Send us a text

The United States has a long political history of viewing ourselves as a “City Upon a Hill”. In this view, the US is the model of Christian Charity and points the way for the rest of the world, that the “eyes of all people are upon us.” This has motivated US foreign policy for nearly a century. The United States acts to promote our interests abroad, but also to protect democracy and freedom around the world. Some Americans would like the United States to serve a different role on the global stage. They would like the US to focus more on problems at home, and less on problems around the globe. But, as the US recedes from the foreign stage, other actors will step in to fill that role. It looks like China is anxious to fill the void. Recently, China has played a central role in brokering peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, promoting economic cooperation that sidesteps the US in Brazil, and offering to broker peace in Ukraine. It is expensive to be the peacemaker in the world. Is this something the US should continue doing? Does the US have a moral obligation to take the lead in promoting democracy and freedom around the world?

Jack Teixeira, a 21 year old member of the US National Guard has been  charged with willful retention of classified information. Wow, that was quick. It seems that he didn’t have any higher moral purpose in doing this, he just wanted to impress his friends online and things got out of control. I’ve heard of some pretty high profile people who have also willfully retained classified information and they aren’t being charged. Is this another example of bias in our justice system.

Last week, Sam hinted at a story published by ProPublica about lavish gifts and vacations Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted from a right-wing billionaire. This week, ProPublica is reporting that Justice Thomas sold his mother’s home and some adjacent properties to this same billionaire for $130,000. Justice Thomas did not disclose this transaction which violates federal law. The reason for these laws is to prevent corruption and bribery. Some people might “purchase” something in order to give money to a public official that cannot easily be construed as a bribe. It seems to me that those in office are often given the benefit of the doubt in situations like these. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t we hold elected officials (or appointed justices with lifetime tenure) to a higher standard of accountability than everyone else?

Big Question:

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, an estimated 100 million Americans have amassed nearly $200 billion in collective medical debt. medical debt has become a leading cause of personal bankruptcy, with an estimated $88 billion of that debt in collections nationwide, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Roughly 530,000 people reported falling into bankruptcy annually due partly to medical bills and time away from work, according to a 2019 study from the American Journal of P