Category Archives: Uncategorized

Dear Senator Fischer: This Must End Now

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer published another of her occasional updates for constituents. 

Ms. Fischer, on message as usual under the banner of “fiscal sanity,” related various earmarking victories for Nebraska communities and the common-sense approach the Republican-controlled Senate brings to America’s fiscal challenges.

In defending the Trump administration’s wholesale overhaul of the federal government’s mission—including canceling global aid programs and silencing the Voice of America overseas, pardoning dozens of violent criminals convicted of assaulting police, putting an unqualified person who traffics in conspiracy theories in charge of the nation’s health, offering insults and threats to our allies in Europe and the Americas rather than cooperation, accusing Ukraine of “starting a war” while laughing with Putin on his red carpet, sending troops into “Democrat”  cities against the will of local leaders (an action just ruled illegal), imposing tariffs on nations we don’t even trade with, and so on—Ms. Fischer argues that what she and her GOP colleagues are about is “reducing the reckless spending that has helped push our national debt past $37 trillion.” 

It’s true, you know, about the debt. It’s big. It was true in 2012, when Ms. Fischer was elected to the Senate. The debt was big in 2017, before Trump’s first term, and even bigger after. And, with the recent extension of the 2017 tax cuts, along with a quickly executed debt ceiling rise of some $4 trillion, it is projected to be even bigger in 2028. 

Because Republicans only complain about the nation’s debt when Democrats are in charge. As soon as a Republican president appears, these fears are magically transformed into “investing for growth” (i.e., tax cuts). That particular debt is supposed to pay for itself, right? Yet here we are. 

Of course, a revenue source apparently escaping the senator’s notice is at work in the form of the president’s sweeping, on-again/off-again tariffs, which were just declared illegal by a federal judge because Congress is assigned that power by the Constitution. (Apparently this judge, we will be told, is one of those who are ideologically aligned against the “president’s mandate,” something that doesn’t exist. And this sentiment will be echoed by those in the Senate who, according to law, actually hold the power Trump is exercising.) 

The tariffs are indeed pulling in millions of dollars every day. And it’s not a tax on you or me! Not technically. But since a tariff is charged to the importer of the goods (on the American side), not the foreign shipper, guess who will ultimately be paying it? Hint: not foreigners.

Now the government needs a budget, and that will require Democrats to vote for it. But Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, referring to Trump slashing funds already appropriated by Congress via legally questionable “pocket rescissions”, said that it’s “hard to justify voting for bills that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a recent letter to colleagues, said that “Senate Republicans must decide: Stand up for the legislative branch or enable Trump’s slide toward authoritarianism.”

I agree. While a focus on numbers and debt may sound “serious” (and traditionally Republican) in print, Ms. Fischer’s message ignores other immediate emergencies facing this nation. 

I will add, Senator Fischer: remember how you felt on January 6, 2021? Many of the rest of us still feel that way. Your brief, three-sentence statement on that day was quite clear: “These rioters have no constitutional right to harm law enforcement and storm our Capitol. We are a nation of laws, not some banana republic. This must end now.”

That, too, remains true. We are indeed a nation of laws. Yet, as Ms. Fischer surely knows, one of those violent, lawless men who attacked the police on that day while yelling, “Kill ‘em!”—Jared L. Wise—is now employed by Donald Trump’s Justice Department as a “senior advisor.” 

So I offer your message back to you, Ms. Fischer, regarding this president who acts, with the blessings of his party, as a law unto himself: 

This must end now.

Submitted for publication to the Nebraska Examiner, not accepted

Happy 250th Birthday to the United States Army 

Posted on by
Reply

On June 14, we wished our United States Army a happy 250th birthday. It was a significant day for me, having grown up around the world among soldiers, sailors, airmen and their families. 

My father, George Wees, was born in Omaha to second-generation Polish immigrants. His father, Francis Wees, built houses in South Omaha, including the house he, my grandmother, and their nine children called home, near 38th and G. Dad attended Creighton Prep and graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point in 1958. 

I was born a few years later, in Heidelberg, in then-West Germany. Young Lieutenant Wees was on one of his early assignments working with the newly established West German military, via a NATO attachment, to establish secure government communications networks just miles away from Soviet-allied East Germany.  

In 1966, Dad received orders for Vietnam. He was to advise a South Vietnamese Army unit in the burgeoning conflict between the communist North and the democratic South. He parked my mother and us kids in a little duplex in East Omaha, and off he went to spend a year on the other side of the globe. 

Cadet George Wees in his West Point dorm room
Cadet George Wees, USMA 1958

I remember, he furnished us with a little tape recorder and microphone, and he and my mother exchanged tapes, in addition to near-daily letters, during his deployment. She still has the tapes. In some of his messages, you hear the gunfire in the distance. And at those times, you hear a bit of unsteadiness in the young lieutenant’s voice.

When Dad returned in 1967, he was stationed at the Pentagon, now a Captain. We lived in a little house across from a park in Vienna, Virginia, where I attended kindergarten and first grade. It was there that I really got to know him. He set up a dark room in the basement to pursue his photography hobby, bought a Mustang for the Pentagon commute, and patiently hosted siblings from Omaha who wanted to come visit Washington.

But by 1969, it was time for his second tour in Vietnam. Back we came to Omaha, to another little house on 43rd and Center, a rental owned by friends. There my mother, sister and I would wait out another year of war. That is, if Dad survived. 

By this time, things were less taut, less military, and problems extended from the front to the rear. In command of American troops near Nha Trang, Dad survived at least one attempt on his life—from his own troops. 

Because by this point, many of the young draftees were convinced the war was pointless. Eventually, after resisting the notion for years, Colonel Wees agreed with me that the war, through Democratic and Republican administrations, was ill-conceived and badly executed. 

In other words, pointless.

But we should remember that rank and file soldiers like my dad only served. None of it was their idea, nor did they make the big decisions. That was the province of civilian leadership in Washington—folks who would soon be ousted, many imprisoned, the president resigning in disgrace. 

Our current civilian leader, who has already been disgraced by multiple felony convictions and a sexual assault judgment against him, used the occasion of the Army’s birthday to throw a party and have a parade. 

The Army, as always, followed the commander-in-chief’s orders, and rolled the tanks down Constitution Avenue in a light rain as the president attempted a few salutes. Nearby, at Arlington National Cemetery, Dad rested.  

Though drafted, the president never served (bone spurs), and according to witnesses, he has labeled as “suckers and losers” the rank-and-file soldiers who make up the service. His campaign-style speech to West Point’s 2025 graduating class—complete with MAGA hat— was thin on talk of duty or honor.

But those cadets did what cadets do. They listened to the president troll and dismiss his predecessor, threaten his political “enemies”, invent “facts”, and brag about himself, without visibly reacting, except to politely applaud as they shared their achievement with the commander-in-chief. 

That’s what it looks like when doing one’s duty, honorably, for one’s country. It looks like discipline, because that’s what is required to lead. 

Happy 250th birthday to the United States Army. May you continue to serve and protect the Constitution, and to quietly obey the lawful orders of whatever civilian leadership the voters place above you, for centuries to come.

Written for the Nebraska Examiner

https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/07/08/celebrating-250-years-of-the-u-s-army/

Americans subsidize all energy sources, not just renewable ones

Posted on by
Reply

Commentary for The Nebraska Examiner, published April 10, 2025

Americans subsidize all energy sources, not just renewable ones

Folks can get animated when it comes to discussions of climate science and energy production. Rather than the facts alone, confirmation bias and ideological rigidity can creep in to one’s seemingly common-sense position.

For example, some argue against renewable energy by saying that currently accepted scientific theory on climate change is a “hoax” or a “scam.” These are loaded terms, not material to an actual argument against the current scientific consensus. Nor does such an accusation effectively argue against alternative energy sources.

Even granting that the current global consensus of climate experts is somehow an elaborate hoax, how would that negate the positive dividends of non-polluting renewable energy? The answer is it would not. The argument is irrelevant.

Truth matters

The truth is the opposite: rather than harmless, the burning of fossil fuels is indeed harmful to the environment and the health of living things. Don’t believe me? Go start your car and leave the garage door closed. (Don’t if you want to live.)

Another popular argument posits that government subsidies mask the true economic liability that is renewable energy. While this seems to fly in the face of the reality that the wind and sunlight are free (and infinite), it is true that Americans have some tax credits available for more efficient home energy infrastructure (such as rooftop solar, geothermal HVAC, etc.). And government has directly subsidized wind and energy projects at the commercial production level.

But if the idea is that government assistance proves the economic futility of an industry, oil and gas take the booby prize. According to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. government ranks second in the world in its support of the oil and gas industry.

Per IMF, the U.S. federal and state governments give the fossil fuel industry over $20.5 billion in support each year through the tax code, inadequate royalty rates and direct funding. Also per the IMF, U.S. renewables were subsidized to the tune of $15.6 billion in FY 2022.

The truth is, all energy production types are subsidized in the United States, at various amounts and for various reasons.

Fact-based decisions

Still, we must ask: Is it possible to set political and ideological considerations aside and make smart, fact-based choices for our shared future of energy consumption and production in Nebraska?

Anyone who lives here knows Nebraska produces comparatively little oil and gas. According to the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE), Nebraska’s crude oil production in 2021 was only 3.68% of the petroleum products consumed in the state. Nebraska’s natural gas production in 2021 was only 0.18% of the natural gas consumed in the state.

But we enjoy an abundance of wind and an enviable amount of sunshine. Needless to say, all or close to all of the solar and wind energy consumed in Nebraska is also produced in Nebraska. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable resources (mostly wind) provided 32% of Nebraska’s total electricity net generation in 2023.

Among a wealth of energy choices, does it make sense, both economically and in terms of real environmental challenges, to argue that the only energy resource Nebraska is unable to produce in abundance — fossil fuels — should be the sole energy resource we rely on?

If we are to discourage Nebraskans from generating their own clean — and virtually free — energy, shouldn’t we be certain that abandoning the pursuit of that free energy resource is a wise thing to do?

Renewables worth it

So far, I have heard no good arguments against continued expansion of renewable energy resources. Yes, wind and solar require infrastructure (just like oil and gas). Yes, the industry is subsidized (just like oil and gas). Yes, there is environmental impact (just like oil and gas). And yes, there are
taxpayer-funded incentives (just like oil and gas).

The worst argument, in my opinion, tries to hobble renewables for being “intermittent.” What do we do at night or when the wind stops blowing? A rooftop solar system can feed extra power back to the grid on a sunny day, then switch to pulling from the grid at night. During a cloudy, windless February, we burn some coal or other fuel to keep the lights on, then reap the March winds and the summer sun.

The answer is, we use them all. But the more renewables we use, the longer “all” energy sources —including finite ones like oil and gas — will be available. How does that not makes sense?

A Quiz for the Nebraska Delegation

Posted on by
Reply

Unpublished Editorial

“L’etat, c’est moi.”
—Apocryphal saying attributed to Louis XIV of France

Here’s a fun quiz for the Nebraska Congressional delegation. It’s an easy Yes/No quiz — only one-word answers are required, and that one word is “Yes” or “No.”

Why insist on this? Because in the world of politics, skill is often displayed by not answering the question.

To accommodate that political reality, none of these questions requires elaboration. Each is the presentation of a documented action regarding the president or his administration, followed by a version of the question: Do you agree with this?

Anyway, let’s get started.

1. According to the Washington Post, Elon Musk has no official role in DOGE. Folks in Congress know that Executive branch officers (such as Cabinet Secretaries) must be Senate-approved, and even lower-level officers must occupy roles defined by statute. Do you agree with putting a non-vetted corporate titan in charge of a massive federal undertaking, given that he has no “official” role and therefore cannot be subjected to oversight by Congress?

2. According to former Labor secretary Robert Reich, “When Trump took office, the National Labor Relations Board had 24 investigations into Musk’s corporations for violating workers’ rights. But…Trump fired three officials at that agency, effectively stalling the board’s ability to rule on cases.” Is that okay with you? 

3. Trump also fired Justice Department prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. Do you agree these non-political public servants should be fired for following the evidence of  now-documented January 6 crimes, as directed by their politically appointed superiors at the Justice Department? 

4. Trump pardoned jailed supporters who violently attacked the Capitol and injured police in their attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory. Some have since been arrested for other crimes. Do you support these blanket pardons, along with Trump’s portrayal of January 6 offenders as innocent “hostages” as justification for the pardons?

5. Oh, and by the way, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? 

Of course, in a world helmed by authoritarians, lesser authorities have no objective reality or traditional morality to draw upon when questioned. In such regimes, the truth is whatever the current leadership says it is. It’s the same for what is “good” or “bad”. What is true, good or bad changes over time; but such changes are not acknowledged, only implemented. Because what is true today has always been true. 

And tomorrow? Tomorrow’s truth, though different than today’s, will be equally unassailable.

In such systems, the plasticity of “political” truths goes without saying. Because saying something could land you in hot water. Remember that gallows the Trump mob erected on January 6?

So this should be the easiest question for you all, the quiet observers and “no comment” Congressional enablers of Trumpism: 

6. When this president violates the law, is it your preference that we all simply look the other way? 

Just yesterday, Trump posted, in his curious random capitalization style and without context, a quote sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”. 

The quote, which is actually from the largely Soviet-financed 1970 theatrical film Waterloo, begins with  the Napoleon character musing as he dictates a letter: “I did not usurp the crown. I found it, in the gutter, and I picked it up with my sword. And it was the people, Alexis, the people who put it on my head.”

A victorious savior crowned by the people! What law—or lawmaker—can compete with that? 

7. So—regarding that golden-crowned “Long Live the King” Trump portrait the White House tweeted yesterday…you know what? Forget it. How could your answers matter? We are now all bystanders at Trump’s glorious Battle of Austerlitz. Whatever comes of it will belong to him.

Perhaps, in the end and with your continued laissez-faire approach to Congressional oversight, Trump will whip up just as much glory for Americans as Napoleon did for the French. I think I’ll see if Waterloo is available on Netflix this weekend. 

What’s the Opposite of “Woke”?

Posted on by
Reply

Letter to the Editor, Lincoln Journal-Star, Feb. 12, 2025.

As a Nebraskan, I’m naturally concerned about wokeness. The nation, and most Nebraskans, elected a president whose entire mission appears to be centered around “anti-wokeness.” If that doesn’t make anti-wokeness important, I don’t know what would. 

The problem is figuring out what “wokeness” means. 

We can compare “woke” with neologisms from the past that were employed as ideological  labels. I remember a few decades ago, conservatives seemed obsessed with the spread of “Islamofascism.” But as with “woke,” the definition of the term appeared pretty random, sort of circling around the idea that to be Islamic and an enemy of the United States is to be Islamofascist. 

Then there are the words that “surround” a term like “woke”, such as when the president pairs the epithet “woke” with companion labels like “communist, globalist, leftist, Marxist,” etc.  By association alone, we can understand that to be “woke” is to NOT be a good MAGA Republican. Maybe that’s enough.

In truth, we all know what words really mean—or don’t mean. To MAGA conservatives, those of us who support DEI initiatives, those who support helping refugees, those who condemn the demonization of all marginalized and powerless Americans—we are “woke”.

So what should a never-Trump Republican call folks who witnessed the chaos and lawlessness of Trump’s first term, and then voted for another one?

I think the term we’re looking for would simply be the opposite of woke. 

Not “anti-woke,” which limits them to what they are not.

Perhaps the word is “asleep”.