing I can say in his praise that hasn't already been said.  

Flair was, is, and will always be "the Nature Boy" and "the Man" (apologies to Becky Lynch, but he had it first).  

This notwithstanding, I am distressed about the main event in "Ric Flair's Last Match" (1).  My concern has nothing to do with perceived jealousy, selfishness, or wanting to be Ric Flair.  Rather, it involves questions of health, and a worry about Mr. Flair's well-being.    

Let's consider the facts of this matter:   

• Professional wrestling is a very physical activity, and one that comes with many "calculated risks".  

• Both serious injuries and deaths have occurred as a result of these activities.  See Darren "Droz" Drozdov in October of 1999, Mick Foley in 1998, and Owen Hart in May of 1999. 

• Flair is seventy-three years old, and has wrestled for the better part of fifty years (2). 

• In recent years, Flair has had kidney failures, heart surgeries, and various other medical problems.

In a certain sense, I know what this is all about; Flair has said that he "will never retire", and that he wants to die while in a wrestling ring (3).  

Like Flair, I too love professional wrestling.  And I realize that it is difficult to pull yourself away from doing something that you truly love, no matter what that might be.  Indeed, even the great Undertaker seems to have had trouble realizing the truth; that it was time for him to step away from activities inside the ring.  

Please don't misunderstand me; I realize that if Flair truly wants to go out this way, he has the right to do so.  I'm not him, nor do I claim the right to make decisions for "the Man".  If this is his choice, let him make it.  

Nevertheless, I must mention that at a certain point, people are unable to make certain decisions for themselves, or even to understand what might happen as a consequence of such choices and actions.  This is, ultimately, what worries me about the current situation.  

Simply put, if Flair doesn't understand the risks involved, or if he is no longer capable of making rational decisions for himself, the scheduled main event must not be allowed to take place.   

Now, Flair has nothing left to prove to me, the wrestling world, or to the world in general.  He has already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is the very best to ever do what he has chosen to do.  That much is beyond question.  

That said, there is no need to assist in what could well be Flair's own suicide.  In this fan's opinion, the end does not justify the means.    

This is not to say that the show must not go on.  It is perhaps possible to find a replacement for Flair in the main event, and have the match that is expected.  And it is well within your rights to make such a substitution; indeed, the match card is always "subject to change".  

However, I believe that some consideration should be given to changing the main event in this manner.  Even if he needs the money, there's no need to have him go out in what I call a "Chris Benoit moment", or something at all similar (see note).  In this fan's opinion, it just isn't worth it.     

Thus, I urge you to consider the health and mental state of Ric Flair before going ahead with this event.  If he's mentally sound, then by all means, have the match as scheduled.  That said, let's do the right thing for everyone concerned.  

Why Independents Need To Think About Their Vote (For Governor of CT)

Here we are again, Connecticut; we're smack in the middle of another campaign season, and another governor's race. As it was four years ago, the choice is largely between Ned Lamont and Bob Stefanowski. Regarding those candidates, you probably know at least some of the particulars by now.

What you likely don't know about this campaign is that it once again features a third-party candidate.

The Libertarian Party has seen fit to nominate Mr. Aaron Lewis for the state's highest office. It's all well and good that there is a third choice this year; I have no problem with the existence of such an option. My concern lies with the possibility that independents might vote for Lewis.

Here's why that doesn't work for me ("brother"), and why I strongly recommend that libertarians support Stefanowski instead of their party-endorsed candidate (1).

First, the chances of Mr. Lewis actually being elected are of the "no chance in hell" variety. Let's keep past independent performances in mind.

In the 2016 gubernatorial election, third-party candidate Joe Visconti got a whopping one percent of the statewide vote. In 2018, three independent candidates mustered a combined four percent of the vote (approximately).

Obviously, these were not a lot of votes. Yet they were enough to be the difference four years ago; the final margin of victory was forty-nine point four percent to forty-six point two percent, in favor of Lamont (2, 3).

The fact is that Connecticut is a one-party state that's trying to become a two-party state. Libertarians and Independents might have a shot at winning office in other states, but not here. In this race, all they can do is play "kingmaker", and secure another four years in office for "King Ned".

Second, I expect that this race will be very close, with perhaps as little as one percent separating the two major candidates. As such, independents and libertarians will likely decide its outcome.

Traditionally speaking, most libertarians tend to lean toward the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. In many cases, this means more votes for Republicans as opposed to Democrats.

This year, however, Libertarian Party leadership is urging that independents not vote for "Red Ned" (as they call Stefanowski), and instead cast their vote for Lewis. Any such selection will take votes away from the challenger; these are votes that he will very much need in order to win election.

Thus, a vote for Aaron Lewis will effectively be a vote to continue the reign of Ned Lamont.

Now let's talk about political platforms.

Contrary to the claims of Libertarian leadership, Bob Stefanowski does indeed have a plan to restore prosperity to Connecticut. This plan includes lower taxes, investing in job growth, and restoring trust in public safety and leadership (among other issues) (4).

Mr. Lewis doesn't seem to have any such plan at all, at least not one that is known publicly. What will be do about the ever-rising cost of living in Connecticut, or the sky-high taxes that Democrats seem to love to assess? That's a very good question, apparently; I don't know.

On highway tolls, the governor has implied that if re-elected, he will once again raise the issue before the General Assembly. We've had this discussion multiple times already; every time, tolls have failed to be approved. Where does the Libertarian stand on the possibility of another round regarding this issue?

And by the way, what does Mr. Lewis propose to do in order to reduce violent crime, instances of which have recently skyrocketed in this state? Is it his position that we've (in the words of Governor Lamont) "done what we can" on this issue? If not, what will he do to ensure the safety of our towns and communities? On this point, your guess is as good as mine (5).

Therefore, if you're talking about a candidate that doesn't seem to have a clue how to get the job done, you're talking about Aaron Lewis, not Stefanowski. Is this really the best that the independents can do?

Also, did you know that Mr. Lewis used to be a Democrat? That's right; in 2019, the Hartford Courant reported that, as part of an unsuccessful campaign for mayor of Hartford, Lewis changed his party registration from that of "the donkeys" (6).

Knowing the Dems' usual tactics, that strikes me as a bit of a "red flag". At the very least, it is quite inconsistent, as well as concerning.

Fifth, voting Libertarian in this instance would be going against the very ideological principles of the liberty movement.

It is a key tenet (see definitions) of libertarianism that if one does harm, it is only to themselves. That is, personal choices that clearly harm others are regarded as unacceptable in their nature. In this sense, a vote for Lewis would not only hurt the liberty-minded Nutmegger, it would also hurt others, as it would effect their lives in quite the negative manner.

I have previously written about the stakes in this election; in short, they are higher than they have ever been in Connecticut. What we are talking about is the future of this state (7).

If Lamont should win a second term, the result will be the end of any hope to "take back Connecticut". Future generations will know our state as the bad joke of America, laughable in its failure and reputation. Is this really what libertarians want?

Vote Lewis if you will, but don't you dare complain when after Lamont wins again, things get even worse than they are now!

Finally, excuse me for quoting Led Zeppelin, but in this campaign (as their perhaps best known song says), "yes, there are two paths you can go by" (8).

If you want change, as well as a road back to prosperity, vote Bob Stefanowski. If you would rather prefer the status quo at best, vote for Lewis or Lamont.

This notwithstanding, you should "consider what you do here" (9).

Even if one wins the day, if such an outcome destroys the lives and hopes of others, it is no victory. It is, at best, one of the Pyrrhic (see definitions) variety.

Again, is this really what you want for the future of "the Nutmeg State"?