I Want The Vaccine. Right. Darn. NOW.

 

If we are honest with ourselves, that’s the way most of us feel.  Not everyone, but most.  [Note 1]

Follow the logic:  A disease is killing lots of people, sickening a WHOLE BUNCH of others and destroying a robust economy.   They have developed a vaccine which – apparently – works well.  So, I want it.  Now.

But no.  The government is distributing it to certain people, starting with medical folks most exposed.  And other groups – nursing home residents, educators, and so on – will follow.  But they’ll get it before ME.

Oh, and many important government people have rolled up their sleeves to “set a good example.”  Many of them are in groups which are supposed to get it AFTER me.  Hey, how about setting a really good example – Pass on it and give it to me.

So the “triage bug” strikes again.  It’s like we’re stuck in an episode of MASH – “Triage!!”  That’s where decisions are made about what order medical services will be provided.  If you are triaged low and you die, you’re just out of luck.

Harrumph.

But triage is what we do in almost every activity.  On my desk are files, say, of six people in jail.  They all want out.  For some, the chances are pretty decent.  For some, impossible.  How do I decide who’s file to work on?  Triage.  I have limited resources, my time.  I will either use them most effectively for the greatest number, do something irrational, or be paralyzed.

You triage all the time.  You allocate your resources, your time, your money, to be the most effective.  In other words, you discriminate. 

Discrimination is not all bad.  A doctor is more likely to be exposed to Covid and sicken or die than a healthy, handsome, debonair, young lawyer.  I have to live with that.  If I come down with Covid, I’ll be REALLY upset that the doc got the vaccine ahead of me.  But it’s still the right thing to do.

I don’t have to like it.  But life is, indeed, unfair.  All we can ever do is our best.

Mizpah!

 

 

Note 1:  So-called “Anti-vaxers” say that the vaccine is an evil plot or ineffective or will cause what it’s supposed to prevent or other urgent reasons to avoid it.  They MIGHT be right, but that’s not the way to bet.  Their theories lie a little to the north of a Martian plot and well south of the chance of drawing a winner with a lottery scratch off ticket.

Canceling Holidays; The "No More Place"

Americans are a remarkable cooperative and sedate people. Most of us don’t go out of our way to have a confrontation. We believe in “live and let live.”  (Oh, I imagine two or three readers of these Dispatches that doesn't apply to; you boys know who you are.)

Witness how we react to private security guards. They have zero power – no arrest powers, as a rule no real weapons. They are just there to direct traffic (cars and people), answer questions, and watch for anything wrong. But is a security person says, “Don’t use that door, use this one,” usually we respond pleasantly even it the order is kinda stupid. It’s just a door, who really cares.

We are told – not asked - to cancel traditional Thanksgiving and Christmas this year. What will happen?

We react similarly to all sorts of people in addition to security guards – medical people even though it’s our body; accountants even though it’s our money; teachers even though it’s our brains and lives. This degree of friendly cooperation is the lubricant that limits friction in our society. And this attitude is what is making the persons in power or allegedly in power make more and more demands which more and more of us think unreasonable.

There is a hard and sudden place in our minds – The “No More Place.” People in power have known to avoid the “No More Place.” The “No More Place” happens without much warning. It happens with intense emotion. Maybe what has happened in 2020 has emboldened the “leaders” of society; maybe it’s made them more arrogant; maybe it’s given them a feeling of “rightness” or the always-dangerous feeling of wisdom; or maybe the leaders among us are just reckless and dumb.

At some point, one who purports to lead has to examine what they will do if the instructions and orders they give won’t be followed. Only two real choices present themselves: Either use overwhelming physical, psychological or moral force to overcome the resistance or say “Oops, my bad, how about ‘pretty please.’ “

Thanksgiving and Christmas and associated winter holiday gatherings- (I’m not going into every conceivable holiday or winter gathering – you know what you celebrate, so celebrate it however you want.) In 2020, we are worried about the transmission of an occasionally fatal virus which is supposed to spread by touch and in aerosol. (We each have become self-styled infection disease experts, at least to the extent that we could compete in the Infectious Disease version of Milton Bradley “Operation” game without killing the patient. But of course, the virus is real, and Milton Bradley just makes a game which buzzes.) We know – because the real medical folks uniformly tell us – to social distance (how about calling it staying-away-from-people rather than giving it a nifty new name?), to wash our hands, and all the rest.

And most of us do that. The virus continues to spread and various people assign various causes to that. Me? I don’t know. I might still be able to do CPR, but I’ve never seen a virus spread – Viruses are too small.  I'll have to trust the docs.

Here is what we know sociological and socially – Orders – which are what they are – not to celebrate winter holidays will be largely ignored. Not inviting 30 people to a buffet dinner is the far better part of wisdom. Ordering folks to do it invites the No More Place, the I-Won’t-Be-Dictated-To response and – more simply – a large dose of Go To Hell.

What do we do about the Go To Hell response? If a significant portion of society goes along with it, there is not much we CAN do. Lots of people, although a minority, demonstrated against the Vietnam War. The Government could not control them. They tried, but failed. Lots of people, although still a minority, demonstrated in 2020 for Black Lives Matter. The Governments tried to control them. They failed. They failed even though some of the demonstrators (both anti- and pro-) already were doing acts which are illegal and obvious. If you attack someone, that’s obvious. How do you think it will work to enforce having less than 10 people at Thanksgiving?  With a search warrant?  With police counting cars around Grandma's house?  

The important and often unexpected key to the No More Place is that it comes suddenly.

We are getting real close.

Mizpah!

One More Time; Repeating Election History

 

There is a new challenge for Americans.

 Now, that’s not supposed to be a shocking line or a lead-in to really, really want to read this.  There is ALWAYS a new challenge for Americans.  And British.  And Russians.  And Nigerians.  And . . .

But neither can we ignore a new challenge initially.  We have to decide if it’s worth fussing about.

Joe Biden won the election.  That’s a fact, not an opinion.  The chances of a successful election challenge are vanishingly small.  This fact presents a number of challenges, the first of which is how we deal with the fact that Biden won and what everyone can learn from the (possibly) mistakes made previously.

 2016 featured two main reactions, depending on which side you were on.

 Many mouthy Democrats screamed “not my President,” had marches, and vowed to oppose with every fiber the success of Trump.  The Democrats largely didn’t listen to their own moderates – Sen. Manchin comes to mind – that all Americans should want the new president to be successful.  The anti’s followed through for four years, blocking progress, upholding pointless points and generally being nasty.  At the same time, many mouthy Republicans had a delicious bacchanalia of schadenfreude, as they replayed the horrified reactions of Clinton supporters and the press at Trump’s win.  Reps delighted in reminding Dems what Obama said in 2008, “Elections have consequences,” and silently mouthed “Nyah, nyah.”

 It’s still VERY early in the 2020-2021 change of administrations, but we can feel the same spirit.  Only – to quote Joe Friday – the names have been changed. 

 Many mouthy Republicans are starting to scream “not my president,” have marches and vow to oppose with every fiber the success of Biden.  Check.  The Republicans aren’t listening to their own moderates, that all Americans should want the new president to be successful, and plan on following through for four equally longs years with blocking progress, upholding pointless points and generally being nasty.  At the same time, the Democrats are starting to enjoy their own delicious turn at schadenfreude, as they replay horrified reactions of Trump supporters and Fox News.  Again, Obama’s point comes through: “Elections have consequences.”  A prominent Democrat, the Representative from Queens, NY, vows to identify and thoroughly marginalize the Trump supporters, donors and voters.  (Hey, let's concentrate them and . . . no, wait 'til later.)

 In both elections, the harsh words and actions were supported by sincere beliefs:  After all, the other guys are WRONG and EVIL.

 I’ve read that 276,000 votes made the difference in the election to get to the 270 in the electoral college.  NOBODY can claim a mandate.  Johnson crushed Goldwater in 1964 with 61% of the vote.  But Johnson – a proud Democrat and an even more proud American – knew better that to ignore the 27 million who voted for Goldwater.  Johnson had power, but not a mandate.

 So the challenge is, Do we replay 2016 over again?  Or might we come together, even though the last time the other side didn’t come together?  Do we “wait til next time” and vow to right the wrongs or vow to “continue to conquer”?

 I really think that’s exactly what we do.  Sorry, right now, Americans are too dumb to do anything that will to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.  Screw posterity, we have payback to give and wooden shoes in the machinery of society.

 Mizzpah.  But until we meet again, do keep your powder dry.

Thank God That Dwayne Johnson and Ted Nugent are Telling Me How to Vote

 

I was overjoyed to see the news this morning that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson has endorsed Vice-pres. Biden’s candidacy.

 I was tickled pink to the that the Fraternal Order of Police national lodge has endorsed Pres. Trump.

 The growing lists of admiral and generals who endorse Biden impress me mightily.

 So do the generals and admirals who endorse Pres. Trump.

 Trace Adkins and Dana White have announced firmly on the Trump side.  I don’t care that I have zero idea who the hell they are.  Herschel Walker, Ted Nugent  and Jon Voight have lined up for Trump.  I know who they are.  I didn’t know that their opinions counted more than mine, but I guess they do.

 Biden has the support of Jay Leno, great actor Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson, Carli B, Drew Carey, and John Legend.  Fantastic.  You figure which ones) I know and which I’ve never heard of.

 I have been following all celebrity endorsements.  And the further their specialty differs from politics, the closer I listen.  After all, to quote one of my favorite sayings of Pres. Clinton, “Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then.”

 But will the celebrity endorsements change the way I vote?  No, for two reasons.

 I could have voted in either California or West Virginia this year.  It depends on when I get my domicile changed.  Of course, in neither case will my vote count for much.  I doubt if Biden will win California by a very few votes or that Trump will have a close one in West Virginia.  I could be wrong – that’s why I vote.  But it’s long odds to be close in either state. 

 So will I bother voting?  Not in this election.

 The second reason?  I’ve already voted, at least once.

 So I a free!  Free from pointless debates.  Debates have been a bad idea as a method to pick between competing politicians since after Lincoln-Douglas.  I’m free from “I’m Joe Biden/Donald J. Trump and I approve this message.”   I’m free from giving a shit about who flies candidate flags, who defaces their plastic bumper with a sticker, I free from parades, from loudspeakers.

 It’s heady time to feel a bit of freedom.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Oh, how did I vote?  One of the giants of progressivism, American exceptionalism, and compromise , LBJ, said:  I split my ticket.  I always split my ticket.

 

Felons Voting

 

Convicted felons who have served their complete sentences more easily will be able to vote the Florida elections.

Under Florida law, a felon gets restoration of some rights, including voting rights, after serving their sentence and discharging their probation or parole, if any. You can like that; you can dislike it; but it’s like any constitutional law, it’s the law until it’s changed.

There was a recent change in Florida law to require the payment of fines, restitution and financial obligations before the restoration of rights.  Decisions of the Supreme Court hold that you cannot hold money over the head of any defendants.  This MAY be unconstitutional, but has not yet gone to the Supreme  Court.

On the question of felons voting, I can argue that either way. I prefer the West Virginia rule, that felons just can’t vote.  I can live with the Florida rule without worrying. Of COURSE it has to do with party politics. Most actions of the law and government depend on party politics. Do think that Democrats support and Republicans oppose statehood for DC and Puerto Rico? If they were solid Republican districts, the parties’ position would be reversed and – this part is scary – each party would BELIEVE that they were right. If you have doubts about motivations, confirmation bias as well of ego, explains a lot.

Mike Bloomberg is complicating the mix. He is going to pay $16 Million of HIS money – which he earned legally and paid taxes on - to pay Florida felons’ fines, etc., so that they can register to vote.

Rep. Matt Goetz, an active and colorful Florida Republican, says that this violates Florida law. Apparently, Florida Attorney General Ashley Mooney agrees, and there is a criminal investigation going against Bloomberg and his cronies. (“Cronies” is intentionally a perjorative term; If I approved, I might call them “supporters.”  Language does matter.)

The Florida statute says:

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—

(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

. . .

Does Bloomberg violate this?

Maybe.

Maybe in 2000, Michael Moore violated a similar statute at rallies,   He threw packages of underwear and ramen noodles to the audience to make some sort of point which now escapes me. They talked about investigating him, too, but no front-line prosecutor would think of touching it.

I certainly wouldn’t.

And I wouldn’t touch Bloomberg, either.

I consider what Bloomberg has done a pretty scurvy trick. So there. Others disagree. Aah, the First Amendment in action. But it’s a personal conclusion based largely on liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Green/etc. considerations, not something Biblical.  He didn't kill anybody or - this time - bear false witness or covet his neighbor's ass.  He's pulling a pretty imaginative political trick. 

Criminal investigations need to be done when a person has done something BAD, that s/he KNEW was bad. Jeffrey Epstein deserves one. Lots of people deserve one. Trump does not. Pelosi does not. Bloomberg does not.

We have to filter the governments prosecuting powers through reasonable people, people who look for a good reason to say “No.” To me, that’s a measure of good government, looking for a reason not to interfere rather than salivating for a reason to say “Yes, go for it.” (“Salivate” is another intentional choice. Words count.)

Bloomberg wants to make people more likely to vote Democrat be able to register. He targets his money to assist them. Republicans (etc.) should just say, “Damn, that bastard Bloomberg has put one over on us. How do we get more Republicans registered?” After all, a goal of parties is to get like-minded people to vote.

But don’t enlist prosecutors to apply the law in a partisan manner. 

 And for every time it’s been tried by one party, the cronies of another party can point out an identical case.  Only the names change.

It’s sad. I don’t know that honor is continually being chased out of American government.

PS – I just got a used copy of “Don’t Buy Another Vote; I Won’t Pay for a Landslide,” by Dr. Allen Loughry. I bought it used because (1) it was cheap even though in “very good” condition, and (2) the money didn’t go to the author. The premise of the book is that West Virginia politics is corrupt. Which the author proceeded to prove himself when he was convicted of a felony, resigned from the Supreme Court, and was disbarred. Notably, the book tells the story of both Governor Arch Moore (Republican, a friend) and Governor Wally Barron (a Democrat, I never met him), both convicted felons.

Counting Illegal Aliens; Dull, dull, dull? But Important.

An interesting dilemma has appeared with the 2020 census.  Do we count illegal aliens, people who – according to law – should not be in the country?

The President just directed the census not to count illegal aliens.

The census gives important direction to government.  The U. S. government is the biggest employer and purchaser in the United States.   Where government money is spent or allocated depends partly on the census figures.  It counts both for numbers of people and what particular things different areas need.  It  may be, for example, that there are more unemployed and disabled people in Eastern Kentucky than on Long Island.  Knowing that gives a government that cares some direction.

Also, census numbers control the numbers of states’ seats in the House of Representatives.  Every state has two senators.  And every state has at least one Representative.    The House membership is capped by law at 435.  (This is a law, not part of the Constitution.) 

One-person-one-vote is a part of Constitutional law.  If a Congressional District differs from another in the same state by 1% population, it will be voided because it violates one-person-one-vote.  Bear that in mind.  Now it gets odd.

Montana has about 1,050,000 people.  A similar state in population is Rhode Island, which has 1,059,000 people.   The “Average” congressional district based on the 2010 census is 747,000.

Montana has one Representative.

Rhode Island has two Representatives. 

So a Montanan’s votes count for half what a Rhode Islandite’s does.

So, by counting illegal aliens, we are affecting both where the money goes and the power of votes in that state. 

The arguments:

Illegal aliens are people, too.  And they are here.  Some of them have a good (if illegal) reason to be here.  If they go to the hospital with a heart attack, they are not going to be turned away.

Illegal aliens are here, well, illegally.   Counting them detracts  tax money from the citizens who pay it and affects the citizens power to vote.  (It is a false notion that the inclusion always favors one party.  It all depends on where they are counted.)

So much for balancing the arguments as best I can.  I think we should not count them.  We cannot ignore illegality and keep functioning as a society. 

I further believe that if we don’t get a smooth and not-too-difficult path to responsible citizenship for current aliens, we need to dismantle the Statue of Liberty.  The poetry is starting to ring false:  “Give me your tired, your poor; Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; The wretched refuse of your teaming shore: Send them – The homeless tempest tossed to me.  I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.”

I wonder:  Can we have a rational discussion without damning the ones who don't agree wth us?

Mizpah!

No, I did not have to look up the poetry.  If I got it wrong, I can live with that.  R

Executing Bad Guys versus the Dustbin of History; A Polemic

The U.S. government hasn’t executed anyone in several years, until this week.  So far, the BOP has executed two people.

Both had been convicted of heinous murders.  Both were convicted many years ago.  One is an Alzheimer’s patient and is arguably so badly affected that he doesn’t know why he’s getting executed.

The fact that these guys will die at some point doesn’t really bother me.  After all, they are human and mortality is in their future.  That they have died this week or others in their situation may die next week doesn’t compare to my feeling about many others, most younger, who have died this week. 

Maybe I’m too practical about life and death.  Certainly, some think so.  And that’s okay with me.  I have a “reputation” that varies with as many people who know me or who know or think they know anything about me. 

The death penalty continues to make no sense to me.

A person currently subject of a death penalty has proven himself unfit to live among us.  (I use “him” advisedly.”  By far, most people who truly earn the death penalty are men.  I have my belief as to why, but I do know that the fact is true, no matter why.)  Therefore, in a fair and just society, we need to separate that person from us. 

How we separate them causes endless discussion.  Do we need to punish them for doing evil?  That’s an area where both religious and humanist thought coincide.   No, we don’t need to express the “evil” of revenge against the evildoers.  (“Two wrongs don’t make a right,” which is trite but true.  Lots of trite sayings are nevertheless accurate.) 

There is the possibility that the death penalty will be applied unfairly and inconsistently.  There is the possibility that it will be applied based on race, religion or lack thereof, economic circumstance or other things unrelated to what the person did. 

Now – If you say, “Damn right, [this group] is FAR more like to be executed and it’s unfair . . .”, you have missed the point.  It doesn’t matter that a particular bunch of people are subject of abuse.   What matters is that it is possible that ANY particular group MAY BE subject of abuse, because when you leave the POSSIBILITY that, say Methodists will be killed more than Buddhists, it WILL happen to some Methodists.  We cannot trust people in power, we never have, and that’s the nature of power.  Methodist power, Hispanic power, Buddhist power, redneck power, any-darn-thing power, it’s all the same.  You don’t need to prove that it’s happening, that it can happen makes it inevitable to happen.

How does it happen?  Well, by people who think that they are being “right.”  Of course a Methodist is more likely to kill people, don’t we all know that?  So I’m enforcing GOD’S WILL by executing them.  Or Humanity’s will. Or Odin’s will.  Or just MY will.   (Sorry, Monty and Jim - God told me.)

It is possible – and that means it has probably happened – that we’ll kill the wrong person.  Oops.  But they are still dead and it’s too late to change that.  It’s VERY unlikely with all of the safeguards we have today, but still possible.  I remember the doctrine of “murder by perjury,” which has been known to convict murderers who testified that somebody else killed a person when really they didn’t.  Then, the murder-by-perjury person was duly executed, which did nothing for the victim.  They were still dead. 

That’s really the basic point.  Not everybody understands it.  Listen:  When you execute somebody, they are dead.  They have quit breathing and their heart has stopped.  There is no replay button in life.  Some say that it’s doesn’t matter, because if someone dies, they go to the reward that they earned while they live.  Heck, I believe that.  I “know” it’s true.  But if you come to kill me, expect a fight.  I’m not ready yet. 

And it’s also possible that the death penalty will be applied inconsistently.  Unless we kill every murderer – which we don’t – it is inevitable that the death penalty be applied inconsistently.  Simply inevitable. 

So what it the answer?  Ooh, that’s sounds like a trick question.  I do so hate to come up with “an answer,” meaning the one-and-only-answer that God/The Force/Whoever inspired me to think of.  (Hmm – should I grow my beard longer to look like an Old Testament Prophet?) 

I think AN answer is to use The Dustbin of History.  John Wayne Gacy has been executed.  But if he hadn’t, he would still be in prison forever and thereby consigned to the Dustbin of History. 

We are ALL consigned to the Dustbin of History eventually.  According to a Google search – so we know it’s true – 108 billion humans have existed.  Something like 6 billions are alive, so every person has 17-some ghosts behind them.  Years ago, Arthur C. Clarke estimated 30-some ghosts behind people in the 1960’s.  Anyway, more people have lived than are living today.  How many of them do you remember?

I remember my 6-times great-grandfather, Jonathan Currey, who alighted in Hampton Roads, Virginia, as an indentured servant in 1649.  That’s all I know about him and I couldn’t pick him out of a line-up. I have 1/256^th of his DNA, so he probably didn’t look like me.  Knowing that he existed is not like mourning him more than anyone else on his ship.  We remember Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Plato, and maybe a couple of thousand other people who are dead.  The rest?  Dustbin of History.

I don’t want to see John Wayne Gacy move in next door.  We need the Dustbin of History for him even when he’s still alive.  You don’t need to punish him, being on the Dustbin of History already does that.  Give him air conditioning and a TV, shut the door to his cell, and go about your own life.  He has chosen his.  His victims are not helped, not brought justice, by doing anything else.

In other words – We need to keep our eye on the ball.  And “the ball” is what matter in the future.

Mizpah!

Who Will Respond to 911 Calls?

650,000 calls are made to 911 every day.  People who call think they need somebody more knowledgeable, more skilled or stronger than they are to deal with some situation.  Most of them are right.  And somebody goes to the caller to see what’s going on.

Most calls are for the police.  Many are for emergency services, usually fire and EMS.  Sometimes, all three services respond.  That's normal life for people in those jobs.

The current civil unrest mostly is directed at the police.  Where it will turn out, we don’t know.  It has also been directed at fire and EMS, where they have been blocked from attending an emergency scene.  The frequency of that is disputed, and all we know is that it has happened on occasion. 

It is the adult thing to do to prepare for bad things which happen.  Doing so requires that you ask, “What can happen?," "How likely is it?," "What is the worst effect if it happens?" and “When it does, what will we do?”   The first three questions help planners allocate scarce resources.  Something which is unlike to happen and which, if it does, will cause minimal loss, gets put to the bottom of the list.  If it happens often or if it does, it will really harm people are dealt with more urgently.  If it happens often and the effects are bad, we are not worthy of the name "public servants" if we don't prepare for the event.

Those who support police – and others – want to know what will happen in the future when they hear someone breaking into the house in the middle of the night.  The opponents of policing as we know do it now that question “waving the bloody shirt” – which it is, at least a little bit – and avoiding the fundamental question of policing.

But that sort of call to 911 DOES happen constantly.  Society exists to keep everybody as safe as reasonable.  So, what will we do?  That’s a legitimate question, no matter where one stands on policing.  Not many burglars will leave one group alone based on who they are or what they believe.  If you say that it will more probably happen to the other person, you may be right. Or may not.  Beats me.  But when it happens to you, it happens 100% and probabilities no longer matter.  You will have help or you will face it on your own. 

Why do people break into houses in the night?

That’s a trick question.  That’s unknowable by the victim of the break-in.  All the victim can do is assume – and try to avoid – the worst.  On the extreme-less-dangerous side, maybe the “burglar” is somebody confused or drunk, who thinks it’s their house and they don't have their keys.  They are not a big danger.  Or, it may be a burglar/killer seeking money or valuables who is willing to kill or violently stop whoever interferes.  That happens.  One guy I once represented killed a neighbor who came to investigate when he burgled a house.  (I represented him on a different murder.)  The victim doesn’t know which person that is, or whether they plan on committing sexual assault, arson, murder or merely theft. 

Currently, we have an agency that deals with immediate needs, the police.  Arms are endemic in this society and will always be possibly present whether they are outlawed or not.  So, we arm the police so that they will be at least as forceful as the potential burglar.  When we arm them, we have to trust them.  Even if the police do something excessive or even plainly wrong will only be addressed after the event is concluded.  The Minneapolis police killing and the Atlanta police killing are different at least in degree, but both guys are still dead and we can’t change that.  As a society, we can only fix what is wrong so that it doesn't happen again.

So the question remains, how do we deal with the burglar.   It WILL happen tonight, and every night in the foreseeable future.  We are prepared to debate how we should have been more ready for a statistically-improbable pandemic.  But the pandemic happened, so the issue is debatable and current.  We know owner-present burglaries will happen.

People talk about approaching policing (or whatever you would call it) from a sociological standpoint.  Police proponents pooh-pooh that idea as being dangerously weak.  Immediately, they may be right.  You can’t reason successfully always with an armed burglar.  Moreover, a police officer has to be right every time to avoid being shot some night.  If only 1% of burglars are armed and dangerous, and officer will last on an average of a few years.  Ultimately, maybe it’s an improvement to deal sociologically – just not while the burglar is still armed.

Also - oddly - the police also protect the burglar or supposed-burglar from being shot by a homeowner.  The police do not come to work hoping to pull and fire a weapon.  They want a quiet night or at least where everybody goes home.  If the police call on you to raise your hands, the smart move is to comply.

So, what will we do when someone calls 911?

911 centers operate by “cook books.”  That means that when you call with a certain type of need in a certain area, the operator physically or mentally calls up a “cook book,” which tells the operator how to handle the call – Who to call on the radio, what to tell the caller what to do in the meantime, and so forth.  What will the cook book say in the future? 

If the answer is, “You’re on your own,” let’s at least be honest with the caller.  What effect will that have?  We’ll lose more callers to violence.  We’ll lose more burglars to gunfire.  And we’ll lose more supposed-but-not-actual burglars by misplaced gunfire.  If we are willing to do that, we have the power to declare that’s the way things will go.

Nor ordering more respirators, not being more ready for an unlikely pandemic has had effects on society.  Drastic effects.  Not preparing for stuff that happens all the time also will have drastic effects.  We need to decide.  And a decision put off is still a decision in itself.

Mizpah!

That Elusive Garden of American Heroes

The President announced at a speech at Mt. Rushmore Friday night that he has signed an Executive Order creating a “National Garden of American Heroes.”  He proposes including:

John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison,  James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright

[See Note 1]

As I read the list, I’m familiar in a general sense with everyone, and know a lot about the bio’s of about half.  Based on this, I can see people where were physically brave and proved it; who were socially/philosophically brave and proved it; were kind and proved it; were in a minority then but as we see now, were simply talking good and obvious sense; scholars  (mostly unacknowledged); and people who stuck to their guns when they “knew” they were right.

[“And proved it” – See Note 2]

I can also see at least two people who had rare religious beliefs (protected by the First Amendment) in reincarnation; at least three people who owned slaves; at least three people whose careers may be true more in myth and legend  than facts; at least three people who had a huge positive effect on American life, two of whom are not really acknowledged; several people who functioned with what we now call mental illness; some shameless self-promoters; and people who are reputed and may actually have believed things that were unpopular at the time and are abhorrent now.  Nope, I’m not going to call names.  And most readers’ lists will be a tad different from mine. 

Were I a committee of one charged with making the list, some of the same people would be on my list, others wouldn’t, and I would come up with at least 100 additional names to be included. After all, there is no shortage of American heroes.

Let me rattle them off.   And no, this is not in order of importance. In fact, I don’t think I could put them in any surd order:

Cesar Chavez.

Neil Armstrong. It’s not because just because he landed on the moon by hand when the computer was aiming for a crater, but for saving Gemini 8 when the attitude control rockets malfunctioned and put it into a near-fatal spin.

George Washington Carver.

Albert Einstein.

Poncho Carter.

Simon Kenton.

Nathaniel Hawthorne.

The Dulles brothers.

George H. W. Bush

Bill Clinton. Eight years of prosperity and peace does count.

Margaret Chase Smith.

Sandra O’Day Connor.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

John Quincy Adams

William Howard Taft.

Thurgood Marshall.

Earl Warren.

Barry Goldwater.

Lyndon Johnson. Vietnam killed him but he is responsible for the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act.

Franklin Roosevelt.

Theodore Roosevelt.

Eleanor Roosevelt.

Gayle Sayers.

Pat Brown.

Harley Earl.

Henry J. Kaiser.

John L Lewis. A small personal connection. Oce Worthington Smith, Jr., knew him and told me about his stories of working in the early coal mines.

Eugene Debs.

Bo Jackson.

Sitting Bull.

Crazy Horse.

Chief Joseph.

Russell Means.

Sacajawea.

Schuyler Colfax.

Sam Houston.

Jeannette Rankin.

Thomas Paine.

Ernest Hemingway.

Pearl Buck.

Geraldine Ferraro.

Daniel Carter Beard.

Carl Sagan.

John Marshall.

John Jay.

George W. DeLong.

George Melville.

Herman Melville.

Bill Harcourt.

Cornel West.

Lewis and Clarke.

Hugh Glass.

Jack Johnson.

Ransom E. Olds.

William O. Douglas.

Robert Jackson.

Winfield Scott Hancock.

John Hancock.

Richard Henry Dana.

Ayn Rand.

Danny Thomas.

Burl Ives.

William Seward.

Henry Belafonte.

Mary Travers.

Peter Schickele.

Phillip Glass.

Virgil Fox.

Y. A. Tittle.

Colin Powell.

Barbara Jordan.

Elmo Zumwalt.

Juliete Gordon Low.

Thomas Edison.

Nikola Tesla.

Jock Yablonski.

Shirley Chisholm.

James Brown.

Adam Clayton Powell.

Everett Dirkson.

Milton L. Olive, III.  Years ago, I met one of the people he saved.

Andrew Carnegie.  I remember fondly all of the time I spent in my high school days in the Carnegie Library.

Matthew M. Neely.  Among other things, he founded the National Cancer Institute.

John Muir.

David Hackworth.

Henry A. Wallace.

Eliot Ness.

Betty Ford.

Harry Truman.

Gene Autry.

Louisa May Alcott.

Chris Kraft.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Ernest Thompson Seton.

Louis Brandeis.

There, that’s about 100.

They also include:

Everybody who invaded Normandy.

The 500 – or so – firefighters, police, EMS people and semi- or untrained people who nevertheless gave their lives in the September 11 attacks helping others. Heck, about the 50,000 to 100,000 who directly served on those scenes.  (I wish I could put an “irregardless” in there to match the “nevertheless,” but I can’t figure out how.)

How about every firefighter who has stayed just a little bit too long in a burning building and who their buddies have had to “put out” when they came out. (Tim is one.)

People who had been attacked and killed based on race or beliefs or a wrongful conviction.

People who have served nation and community faithfully without doing some particular thing “bravely” but have worked midnight shift, Christmas, showed up to work sick, and without ever being thanked.

Miners with black lung and other respiratory diseases. Or miners who have blown their back out on the job.

This is the list which I came up with off to top of my head.  I really do hope that you disagree – maybe violently – with my list.  That’s the whole idea.  One person’s hero is another person’s jerk.  

How do we pick  the people to be honored?

Well, there is politics.  OK, the issue is to be decided by Congress.  They take it to the House of Representatives.  The Chair of the Appropriations Committee [used to be Bro. Alan B. Mollohan, I’ve no idea who holds the position now – and I’m too lazy to look] is an admirer of police and bank robbers.  So s/he wants the Garden to include Wyatt Earp and John Dillinger.  S/he won’t let it out of Committee if it doesn’t include those two.  That each is prominent in his field is self-apparent – I don’t need to tell readers of these Dispatches who they were.  Let’s assume that most folks wouldn’t want Earp and Dillinger included.  Is the Chair “right” in seeking their inclusion?  Is it “right” either to make a deal with the chair and include them or to refuse and cancel or delay the whole project?

The answer is:  [Drum roll] I don’t know.

Trusting the answer to the political process seems foolhardy.

How about a commission.  As long as it includes me.  It probably won’t.  Darn.

How about a vote on the internet.  That might be fair, as long as we was frequent and included lots of heroes. 

Maybe the Garden, wherever it is at, contained sites which could be easily swapped out.  Maybe a 1,000 plus possible who are changed weekly, randomly or with a schedule.  Perhaps that would attract people to visit repeatedly.  Or maybe the visitors would be mainly wonky.  Well, Wonky Person Liberation.

Mizpah!

Note 1 – How the President can do this without any action of Congress is unclear to me.  The Courts have let him transfer funding authorized for the Department of Defense to build the border wall.  The Constitution provides that Congress has to appropriate money and that has to originate in the House of Representatives. 

Note 2 – “And they proved it.”  Many Christians (and many non-Christians] find wisdom in the New Testament.  Thomas Jefferson – possibly a deist, but we’re not sure – prepared with scissors and glue “the Jefferson Bible” which was shorn of miracles and other supernatural influences, but contained the “wisdom,” including most of the parables.) A book which particularly speaks to me is the Book of James:

Dear friends, do you think you’ll get anywhere in this if you learn all the right words but never do anything? Does merely talking about faith indicate that a person really has it? For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ!  Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup? Where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense? I can always already hear one of you saying, “Sounds good. You keep take care of the faith department, I’ll handle the works department.” Not so fast. You can no more show me your works apart from your faith than I can show you my faith apart from my works. Faith and works, works and faith, fit together hand in glove. Do I hear you profess to believe the one and only God, but then observe you complacently sitting back as if you had done something wonderful? That’s just great. Demons do that, but what good does it do them? Use your heads! Do you suppose for a minute that you can cut faith and works in two and not end up with a corpse on your hands?

James, “The Message” translation.