Wednesday, June 17, 2020

A Tale of Two Republics: Arizona and California during the Coronavirus Pandemic

An educated and virtuous citizenry is essential for a republic to endure, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, two former U.S. presidents and rivals, agreed in an exchange of letters. Interestingly, both men died on July 4, 1826. Of course, the vote on independence had occurred on July 3, 1776 and the Declaration was signed over weeks rather than dramatically on July 4, 1776. Unfortunately, false narratives can take on a life of their own. Another example involves the U.S.'s "sun-belt" states, whose surging popularity from the 1980s at least through 2020 has masked the true conditions of the underlying cultures. Maricopa county, in which Phoenix, Arizona is located, was in the top 10 nationally for numeric increases in population from 2010 to 2020. Lest it be supposed that that county improved, a survey in July, 2019 listed Arizona as 49th out of the 50 States on elementary education (K-12th grade). 
Relatedly, Arizona's Medicaid system had a sordid reputation in terms of how well the subcontracting companies and non-profits managed themselves and were held accountable. As of 2020, Arizona still had a significant number of ideological voters who believed that Medicaid was a form of sordid socialism, which unjustly had taken the place of horrid communism. Because Medicaid had become the unwanted step-child in that political culture that still boasted that "taxes are theft," tight budgets and the State's bad education system resulted in subcontracting organizations, including medical clinics, conveniently embellishing their low-wage employees. Reports emerged of nurse-practitioners claiming to have the same training as physicians and even specialists such as psychiatrists and dermatologists, and of counselors misrepresenting themselves as being synonymous with therapists. In fact, Arizona's Medicaid tumor even reduced mental health to behavioral health so the cheaper behavior-trained counselors rather than therapists could be hired and relied upon. 
Furthermore, the organizations in Arizona receiving most or all of their funding from public-aid agencies like Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Medicaid were reputed to suffer from administrative incompetence without much accountability from either of those two government agencies. It was quite strange to read of the non-profit organizations and companies, including medical clinics, refer to themselves as agencies. Such lying with impunity also served to dissimulate any criticism of administrative incompetence. That low-class sub-culture of dependent organizations could count on the low education level in the state and its notable anti-science (and anti-intellectualism) ideology not to know better. In fact, no one would be likely to push-back on the Medicaid employees in the state who mispronounce the technocratic acronym for the state's Medicaid program, AHCCCS, as access rather than ah-kehs. In Arizona, the letter C is not hard (like a K) if an S follows, rather than just an E or I. You're wrong, ignorance that can't be wrong has the gall to say. You're wrong, I don't need to keep six-feet away from people. You're wrong, my people don't need enforceable government orders. Relative to California, we could rightly expect that Arizona would botch its management of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. 
The same ideology that compromises Medicaid at the ballot-box resists government itself, and thus any of its constraints, including physical distancing and the wearing of masks in stores. The following statement from Anthony Fauci, director of the National Center for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, applies especially to Arizona: "One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are--for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable--they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority."[1]
A poorly educated and bigoted citizenry may arrogantly dismiss the advice of public health officials like Fauci. In fact, in a local culture wherein strangers are generally known, especially to new-comers and visitors, to be noticeably aggressive in public and especially on public transportation, the ideological and/or badly educated residents may even lash out just for being asked to keep a certain distance or to put on a mask. 
At least in Phoenix, customers were not keeping six feet from each other in stores, including in the crowded grocery stores, in spite of the fact that the governor had ordered it. Employees and customers alike presumed to be immune from the store policies and the law. Both were left unenforced. From a management standpoint, this demonstrates gross incompetence, and from a Nietzschean standpoint, pathetic weakness. 
Therefore, I contend that the governor of Arizona, and the government of Phoenix, badly misjudged their own residents in March, 2020, especially in relying on businesses to enforce the governor's physical-distancing order on customers and even the managers' own employees. As against offenders generally, the governor left the physical-distancing order unenforceable! Nietzsche would say that such power is borne out of weakness. Even the governor's stay-at-home order was stated at the outset to be unenforceable. Issuing an executive order and saying that it will not be enforced turned the order into a guideline--something that was too weak for the ideologically anti-government residents (and there were many) in the Phoenix metropolitan area. It is my right to stand where I want, even if it means that I or other people get sick as a result. As Matt Shumway put it on Twitter, "No dog muzzles here. I value freedom and the U.S. Constitution as opposed to tyranny and rolling over and obeying simply because I'm told without questioning the narrative." Matt and many other Arizonans were not bothering to maintain a reasonable distance from other shoppers in stores, and the managers were looking the other way in spite of the governor's order. With such exaggeration and callous selfishness being a significant feature of the political culture there, only a foolish governor would place his reliance on the people to self-govern, or willingly enforce the order.  
As yet another data-point, a significant number of local bus drivers were ignoring the city council's guideline of a maximum of ten passengers on a regular-length bus. Why issue a health measure as a guideline when it is reasonable to assume that drivers of the sordid local bus company would abuse their driver discretion rather than regulate even unwilling passengers? Some of the local-creeper bus drivers, who were known generally to be hostile to their riff-raff ridership, used their discretion during the month of March (before the hot months!) to close all of the window-slits. Apparently those drivers did not believe in disbursing any virus enclosed onboard in the air. Ignorance and power, a toxic cocktail that is endemic in Arizona, do not exactly form a united front in combating a pandemic. In fact, viruses do remarkably well in dysfunctional cultures because the people are not adequately protected, given their conditions. Not even the local police were maintaining 6-feet on non-emergency (e.g., noise complaints) calls for service. 
California's government was more pro-active (and thus sensible) in March. The governor knew that enforcement of public-health measures is important even where the population is reasonably educated and not out to protest government measures even against a dangerous pathogen as instances of tyranny. Ironically, that government could have relied more on its people and companies than Arizona's government could have, and yet California's had the common sense to know that given the health threat, enforcement would still be needed. 
In early March, California health officials were urging companies (esp. tech) to have employees work from home, companies such as  Google, Apple, and Facebook complied, as did their respective employees. There was a general sense that this was important, and people listened.[2] In other words, people were being responsible. This suggests that they were capable of self-governing themselves, and they were sufficiently mature to recognize that they were not being subject to unconstitutional government control and thus did not need to feel the need to fight back by deliberately not complying. What a difference a border makes! 
Unlike Arizona’s stay at home order which came later and without enforcement, California’s first shelter-in-place order that applied first to a wide swath of Northern California including the Bay Area on March 16, came with enforcement. The California-wide order was issued on March 19; Californians could “not leave home except for essential things such as food, prescriptions, health care and commuting to jobs considered crucial.”[3] Crucially, this order was enforced too. Generally speaking, in issuing orders in a timely manner and enforcing them, California’s government was being responsible in being realistic, which is important even if people take the matter seriously.
To be sure, California was rapidly becoming a “hot spot” for the virus, whereas Arizona was not so designated. That California’s order was “one of the most draconian at the time,” hence exceeding measures in New York City, another hot-spot, suggests that the California Government was acting responsibly, even making the important assumption that enforcement would be needed even though people were taking it seriously. “Why people are praising San Francisco,” the mayor there said, “is because everyone here knew how important it was to follow instructions.”[4] Such maturity is essential for a properly working governmental system based on self-governance (i.e., the People over its government).
Whereas businesses in California undertook to enforce the distancing and lower maximum occupancy limits, store managers in the Phoenix metro area were openly admitting that they would not enforce even the store's own policies, even those that dovetailed with the governor's executive order (e.g., physical distancing). Managers of grocery stores refused even to enforce the policy (and law) on their own carefree employees. 
So in March, 2020, I predicted that Arizona would become a hot-spot. Certainly by mid-June, this had come to pass. In that month, Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was still advising Americans to follow physical-distancing recommendations and wear masks in public, which includes in stores. As of June 13th, at least 13 States, including Arizona, were showing an upward trend in average daily cases--an increase of at least 10%--over "the previous seven days, according to an analysis of John Hopkins University data."[5] As in March, April, and May in Phoenix, I saw little if any physical distancing at the time in public, including on sidewalks and inside stores. 
A survey by the CDC released on June 12th indicates that close to 80% of Americans had self-isolated in May, and 74% had worn face-masks in public either always or often.[5] Arizona opened for business on May 15th in line with President Trump's wishes, whereas California's governor was more cautious. So the percentage of residents in the Phoenix metro who self-isolated could not have been anywhere near 80 percent. Judging from the stores, I would estimate that less than half of the people were wearing masks. Even this might be an over-estimate, considering that Arizona had more than its share of people who refused to weak masks out of an anti-government-control political ideology. Viruses do not walk around such ideologies. In fact, such people put themselves at risk to make political points. This is why I brought in the poor condition of primary education in Arizona. The anti-professional bias, also very much extant in the middle and lower socio-economic classes in Arizona, undoubtedly played a role in the dismissiveness of even the guidelines. 
In fact, if we can assume that the people nationally who were self-isolating and wearing masks in public in May were also careful to keep at a distance from other people in stores as well as in public otherwise, the practically non-existent physical-distancing being practiced in Phoenix contrary to the governor's order suggests that even in this respect Arizonans (including the store managers and employees!) were falling short relative to the national percentages. Hence Gov. Ducey's ineffectual approach, which included his faulty trust that businesses would enforce at least their own policies on not only customers, but also employees. At a press conference on June 17th, the governor declared that the virus was spiking again, and that he would leave it to the local governments whether to require face masks  . In his tone as he reminded businesses that they would be held accountable, I contend he subtly acknowledged that businesses such as grocery stores had not complied to his physical-distancing executive order in March and still in effect in June. I wonder if he realized just how pathetically many of his citizens had taken his heed on distancing. Arizona is not California, either in terms of citizenry or governance.


1. Jacqueline Howard and Veronica Stracqualursi," Fauci Warns of 'Anti-Science Bias' Being a Problem in US," CNN.com, June 18, 2020.
2. Ray Sanchez and Dan Simon, “What California Is Doing Right in Responding to the Coronavirus Pandemic,” CNN.com, April 3, 2020.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Madeline Holcombe, "Fauci Says Second Wave is 'Not Inevitable' as Coronavirus Cases Climb in Some States," CNN.com, June 13, 2020.
6. Ibid.


Wednesday, June 10, 2020

The Hebrew Bible on Business Ethics

The early Hebrews considered wealth to be an integral part of human perfection and, moreover, what ought to be.[1] The ideal man was wealthy and leisured, and yet occupied with honorable work.[2] In the Torah, as long as the Hebrews as a people obey God, including dutifully acting as stewards rather than as selfish exploiters of the land that God has provided, poverty should be nonexistent in Israel. “There need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the Lord your God.”[3] Blessed wealth is a reward for fidelity to Yahweh, whereas poverty here is indicative of, or even punishment for, disobedience, which will evidently always be the case in Israel, for, “There will always be poor people in the land.”[4] The conditionality leaps off the page, as does the notion of collective justice, and yet wealthy individuals, including business practitioners, are held to account. The ethic of work is upheld even though labor in Genesis is due to original sin. 

The full essay is at "Ancient Judaism on Wealth."


[1]. Charles R. Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Wealth and Work (London: Epworth Press, 1924), 21.
[2]. Smith, The Bible Doctrine, 22, 33-34.
[3]. Deut. 15:4-5.
[4]. Deut. 15:11.

Saturday, June 6, 2020

Police Brutality: A Symptom of a Brain Sickness Stimulated by Large Doses of Power

Behind the ornate rooms and regalia of a head of state, the stately appearance of legislative chambers, and even revered democratic constitutions, the basis of a government is its power—even if beyond authorized limits—to use lethal force against even its electorate peacefully protesting. As the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 show, human beings who have police power—even beyond the authorized—have at the very least a proclivity to abuse people without countervailing power. The students who were assigned as prison guards in the experiment because so abusive toward the students assigned as prisoners that the experiment had to be terminated after only 6 days in a two-week period. Even the experimenter, who took on the role of prison superintendent during the experiment, “had become indifferent to the suffering” of the students who were in the role of prisoners.[1] Lest it be concluded that college students are simply too immature to assume even what seems to be absolute power over other students, such behavior is arguably common among actual police employees. Lest it be further concluded that such behavior is part of an autocratic regime, even the known instances in republics suggest that human nature itself cannot handle such discretion as police departments and their employees have. Incredibly, even with the result of the Stanford study, no one seems to go to this conclusion; rather, primitive human nature may be poised to jump from incident to incident as if doing so enough would end the abuse of such power.
The presumptuousness that police departments and individual employees have in abusing their powers to harm even nonviolent protesters was on display to the world on June 4, 2020 as police in Buffalo, New York, pushed down a 75 year-old man who ironically had stood for peace and justice for decades. The violent act itself by two police employees was telling. Video shows Martin Gugino approaching an oncoming police employee in a nonviolent manner to talk—perhaps to ask a question. Another police employee immediately speeds up his pace—the first indication of possible aggression. Then he and another employee pushed Martin backwards. Incredibly, one of the employees who pushed Martin then shock his head back and forth as if the incident had been Martin’s fault, when the fault lied with the employee. Such shirking of responsibility is a convenient mental tactic by which the abusive mind seeks to justify/protect itself—the delusion being hidden to such a mind by the mind itself.
That the other police employees kept walking past Martin as he lied on the cement with blood coming from his right ear suggests the presence of a group-think dehumanizing even a victim of police aggression. A man off-camera then scolds the police employees for walking past Martin and not even bothering to call an ambulance. Instead of respecting the man for his compassion for Martin and justified reproach of the tax-payer salaried employees, they push the man forward and handcuff him. Perhaps that man and other people in the vicinity should have acted on an instinct to remain silent and offer a NAZI salute. I’m sure the police employees would have felt especially emboldened to exploit the personal conflict of interest out of anger. Were he alive, Gandhi might have recommended that the people in the vicinity stay silently in place and take the blows to show the employees’ moral sickness to the employees themselves and the world.  
At the very least, the moral sickness could include exploiting a personal conflict of interest out of anger, and taking non-threats as threats—that is, being over-sensitive and over-reactive. Out of arrogance, the employees may even have presumed, how dare the old man come to us to ask a question! As for the man—the anonymous Christian—who attempted to shame the Roman police into at least stopping to tend for Martin, how dare anyone talk to us that way.
In short, the mentality of the police employees on the scene may have been too used to abusing their power even and especially when its exercise goes beyond their delegated authority. This implies that accountability from and on police departments in general—and not just in New York—had been practically non-existent. In other words, police employees are routinely given too much discretion (i.e., power) relative to what the human brain can handle, and a system has been set up that protects this dysfunctional sickness such that it is no longer viewed by the aggressors as a sickness.
The implications for public policy are not merely to fix the system of broken accountability; a reduction of discretion is also called for both in terms of what authority governments give their respective police departments and what authority they in turn give to their managers and non-supervisory employees. Incident-specific responses to police brutality do not do justice even to the first task.
How police departments, police unions, and the police employees themselves react to accusations of can say a lot about the dysfunctional sickness that protects abuse manifests in a “clean up” capacity. The sickness itself may convince the infected brains, but the denial makes it possible that people without the vested interest get to glimpse the disease through its symptoms. That is to say, the sickness may cause the infected brains to unwittingly reveal too much.


In trying to defend the two abusive police employees, John Evans, president of the local police union, said, “Our position is these officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square. It doesn’t specify clear the square of men, 50 and under or 15 to 40. They were simply doing their job. I don’t know how much conflict was made. He did slip in my estimation. He fell backwards.”[2] Evans’ statement is revealing in ways that he did not likely intend. Firstly, general orders, such as to clear an area because of a curfew, have plenty of room for discretion, which the head of the labor union ignores. For example, the police could simply have stood at one end of the public square and fired on anyone in it. Alternatively, the police could have walked through the square, arresting people who refuse to leave. Both approaches are consistent with the general order to clear the square. Secondly, in asserting that Martin fell backwards from slipping, which is clearly not the case in the video, the police union’s position was that lying to protect abusive police employees is acceptable—perhaps even laudable.
Moreover, that 57 police employees in that riot squad quit because the two abusive employees were suspended allows us access into the sordid mentality of entitlement even to push over an old man and walk past him with apparent indifference. A squad’s solidarity can thus effectively enable the presumption to over-react to non-threats by committing violent acts. Such a squad, and police department, moreover, would have no moral objection to covering up episodic eruptions of the sickness within. In short, the law doesn’t apply to the departments and employees tasked ironically with enforcing the law. In conveniently excluding themselves, such departments and employees therein reveal their criminal mentality under the ripped cloak of public decency.
In spite of living in democratic republics, Americans were at the time especially vulnerable. “In recent decades, police [there] have amassed power through laws that grant them a high level of immunity, a lack of oversight, big budgets and a focus on reforms that [have brought] little change.”[3] Even though police departments are responsible to democratically-elected officers of cities in a given republic, such as New York, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has been involved in modifying anti-crime legislation and “trying to make elected officials accountable to police, rather than the other way around.”[4] An institutional conflict of interest has been exploited here at the expense of legitimate democratic governance.[5]
To be sure, electorates in some of the American republics have willing ceded to the police a lot of power. In Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, the dominant political ideology assumes that a visibly-heavy police presence is justified and even necessary as a deterrent against crime. That ideology falsely assumes that innocent citizens would not be uncomfortable seeing so many police cars and helicopters on a regular basis—in what can be called the emergencization of the status quo. That fly-through helicopters fly regularly in one area outside of the FAA-mandated corridor with impunity points to how much power the police department has and what its mentality is. That even the campus police department at a local university, Arizona State University, presumes (over academic culture) to park regularly on campus sidewalks and in the middle of academic courtyards suggests that perspective can be warped by the brain sickness of power and little accountability on that sickness would be very unlikely from a pro-police “academic” administration (and student government!), which in turn is not democratically elected. The explicitness by inconsiderate shows of the dominance by force impedes the free exchange of ideas and an atmosphere conducive to thinking. Rather than enhancing the feeling of security, especially during school days, the culture of dominance puts everyone there, especially students from more balanced States on edge. That is not an academic culture, and in fact eclipses it on its own turf. 
Given the weaknesses of the human mind, the decisions or captures of governments and especially non-governments such that they succumb to their own police departments are dangerous, and in fact can easily enable police over-reaches, whether aggressive or passive-aggressive (e.g., pensive presences) with the presumption of impunity. In 2020 with protests taking place in the U.S., E.U., Australia, and Brazil (and other countries), the world may have been awakening to just how lapse-prone the brain can be with de facto absolute physical power. 
To be sure, that those protests were blind to a likely-increasing sordid, deeply selfish disrespect for the law and inconsiderateness of strangers and even neighbors does nothing to reduce that problem (if indeed such respect and considerateness can be treated, much less forced). Although that mentality can easily spark anger, police employees who act on the basis of personal emotion are themselves disrespecting law. In other words, even if incidents of police brutality had been increasing to meet another mentality that refuses to respect the law and thus its enforcers (even apart from their abuses of power), one primitive mentality need not match another, that is naturally anger-provoking. Perhaps the flash point is disrespect being naturally met with disrespect. In the end, anti-social criminals can expect to be dealt with, but within measures that are compatible with the human brain.


2. “Buffalo Police Riot Squad Quit to Back Officers Who Shoved Man,” BBC.com, June 5, 2020 (accessed June 6, 2020).
3. Julia Mahncke, “Why Police in the US Are So Powerful,” DW.com, June 6, 2020 (accessed same day).
4. Ibid.
5. For more on institutional conflicts of interest, see Skip Worden, Institutional Conflicts of Interest.

Friday, June 5, 2020

E.U. Trade Negotiations with a Former State: The Paradigm of Britain

The paradigm used by a former state can undermine any negotiations between it and a federal government. Even the reference to a federal government, if contrary to such a paradigm, can subtly undercut relations. The typical focus on the matters to be negotiated, such as new trade relations, easily miss the negative impact of a biased paradigm that is more based in Euroskeptic states’ rights (i.e., anti-federalism) that on the actual relation being between a former state and the European Union.

In 1964, even before the E.U. came into effect in 1993, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a landmark decision in Costa v. ENEL declaring E.U. law superior over state law, and the ECJ supreme in interpreting E.U. law, including its basic law (which acts as a constitution). The E.U. saw the federal-level sovereignty expand into two “pillars” besides the renamed EEC. Even so, while in office as prime minister of the British state, David Cameron referred to the E.U. federal system as instead one of the networks to which Britain happens to belong. A network, such as NATO, does not hold any sovereignty. A network is not a federal system, and yet the E.U. is a federal system of dual sovereignty (i.e., held both by the state governments and the federal government, or “institutions”). Nor is a “bloc” a federal system, and yet even after secession British government officials (and their media) steadfastly used the loose term in spite of the fact that the E.U. covers more than trade and even economic policy and has legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as is typical for a government. Even remaining states have perpetuated the misleading term. Deutsche Welle, based in the state of Germany, notes in one article that without a trade deal, “the UK could face a so-called cliff-edge scenario which would effectively cut trade with the bloc.”[1] Cambridge Dictionary defines bloc as “a group of countries or people that have similar political interests.” Incredibly, even though the E.U. even at its inception included two non-economic “pillars,” the dictionary lists as one example, “The European Union is a powerful trading/trade bloc.” So too, were the former Eastern/Communist bloc countries even though they had not formed a federal government and they were not even republics (i.e., states) in the former U.S.S.R.

So the Truman Doctrine of the U.S., which pledged that the U.S. would help any country in the Americas resist the encroachments of communism rendered all the countries in the Americas a bloc due to the common political interest. So too, Western European countries constituted a bloc in having a shared political interest opposing the communist bloc in Eastern Europe (as well as the U.S.S.R.).  To apply the term bloc to a federal system undermines it because the term reduces it (of any sovereignty) into a mere common political interest.

Even just in thinking of the E.U. as a bloc, the British trade negotiators in 2020 were understating the status of the political union and ignoring its portion of sovereignty over its remaining states and in relations with governments around the world, including that of the UK. Even while it was an E.U. state, the UK government bristled at the reality that the federal institutions held some sovereignty in the federal system (the states holding the rest, as is the case in the U.S.)—yes, as in the case of the United States. Perhaps this comparison is precisely why the British government has intractably held onto the fiction that the E.U. is a mere bloc rather than a federal system with, yes, a federal government.

In the Deutsche Welle article, Michael Clauss, an official with the German government, warns that it is not possible for Britain to have “full sovereignty and at the same time full access to the EU’s internal market” in a trade deal with the European Union.[2] I submit that as a state, the UK wanted just that, and thus butted heads with the political/governmental reality that E.U. states were semi-sovereign as they had ceded some governmental sovereignty to the federal governmental institutions (i.e., government). Even in refusing to refer to a federal government, using institutions instead, officials of state governments generally have tried to deny that the E.U.’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches together constitute a government, as if basic law had not been established and judicially interpreted by the E.U.’s highest court. No federal government, no federal governmental sovereignty. Of course, even a collection of institutions at the E.U. level could have sovereignty; even the voting system of qualified majority voting means that a state government could find itself having to implement an E.U. directive.  

The refusal to admit that the E.U. has some governmental sovereignty even in carrying on trade negotiations has left it open for Euroskeptics to refer to the E.U. as an international organization akin to NATO or the UN, neither of which have a government or sovereignty. The British government officials can say that the former state can enjoy full sovereignty yet still have full trading benefits. 

Yet in spite of the qualitative differences between the UK and international organizations, the world, including former and current E.U. states, accepted the convenient analogy of “Brexit” to a divorce. The Deutsche Welle article, for example, observes, “Brexit supporters in the UK have grown frustrated with delays that have been plaguing the divorce proceedings since the Brexit referendum in June 2016.”[3] A divorce implies to commensurate parties, but it breaches logic to say that a state in a federal system is equivalent to the whole instead of the other parts thereof. Don’t tell Kant, but ideology can warp even logic and facts of reason. 

Does secession render a state equivalent to a union of states? 

We are supposed to believe that an international organization without its own sovereignty and a nation-state got a divorce, and, furthermore, that the nation-state can nonetheless expect to continue to get trading benefits that members get. A sovereign government can expect to get such results in negotiating with a mere international organization, and yet the divorce analogy implies that the two parties are equivalent (even though a state is not equivalent to a union of such states, or even former states). That the media in Europe and elsewhere (e.g., The New York Times) have allowed themselves to be manipulated by such twisted, self-serving ideological “logic,” which belies the strength of the E.U., suggests that the stamp of officialdom can be without a viable foundation.

1. “Germany Urges UK to Be ‘More Realistic’ on Brexit,” DW.com, June 4, 2020 (accessed same day).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.