When I sweep up my hard drive, I put a few unconnected things in these Dispatches. And I’m the first to admit that recently, I’ve slowed down on blogging. Who knows? The old reputed Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times,” may be true.
911 - Dull, Dull, Dull
About 35 years ago, a big group of representatives of emergency service agencies in Marion County designed the first 911 system. It was a pain. Nobody who does that business is a normal person. The first 30 minutes of every meaning was spent warming up by cursing the antecedents and questionable progeny of the people there. But we got a 911 system.
Several months ago, I had the unwelcome experience of having that 911 system accessed for me. The only thing I can say is that 911 worked precisely as it was planned. The call was answered immediately; while one dispatcher complete the call, another was alerting Co. 20 (my old company) and Station 3. I was - extremely? That doesn’t seem to cover it - glad to hear the first engine pulling up. And to the people who responded, it was a yawn. After all, you don’t want people to come in a personal emergency who think that it’s an emergency. Like all professions, this is another day at the office. That's the way it ought to be.
I remembered those meetings long ago. What developed was something that wasn’t flashy, not dramatic, but worked.
A little story - Before 911, different departments used different radio procedures and language, including “10-codes.” The feeling was to go to clear voice. At the time, the “Emergency” (remember Johnny & Roy?) was on the tube. And so, one young fellow suggested that the new radio procedures use what the show featured - “Responding,” “In service,” “Out of service,’ and so forth.
Geez, it’s been a long time since I’ve thought of that. To my brothers & sisters, now you know.
War Powers
A big deal is being made over the fact that Congress is interfering with the President’s power to use military force. This has happened for the last two administrations. In the Bush 43 administration, one of the spoil sports was the last Senator Robert C. Byrd. (Hey! When I mention Senator Byrd’s name, y’all need to stand up and bow yer heads.)
He has a peculiar problem with the President acting with no interference.
Just because IT’S IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.
Fifth Decade:
When I started law school, I became a notary public. In West Virginia, pretty much every lawyer does that, but there were few or none at the law school.
Recently, this child just signed up for his fifth 10-year commission as a notary. Where did the time go? No, really - Where did it go?
Pro Bono:
Pro bono (legal help for free) services are back on the front burner in WV. As I prepare to weigh in (not in these Dispatches), I just ran across a couple of passages in a John Grisham novel that seem apt:
“I am a human being first. Then I’m a lawyer. It’s possible to be both.”
“My firm preached pro bono to all its associates. [That is, younger lawyers.] But the free work had damn well better not interfere with billings.”
Pippa passes.
10 February 2015
29 November 2014
Ferguson: We’re Missing the Point; or, How We Can Bloviate Endlessly
On Black Friday, assorted malls, Walmarts’ and other retailers were inconvenienced by citizens protesting the whole Ferguson, MO, situation. (Even so, the retailers scored about an 8% increase over the sales on Black Friday last year.)
First, we need to separate the “Ferguson-Incident” from “Ferguson-the-Issue.” The concept that the St. Louis grand jury got it wrong and that “we” need a do-over is a suckers' bet. [See note 1] If anyone defines “success” as what will happen in Missouri, they had missed the point.
The Ferguson-Incident really matters to the people who directly experienced it and to those with direct contacts to it. It matters to the decedent’s family and friends. It matters to the officer. [See note 2] It matters to the witnesses. It matters to the authorities who are responsible to find out what happened in that particular incident.
But the rest of America is substantially impaired to judge this Ferguson-Incident. If it represents a starting point for a national discussion, that’s fine. But the Ferguson-Incident is one data-point in the discussion. No more. No less.
Maybe an out-of-control officer assassinated an innocent victim. Maybe a bad guy ran into an officer minding his own business. I don’t know. If I express an opinion, it has to be based on third- (or more) hand information. There is no way any of us can fairly judge from what evidence has been leaked from the grand jury, almost invariably by someone who has a dog in that fight. Even forensic evidence is merely evidence. Humans have to interpret that and sometimes humans get it wrong.
What? I hear a lot of You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s. A video from a few minutes before shows thus and so. On the other hand, the ballistics show thus and so. One witness says one thing and another witness says another. I read it in the the news, so I know what happened. Don’t I?
As important the Ferguson-Incident is to the people directly involved, the rest of us are doing little but counting faeries dancing on the head of a pin.
Here is the real point: A significant part of the national community perceives that justice is racially biased. Another part of the national community perceives that it’s not, but if it is, it’s rational. That’s the issue.
We need to accept that the majority of folks speaking out actually believe what they are saying. They are right. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter. People act on beliefs which are sincerely held. When the beliefs clash, human nature seems to tell us to shut our minds, marshal our arguments, and defend our position to the last man.
After all, if we can prove that the other side is wrong, they will fold their tent and go home.
Won’t they?
Not hardly. The normal human response is to dig in. Then, ultimately, some belief is accepted by a bare majority. And then you have others who are royally – and genuinely – pissed off.
Oh, I hear the You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s again. Can I not see that [whatever] is the truth?
Actually, no.
That’s why the this Ferguson-Incident represents only an example of how we look at race to determine the bias of justice.
Oh, of course the justice system is biased. You are biased. I am biased. All God’s children are biased, especially those who are aghast that anybody dares to say that they are biased. In my experience, the justice system is heavily biased against people who do harmful things to others. We expect that bias. But the devil is in the details. What other biases exist that we agree is unfair or yields a poorer quality of justice.
I have some ideas. Other people have different ideas. I suspect that all of the notions have a degree of truth in them. This American social experiment is complicated. There is no single cause for a single effect. We have a constant competition of ideas, all going on at once.
What is a mature society to do?
1 – Slow down. The Ferguson-Incident is a data point. While it is important to the people involved, if the rest of us claim “a piece of the rock,” we make whatever happened in Ferguson the whole point.
2 – Speed up. Actually, we need to go from a dead stop. Americans say they want answers to the problems of American life. But we want simple answers when the answers are not simple. We need some real answers. We need to accept that this is a continuing process of never-ending improvement. We need to invite dissent, not merely tolerate it.
3 – We need to confront the entire problem of justice, not just futz around making it look better. If you have a turd, spread icing on it, and decorate it with candles, it’s still not a birthday cake.
A rare group moderate Senators had an intriguing on how to handle the gun debate. Some suggested a “National Commission on Violence,” where the participants have not already decided what to conclude.
How about dealing with a much larger issue: A National Commission for Justice, Violence, Economics, and Responsibility.” I can picture it letting others than the Al Sharpton’s or Rush Limbaugh’s of the world be heard --respectfully. I can picture – I think – that we might listen and participate in the discussion without automatically going into a defensive mode.
This is important stuff. If we pay attention to that because it because of the Ferguson-Incident, so be it. But now it’s time to STFU and actually find some answers.
Note 1: Actually, a do-over is possible. The government can present a case to the grand jury again and again until the grand jury issues an indictment. I don’t really imagine that any future grand jury would have any more information than the grand jury which is already sitting. That particular grand jury said that the evidence did not satisfy even a probable cause standard. That is the easiest proof standard. Also, a federal investigation is possible. But a federal civil rights violation would be still harder to prove. The Feds have to prove a specific civil-rights-related intent.
Note 2: I use “decedent” and “officer,” rather than any of the victim vs. bad guy, officer vs. bad guy, etc. I still was not there when it happened.
First, we need to separate the “Ferguson-Incident” from “Ferguson-the-Issue.” The concept that the St. Louis grand jury got it wrong and that “we” need a do-over is a suckers' bet. [See note 1] If anyone defines “success” as what will happen in Missouri, they had missed the point.
The Ferguson-Incident really matters to the people who directly experienced it and to those with direct contacts to it. It matters to the decedent’s family and friends. It matters to the officer. [See note 2] It matters to the witnesses. It matters to the authorities who are responsible to find out what happened in that particular incident.
But the rest of America is substantially impaired to judge this Ferguson-Incident. If it represents a starting point for a national discussion, that’s fine. But the Ferguson-Incident is one data-point in the discussion. No more. No less.
Maybe an out-of-control officer assassinated an innocent victim. Maybe a bad guy ran into an officer minding his own business. I don’t know. If I express an opinion, it has to be based on third- (or more) hand information. There is no way any of us can fairly judge from what evidence has been leaked from the grand jury, almost invariably by someone who has a dog in that fight. Even forensic evidence is merely evidence. Humans have to interpret that and sometimes humans get it wrong.
What? I hear a lot of You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s. A video from a few minutes before shows thus and so. On the other hand, the ballistics show thus and so. One witness says one thing and another witness says another. I read it in the the news, so I know what happened. Don’t I?
As important the Ferguson-Incident is to the people directly involved, the rest of us are doing little but counting faeries dancing on the head of a pin.
Here is the real point: A significant part of the national community perceives that justice is racially biased. Another part of the national community perceives that it’s not, but if it is, it’s rational. That’s the issue.
We need to accept that the majority of folks speaking out actually believe what they are saying. They are right. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter. People act on beliefs which are sincerely held. When the beliefs clash, human nature seems to tell us to shut our minds, marshal our arguments, and defend our position to the last man.
After all, if we can prove that the other side is wrong, they will fold their tent and go home.
Won’t they?
Not hardly. The normal human response is to dig in. Then, ultimately, some belief is accepted by a bare majority. And then you have others who are royally – and genuinely – pissed off.
Oh, I hear the You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s again. Can I not see that [whatever] is the truth?
Actually, no.
That’s why the this Ferguson-Incident represents only an example of how we look at race to determine the bias of justice.
Oh, of course the justice system is biased. You are biased. I am biased. All God’s children are biased, especially those who are aghast that anybody dares to say that they are biased. In my experience, the justice system is heavily biased against people who do harmful things to others. We expect that bias. But the devil is in the details. What other biases exist that we agree is unfair or yields a poorer quality of justice.
I have some ideas. Other people have different ideas. I suspect that all of the notions have a degree of truth in them. This American social experiment is complicated. There is no single cause for a single effect. We have a constant competition of ideas, all going on at once.
What is a mature society to do?
1 – Slow down. The Ferguson-Incident is a data point. While it is important to the people involved, if the rest of us claim “a piece of the rock,” we make whatever happened in Ferguson the whole point.
2 – Speed up. Actually, we need to go from a dead stop. Americans say they want answers to the problems of American life. But we want simple answers when the answers are not simple. We need some real answers. We need to accept that this is a continuing process of never-ending improvement. We need to invite dissent, not merely tolerate it.
3 – We need to confront the entire problem of justice, not just futz around making it look better. If you have a turd, spread icing on it, and decorate it with candles, it’s still not a birthday cake.
A rare group moderate Senators had an intriguing on how to handle the gun debate. Some suggested a “National Commission on Violence,” where the participants have not already decided what to conclude.
How about dealing with a much larger issue: A National Commission for Justice, Violence, Economics, and Responsibility.” I can picture it letting others than the Al Sharpton’s or Rush Limbaugh’s of the world be heard --respectfully. I can picture – I think – that we might listen and participate in the discussion without automatically going into a defensive mode.
This is important stuff. If we pay attention to that because it because of the Ferguson-Incident, so be it. But now it’s time to STFU and actually find some answers.
Note 1: Actually, a do-over is possible. The government can present a case to the grand jury again and again until the grand jury issues an indictment. I don’t really imagine that any future grand jury would have any more information than the grand jury which is already sitting. That particular grand jury said that the evidence did not satisfy even a probable cause standard. That is the easiest proof standard. Also, a federal investigation is possible. But a federal civil rights violation would be still harder to prove. The Feds have to prove a specific civil-rights-related intent.
Note 2: I use “decedent” and “officer,” rather than any of the victim vs. bad guy, officer vs. bad guy, etc. I still was not there when it happened.
02 November 2014
Those Darn Negative Ads; or, If You Can’t Say Something Nice, You’re on the Right Track.
Last week, the Times-West Virginian (the local paper) ran its regular “man in the street” feature. The question was, “Do you pay attention to negative political ads?”
Three of the respondents said no, they didn’t. One guy said he doesn’t pay attention to any political ads. And one lady said she votes against anyone who runs a negative ad.
If only it were that easy.
To say the least, this was not a valid statistical sampling of this community. Nor was it a valid sample of any community.
The reason the politicians use negative ads is simple: They work.
We have a very weak law of libel in the United States. The First Amendment is so strong that it takes a ton of libel to overcoming it. And for political ads, all bets are (nearly) off. Against a political figure, you can say safely say almost anything with a straight face.
A good example is how Minnesota Sen. Wellstone was treated in his 2002 reelection campaign. Opponents ran ads that mischaracterized some of the senator's procedure votes. The opponents said that the Senator wanted to tax all dead people and that he really disliked veterans. But the ads didn’t mention that these were procedural votes which passed the Senate with scarcely a dissent. They had nothing to do with any senator’s ultimate opinion. All Wellstone could was try to ineffectively correct the record. (Sen. Wellstone died in a plane crash two weeks before the election. His opponent, Norm Coleman,won.)
Peoples fear reactions are much stronger than their reactions to positive things. Wellstone's attempt to limit the damage had nothing like the power of good negative ad.
One particularly nasty campaign is the West Virginia race over the open seat of Sen. Rockefeller. The Democratic Secretary of State has been attacked because she endorsed Obama in 2008 (Who was she supposed to endorse?) and because she doesn’t strongly (enough) support coal interests. At the same time, she has attacked her Republican opponent because her husband got a job with an investment bank, presumably the because the Republican candidate (who is in Congress) made some sort of secret deal.
Neither candidate can hope to effectively set the record straight. Their response? – Run more negative ads.
We got three ads in the morning mail yesterday. Each is an 8 x 10, glossy paper, printed on both sides. All told, they cost about $1 each to deliver.
One is screed which blames all Democrats for the EPA’s war on coal (and there indeed a war), West Virginia’s “failed educational system” (the Mountain State is consistently in the bottom five), some sort of failure in funding the emergency services (beats me what they’re talking about) and that Obamacare has reduced the number of folks who are covered by insurance. (I'm not sure, but I kinda doubt it.) It is produced by “Go West Virginia Inc.” It’s address is a PO Box in the pleasant little town of Elkins, Randolph County. It is not incorporated in West Virginia. So we know nothing about it. We have no idea whose money paid for it.
The second is from “Grow West Virginia Inc.” Oddly, they use the same post office box as “Go West Virginia.” It accuses an incumbent State Senator for supporting ISIS (!!), mandating Obamacare (the Congress didn’t leave much choice) and for having voted for Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade must be bad if it’s mentioned in the same breath as supporting ISIS. Not one in 100 people understand it. I sure don’t. And Grow West Virginia is equally as obscure as Go West Virginia.
Third, surprisingly, is one paid for by an actual campaign. This accuses the same State Senator for having “[taken] money away from seniors[‘] programs to line casino investors['] pockets.” There is no doubt a story there. By the way, I am pretty annoyed that the campaign bought a list which identified me as a “senior.”
There are 3 items that are supposed to scare me. What to do?
To be brutally frank, I don’t expect people to do jack about it. The politicians count on the public to accept this shit. So far, they are right. People believe all kinds of unbelievable things. People take an outfit like Go/Grow West Virginia as some kind of public service group. The public is so used to lying that they don’t hold it against anyone. Sure, money is king in politics.
But just as there have to be buyers of votes, there have to be people willing to sell.
Are we willing to sell our votes for a lie? It might be a good idea to question the “factual” basis for a political ad, even one from someone who doesn’t hide behind the Association for Mom & Apple Pie.
Also, it might be a good idea to assume that anything produced by little groups with an unknown yet nice name has no relation to reality. That is, they are lies.
And finally, we might hold politicians responsible for what their campaign does. If s/he lies, s/he proves that s/he is willing to lie for personal gain. If they both lie, vote for some minor party or write someone in.
And if after a few campaigns, negative ads have quit working, at least they’ll try some other way to lie.
In light of the Citizens United decision, we cannot control political propaganda. It might not be a good idea to try to control it. But let’s quit selling our votes so damned cheap. It’s embarrassing.
Note to candidates:
Your signs spread everywhere are a legitimate part of the campaign. That’s until 7:30 PM on Election Day. Then they are litter, junk and an eyesore. I admit, they do made great makeshift target holders on a firing range.
Three of the respondents said no, they didn’t. One guy said he doesn’t pay attention to any political ads. And one lady said she votes against anyone who runs a negative ad.
If only it were that easy.
To say the least, this was not a valid statistical sampling of this community. Nor was it a valid sample of any community.
The reason the politicians use negative ads is simple: They work.
We have a very weak law of libel in the United States. The First Amendment is so strong that it takes a ton of libel to overcoming it. And for political ads, all bets are (nearly) off. Against a political figure, you can say safely say almost anything with a straight face.
A good example is how Minnesota Sen. Wellstone was treated in his 2002 reelection campaign. Opponents ran ads that mischaracterized some of the senator's procedure votes. The opponents said that the Senator wanted to tax all dead people and that he really disliked veterans. But the ads didn’t mention that these were procedural votes which passed the Senate with scarcely a dissent. They had nothing to do with any senator’s ultimate opinion. All Wellstone could was try to ineffectively correct the record. (Sen. Wellstone died in a plane crash two weeks before the election. His opponent, Norm Coleman,won.)
Peoples fear reactions are much stronger than their reactions to positive things. Wellstone's attempt to limit the damage had nothing like the power of good negative ad.
One particularly nasty campaign is the West Virginia race over the open seat of Sen. Rockefeller. The Democratic Secretary of State has been attacked because she endorsed Obama in 2008 (Who was she supposed to endorse?) and because she doesn’t strongly (enough) support coal interests. At the same time, she has attacked her Republican opponent because her husband got a job with an investment bank, presumably the because the Republican candidate (who is in Congress) made some sort of secret deal.
Neither candidate can hope to effectively set the record straight. Their response? – Run more negative ads.
We got three ads in the morning mail yesterday. Each is an 8 x 10, glossy paper, printed on both sides. All told, they cost about $1 each to deliver.
One is screed which blames all Democrats for the EPA’s war on coal (and there indeed a war), West Virginia’s “failed educational system” (the Mountain State is consistently in the bottom five), some sort of failure in funding the emergency services (beats me what they’re talking about) and that Obamacare has reduced the number of folks who are covered by insurance. (I'm not sure, but I kinda doubt it.) It is produced by “Go West Virginia Inc.” It’s address is a PO Box in the pleasant little town of Elkins, Randolph County. It is not incorporated in West Virginia. So we know nothing about it. We have no idea whose money paid for it.
The second is from “Grow West Virginia Inc.” Oddly, they use the same post office box as “Go West Virginia.” It accuses an incumbent State Senator for supporting ISIS (!!), mandating Obamacare (the Congress didn’t leave much choice) and for having voted for Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade must be bad if it’s mentioned in the same breath as supporting ISIS. Not one in 100 people understand it. I sure don’t. And Grow West Virginia is equally as obscure as Go West Virginia.
Third, surprisingly, is one paid for by an actual campaign. This accuses the same State Senator for having “[taken] money away from seniors[‘] programs to line casino investors['] pockets.” There is no doubt a story there. By the way, I am pretty annoyed that the campaign bought a list which identified me as a “senior.”
There are 3 items that are supposed to scare me. What to do?
To be brutally frank, I don’t expect people to do jack about it. The politicians count on the public to accept this shit. So far, they are right. People believe all kinds of unbelievable things. People take an outfit like Go/Grow West Virginia as some kind of public service group. The public is so used to lying that they don’t hold it against anyone. Sure, money is king in politics.
But just as there have to be buyers of votes, there have to be people willing to sell.
Are we willing to sell our votes for a lie? It might be a good idea to question the “factual” basis for a political ad, even one from someone who doesn’t hide behind the Association for Mom & Apple Pie.
Also, it might be a good idea to assume that anything produced by little groups with an unknown yet nice name has no relation to reality. That is, they are lies.
And finally, we might hold politicians responsible for what their campaign does. If s/he lies, s/he proves that s/he is willing to lie for personal gain. If they both lie, vote for some minor party or write someone in.
And if after a few campaigns, negative ads have quit working, at least they’ll try some other way to lie.
In light of the Citizens United decision, we cannot control political propaganda. It might not be a good idea to try to control it. But let’s quit selling our votes so damned cheap. It’s embarrassing.
Note to candidates:
Your signs spread everywhere are a legitimate part of the campaign. That’s until 7:30 PM on Election Day. Then they are litter, junk and an eyesore. I admit, they do made great makeshift target holders on a firing range.
02 October 2014
The, er, Washington NFL Team; or What Do We Do With a Tacky Name
A self-described political activist has filed a petition with the FCC to terminate a radio station when it’s license to operate comes up for renewal.
The reason: The station uses the word “Redskins” to describe the NFL’s Washington team.
The petition states that the term is a vulgarity. The U.S. Patent & Trademark office canceled the Washington trademark earlier this year. This petition wants it stamped out of the lexicon entirely. This is another version of the idiotic argument, “How dare they say that!” I bet that the guy who wants the license cancelled is sincere. But I hope that he knows that he is exaggerating for effect.
Vulgarity? Nah.
But let’s take a look at the term “Redskins.” In fact, the evolving ethic of respect has rendered the term, well, pretty tacky. This isn’t the 1930 western movie era. This society continues to change. Words change meaning or impact. “Redskins” is an example.
For those who have trouble accepting that, let’s try a little experiment. Imagine that some term commonly deemed derogatory were attached to you. For instance, I might take offense at baseball team called “The Shysters” or a football team called “The Fat Guys.” It would not matter to me what the innocent intent with which the term was chosen. It’s just disrespectful. (Actually, I don’t think that I would care what some sports team was called. But most would. ) Even if “The Fat Guys” originated in the Fatty Arbuckle era when it was considered OK, now lots of people would be offended.
“Redskins” has become really stupid. It’s time for the Washington team to find another team name.
We need to apply our sense of values to each concept individually. Other American Indian names possibly may have a less negative effect. I’m OK with “Atlanta Braves.” Some disagree. That is the First Amendment in action. However, the “Cleveland Indians” is approaching tackiness. Others disagree. Ditto. (I usually use the term “American Indian.” Russell Means named the 60's movement the “American Indian Movement." I respect Russell Means, and I’m sorry that he’s gone.)
The FCC Chair agrees that the name is tacky, and intends to take the petition seriously. The FCC Chair has his First Amendment rights like the rest of us. He is perfectly welcome to conclude that it’s tacky, even vulgar.
However, the FCC is wrong to take this notion of banning a word seriously, no matter how sincere their personal beliefs. It is not the FCC’s place to monitor language. Neither can the government impose some new standard because it is trendy.
One answer is to let the marketplace deal with the issue. In the past, reappraisals of language and ways of looking at things has operated mostly in the absence of government. It works slowly, but it works very well. In fact, that is works slowly is the reason that it works well. Whoever is behind the times will themselves be convinced that it is in their best interests to move along with the times.
I doubt that makers of sports apparel particularly care, but I won’t be buying “Redskins” wear. (Warning: If you were born in 1949, you might object to what I do wear.) They don’t care because I wasn’t going to do any of that anyway. However, when the portion of the public who are going to consider going to the games and so forth object, the team owners will listen. This is not to say that the anti–name crowd needs to shut up. Write letters to the editor. Hell, picket games. The First Amendment certainly applies to them, too.
There is a dark footnote to any proposed FCC action. They work for us. They are not wiser than us, they are not our mothers, and their liberty is just exactly the same as the humblest citizen. We should not react to some fellow proposing this licensing deal with with a knee-jerk conclusion that his beliefs are wrong. We should apply our sense of values. But no government, whatever you call it, conservative, liberal, whatever, is entitled to dictate our sense of values.
The reason: The station uses the word “Redskins” to describe the NFL’s Washington team.
The petition states that the term is a vulgarity. The U.S. Patent & Trademark office canceled the Washington trademark earlier this year. This petition wants it stamped out of the lexicon entirely. This is another version of the idiotic argument, “How dare they say that!” I bet that the guy who wants the license cancelled is sincere. But I hope that he knows that he is exaggerating for effect.
Vulgarity? Nah.
But let’s take a look at the term “Redskins.” In fact, the evolving ethic of respect has rendered the term, well, pretty tacky. This isn’t the 1930 western movie era. This society continues to change. Words change meaning or impact. “Redskins” is an example.
For those who have trouble accepting that, let’s try a little experiment. Imagine that some term commonly deemed derogatory were attached to you. For instance, I might take offense at baseball team called “The Shysters” or a football team called “The Fat Guys.” It would not matter to me what the innocent intent with which the term was chosen. It’s just disrespectful. (Actually, I don’t think that I would care what some sports team was called. But most would. ) Even if “The Fat Guys” originated in the Fatty Arbuckle era when it was considered OK, now lots of people would be offended.
“Redskins” has become really stupid. It’s time for the Washington team to find another team name.
We need to apply our sense of values to each concept individually. Other American Indian names possibly may have a less negative effect. I’m OK with “Atlanta Braves.” Some disagree. That is the First Amendment in action. However, the “Cleveland Indians” is approaching tackiness. Others disagree. Ditto. (I usually use the term “American Indian.” Russell Means named the 60's movement the “American Indian Movement." I respect Russell Means, and I’m sorry that he’s gone.)
The FCC Chair agrees that the name is tacky, and intends to take the petition seriously. The FCC Chair has his First Amendment rights like the rest of us. He is perfectly welcome to conclude that it’s tacky, even vulgar.
However, the FCC is wrong to take this notion of banning a word seriously, no matter how sincere their personal beliefs. It is not the FCC’s place to monitor language. Neither can the government impose some new standard because it is trendy.
One answer is to let the marketplace deal with the issue. In the past, reappraisals of language and ways of looking at things has operated mostly in the absence of government. It works slowly, but it works very well. In fact, that is works slowly is the reason that it works well. Whoever is behind the times will themselves be convinced that it is in their best interests to move along with the times.
I doubt that makers of sports apparel particularly care, but I won’t be buying “Redskins” wear. (Warning: If you were born in 1949, you might object to what I do wear.) They don’t care because I wasn’t going to do any of that anyway. However, when the portion of the public who are going to consider going to the games and so forth object, the team owners will listen. This is not to say that the anti–name crowd needs to shut up. Write letters to the editor. Hell, picket games. The First Amendment certainly applies to them, too.
There is a dark footnote to any proposed FCC action. They work for us. They are not wiser than us, they are not our mothers, and their liberty is just exactly the same as the humblest citizen. We should not react to some fellow proposing this licensing deal with with a knee-jerk conclusion that his beliefs are wrong. We should apply our sense of values. But no government, whatever you call it, conservative, liberal, whatever, is entitled to dictate our sense of values.
14 September 2014
The Confederate Flag - Beware!
Have you ever wondered how some of the nitwit garbage get selected for the news? It’s a mystery to me.
A couple of weeks ago, there was a high school football game in Ellicott City, MD. That’s is in Howard County, close to Washington, DC. Sometime during game, a kid unfurled a Confederate flag. Some teacher or other adult told the kid to knock that crap off. The flag was quickly furled.
Kids - You have to keep after them. They have not learned discretion.
OK - That’s not much of a story.
But it made the national news. It was the intense overreaction by adults which made the news.
No, I can’t put “responsible adults,” because they must not have full-time jobs. They found the time - hell, they embraced the time - to do a Hindenburg Disaster Model - “Oh, the humanity, . . .”
The school sent home a letter to all parents of both schools explaining how they had acted drastically and decisively to the flag. (I really do wish that schools would think about contacting parents concerning the drug problem in schools. Fat chance.)
The Howard County School Superintendent said that "The Confederate flag is a powerful symbol of racism, hatred, and unspeakable acts against humanity."
A Howard County Executive - nothing to do with schools, but he wanted aboard the Outrage Train - put in a Facebook post that "Public displays of the Confederate flag evoke division, hate and subjugation — precisely the opposite of the values we hold in Howard County . . . We must teach our kids why this is such a hurtful symbol to so many peuople. We must fight against injustice and intolerance in any form, especially at our schools."
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
The Confederate Flag is not evil. Originally, it was a symbol of a not-quite-a-country. But the point was pretty much put to bed in April, 1865.
Now, it is mainly a symbol for good-ol’-boys and rednecks. (By the way, I am all for rednecks. The term originates in 1921, when members of the miners union identified themselves with red bandanas around their necks as they engaged in the West Virginia mines wars. It has taken on a Larry-the-Cable-Guy aw-shucks model since.) Look up “redneck”on Amazon. They have 20 pages of “redneck products,” from a “Redneck parking sign,” to various T-shirts to a camouflage belt to hold a 6-pack.
I do not fly the Confederate flag. It just doesn’t interest me. In fact, it’s distinctly tacky. But so far, I’ve been able to avoid an attacks of the vapours when I see it.
A couple of days ago, I stopped in quite early to a dry cleaners. There was only one employee there, and I picked out her car. It’s front was toward me, and there was a license plate: A Confederate flag, with the works “Dixie Chick” written on it, and in the middle (for some unknown reason) there was a deer’s head. I listened as I went in and did not detect a hint of the young lady intended to succeed from the Union. In fact, I bet she works harder than the Superintendent and Executive of Howard County, and at something worthwhile.
I wonder - What if a student has displayed a blue flag with one star on it? I imagine the reaction would have been “What the hell is that?” But if we are sincerely afraid that a flag on display unravels the fabric of a civilized society, someone better get that flag hidden. Because in 1865, it meant the same thing as the “Stars & Bars.” (Remember the “Bonnie blue flag that bears a single star”?)
It’s not the flag. It’s the intention of the people who display the flag. If I display some flag that demonstrates that I’m an asshole, feel free to say it, believe it, or hold your own flag. This is America.
But, but, but - I’m not smart enough to censor other people. Nor am I smart enough to state what they believe by osmosis.
There is a serious side to this that is not considered real often. The folks who do think that they are smart enough to censor someone think that they improve society, make it kinder and better, and fight tooth decay to boot. And then they go home, with a good feeling that they have done something good. And the very real problems of our society go on their merry way.
It leaves more work for those whose eyes are on the ball.
Pippa passes.
A couple of weeks ago, there was a high school football game in Ellicott City, MD. That’s is in Howard County, close to Washington, DC. Sometime during game, a kid unfurled a Confederate flag. Some teacher or other adult told the kid to knock that crap off. The flag was quickly furled.
Kids - You have to keep after them. They have not learned discretion.
OK - That’s not much of a story.
But it made the national news. It was the intense overreaction by adults which made the news.
No, I can’t put “responsible adults,” because they must not have full-time jobs. They found the time - hell, they embraced the time - to do a Hindenburg Disaster Model - “Oh, the humanity, . . .”
The school sent home a letter to all parents of both schools explaining how they had acted drastically and decisively to the flag. (I really do wish that schools would think about contacting parents concerning the drug problem in schools. Fat chance.)
The Howard County School Superintendent said that "The Confederate flag is a powerful symbol of racism, hatred, and unspeakable acts against humanity."
A Howard County Executive - nothing to do with schools, but he wanted aboard the Outrage Train - put in a Facebook post that "Public displays of the Confederate flag evoke division, hate and subjugation — precisely the opposite of the values we hold in Howard County . . . We must teach our kids why this is such a hurtful symbol to so many peuople. We must fight against injustice and intolerance in any form, especially at our schools."
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
The Confederate Flag is not evil. Originally, it was a symbol of a not-quite-a-country. But the point was pretty much put to bed in April, 1865.
Now, it is mainly a symbol for good-ol’-boys and rednecks. (By the way, I am all for rednecks. The term originates in 1921, when members of the miners union identified themselves with red bandanas around their necks as they engaged in the West Virginia mines wars. It has taken on a Larry-the-Cable-Guy aw-shucks model since.) Look up “redneck”on Amazon. They have 20 pages of “redneck products,” from a “Redneck parking sign,” to various T-shirts to a camouflage belt to hold a 6-pack.
I do not fly the Confederate flag. It just doesn’t interest me. In fact, it’s distinctly tacky. But so far, I’ve been able to avoid an attacks of the vapours when I see it.
A couple of days ago, I stopped in quite early to a dry cleaners. There was only one employee there, and I picked out her car. It’s front was toward me, and there was a license plate: A Confederate flag, with the works “Dixie Chick” written on it, and in the middle (for some unknown reason) there was a deer’s head. I listened as I went in and did not detect a hint of the young lady intended to succeed from the Union. In fact, I bet she works harder than the Superintendent and Executive of Howard County, and at something worthwhile.
I wonder - What if a student has displayed a blue flag with one star on it? I imagine the reaction would have been “What the hell is that?” But if we are sincerely afraid that a flag on display unravels the fabric of a civilized society, someone better get that flag hidden. Because in 1865, it meant the same thing as the “Stars & Bars.” (Remember the “Bonnie blue flag that bears a single star”?)
It’s not the flag. It’s the intention of the people who display the flag. If I display some flag that demonstrates that I’m an asshole, feel free to say it, believe it, or hold your own flag. This is America.
But, but, but - I’m not smart enough to censor other people. Nor am I smart enough to state what they believe by osmosis.
There is a serious side to this that is not considered real often. The folks who do think that they are smart enough to censor someone think that they improve society, make it kinder and better, and fight tooth decay to boot. And then they go home, with a good feeling that they have done something good. And the very real problems of our society go on their merry way.
It leaves more work for those whose eyes are on the ball.
Pippa passes.
How I Spent My Summer Vacation
Do less-that-imaginative teachers still assign this topic to students?
I well remember the struggle to memorialize my summer for some teacher who couldn’t think of a more interesting topic. And precisely how to discuss a kid’s summer? Let’s face it, “I messed around” was accurate, but it wasn’t long enough. And it was dull, almost as dull as the topic. But ever wedded to bullshit, we prattled on about trivial that made us look, well, boring.
Oh, but it was such a delightful shade of boring!
I have had a slightly more active summer this year than I did as a youth.
First, I worked to get the office in shape for me to be out for a while.
Then I had gastric bypass surgery, and settle in for about 6 weeks to recover. That was kinda dull, but I was ready for a dull time.
And, other than the surgery itself, it was good.
Then, I had a stroke.
That was bad. Also not nearly as bad as it could have been, so believe me, I’m not complaining.
And so, these Dispatches will now resume the hit-or-miss publication “schedule,” on the possibility that I can think of anything to say.
Pippa passes.
14 June 2014
Requiem for Baby Jane
This week, I finished a homicide case. The case had been pending for over a year.
Two parents were charged with child abuse resulting in death. They entered pleas of guilty to child neglect resulting in death and to conspiracy. Each was sentenced to a long penitentiary term.
The why’s and wherefore’s of trial preparation and plea negotiations and so forth are things I will never discuss about any case. No matter, that’s not the point this evening.
The victim was, let’s call her, “Baby Jane,” a 22-month-old little girl.
The facts as reported in the press and the public file are disturbingly simple:
Baby Jane was discovered without pulse or respirations at home. The mother was present. The father was at work. The mother called in-laws, who lived nearby, who in turn called 911. The in-laws came to the home before fire and EMS arrived. Grandpa did CPR on his granddaughter.
That is hard duty.
The was no evidence of a traumatic causation nor of immediate medical causation. Subsequent toxicology tests showed that the cause of death was methadone toxicity, in other words, a drug overdose. The test of hair samples showed that the child ingested methadone periodically at least over some few weeks.
The legal case is concluded. There will be no appeals that I know of. I will not discuss any other facts about the defendants. I will not even discuss the ultra-high emotional content of the sentencing hearing.
Today’s discussion is about villains in general and others involved in this one drama. These are the “unindicted co-conspirators,” to borrow a phrase from Watergate.
Some of them are easy to figure out.
Others, we know pretty well – to borrow a line from Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they are us.”
Of course, there are unindicted co-conspirators very close to the chain of causation. These parents – both drug addicts – did not go to the methadone factory and buy the pills. There is a distribution chain. It’s very likely that the first couple of links in the chain were legal. And then the drugs passed into the hands of the drug dealers and drug sellers, a scurvy lot who are an inflamed boil on the buttocks of the body politic.
Some sellers of drugs are themselves addicted, and spread their infection to support their ever-more expensive highs. At some point as we go up the distribution chain, we will find people too smart and too greedy to take the drugs themselves. Naturally, they’re the ones who make the most money. They’re the ones who might whisper to you that they “live the dream.” They are the Pablo Escobar/Tony Soprano wannabes who are “dangerous men.”
(At the higher distribution levels, the great majority of offenders are men.)
Incidentally, these folks mostly are dangerous when they get hopped up and hang around in groups. Individually, they are a bunch of pansies.
At the low-end of the distribution chain, we often find those with legitimate prescriptions who sell off part of their scripts for a little mad money.
And then there are the methadone clinics and buprenorphine (e.g., Suboxone®) clinics. These are medical offices where opiate addicts go to receive controlled, ever-diminishing doses of opiates so that they can quit without going through the holy hell of withdrawal.
One practical consideration is that most of these clinics are strictly “cash & carry.” At $300 cash per ½ hour visit plus the cost of drugs, the last thing some of these outfits want is to create ex-customers. Those taint the clinics which really do try to do some good. These outlaw clinics are basically licensed drug dealers. A lot of the opiates which get into the illegal distribution system start there.
Oh, let’s not forget the drug industry! The companies get paid when the first link in the distribution chain is forged. The more drugs, the more money. They have to be responsive to regulations meant to limit illegal distribution, but they don’t have to like it. When something threatens gross sales, drug companies are quite effective in”lobbying.”
Oh, I’m a cynic – I put “lobbying” in quotation marks because it’s often only half of whisker away from bribery.
Seldom do you and I see the hands of the drug companies in this lobbying. Rather, they set up false “grass-roots” lobbying groups with innocuous names like “Citizens for Fair This” or “People for Good That.” Those do-good groups are funded, of course, by the drug companies.
Last winter, the West Virginia Legislature considered a proposal to make pseudoephedrine a prescription drug. Pseudoephedrine is the active ingredient in Sudafed®, Claritin®, and many other brands of allergy medicines and decongestants.
Also, with a little dangerous home chemistry, pseudoephedrine can be converted into methamphetamine. Meth is one of our most addictive and destructive illegal drugs. Particularly, it is ravaging rural areas in the United States.
In response to the legislation, drug companies through their false-face proxies ran ads about government restricting the rights of the people. Specifically, the right to cure their own sniffles.
A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that “up to 35%” of the methamphetamine sold illegally is made from pseudoephedrine medications. Funny, the ‘”citizens” groups’ ads don’t say anything about that.
:::: Sniff ::::
Well, that’s enough miscreants to fill all our reservoirs of self-righteous indignation. The nerve, the gall, and by God somebody needs to do something!
Harrumph!
Hey, you didn’t Harrumph! Harrumph, dammit!
And if that somebody doesn’t do something, knowing full well that these drugs are killing adults, youth and babies, don’t they qualify for their own time in the pillory?
Yes, they do. We do. We the people, friends, me included, are at the edge of the unindicted co-conspirators.
The death of citizen participation has been a theme – or pedantic hobbyhorse – and these Dispatches before.
We have convenient and unrealistic expectations of the justice system as a whole, particularly law enforcement.
It’s convenient because if it is law enforcement’s duty to prevent all crimes, we do not have to participate, and so the failure to prevent crime is not our fault.
It’s unrealistic because law enforcement really doesn’t do very much direct prevention. Law enforcement primarily is reactive. Something bad happens, someone calls the police. Yet we expect every police officer to be the blue-suited Santa Claus, the one who “Knows who’s been bad or good.” And then we hope that the villains will “Be good for goodness’ sake.”
Which belief is part of the continuing triumph of hope over experience.
So if not the police, who?
Take drug dealing, the acts which helped kill baby Jane. Did neighbors or friends know that drug deals were going on? Some of them, probably. Did those who knew or suspected call on law enforcement? Probably not. Would most citizens be willing, voluntary witnesses in a drug case? I haven’t seen very many yet. Why?
We’re back to a formula which comes from my friend Justice Richard Neely. He wrote a book called Take Back Your Neighborhood: Organizing a Citizen's Patrol Force to Fight **, (Ballantine Books, 1991). In it he talks about how citizens have divorced themselves from their personal stake in the safety of communities.
Citizens as a group are disinterested. And lazy. And scared.
Disinterested – It’s not our job. We have better things to do.
Lazy – We're people who whine if we don’t get electric windows in our automobiles. “Minutemen,” hell, we won’t wait a minute for the microwave popcorn.
Scared – Criminals are scary. They posture as really tough people. They depend upon that appearance, that intimidation to keep citizens on the sidelines.
And while most of them are pansies, some individuals are dangerous.
So that threat is brought to us.
I don’t know how to answer the question about how any particular person should respond. I can no more define honor than Congress can create morality by the prestidigitation of statute.
I do know that unless the dynamic changes, all of the Baby Jane’s will just be on their own.
A final word about law enforcement:
It needs noted that we treat police officers like pimps at the church picnic. We bitch in the presence of our children if we get ticketed for stupid driving. We pay them very poorly. We applaud government saving money by defunding pensions, even those of officers still in pension systems which preclude them from Social Security retirement.
Sometimes I wonder why they stay on the job.
Two parents were charged with child abuse resulting in death. They entered pleas of guilty to child neglect resulting in death and to conspiracy. Each was sentenced to a long penitentiary term.
The why’s and wherefore’s of trial preparation and plea negotiations and so forth are things I will never discuss about any case. No matter, that’s not the point this evening.
The victim was, let’s call her, “Baby Jane,” a 22-month-old little girl.
The facts as reported in the press and the public file are disturbingly simple:
Baby Jane was discovered without pulse or respirations at home. The mother was present. The father was at work. The mother called in-laws, who lived nearby, who in turn called 911. The in-laws came to the home before fire and EMS arrived. Grandpa did CPR on his granddaughter.
That is hard duty.
The was no evidence of a traumatic causation nor of immediate medical causation. Subsequent toxicology tests showed that the cause of death was methadone toxicity, in other words, a drug overdose. The test of hair samples showed that the child ingested methadone periodically at least over some few weeks.
The legal case is concluded. There will be no appeals that I know of. I will not discuss any other facts about the defendants. I will not even discuss the ultra-high emotional content of the sentencing hearing.
Today’s discussion is about villains in general and others involved in this one drama. These are the “unindicted co-conspirators,” to borrow a phrase from Watergate.
Some of them are easy to figure out.
Others, we know pretty well – to borrow a line from Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they are us.”
Of course, there are unindicted co-conspirators very close to the chain of causation. These parents – both drug addicts – did not go to the methadone factory and buy the pills. There is a distribution chain. It’s very likely that the first couple of links in the chain were legal. And then the drugs passed into the hands of the drug dealers and drug sellers, a scurvy lot who are an inflamed boil on the buttocks of the body politic.
Some sellers of drugs are themselves addicted, and spread their infection to support their ever-more expensive highs. At some point as we go up the distribution chain, we will find people too smart and too greedy to take the drugs themselves. Naturally, they’re the ones who make the most money. They’re the ones who might whisper to you that they “live the dream.” They are the Pablo Escobar/Tony Soprano wannabes who are “dangerous men.”
(At the higher distribution levels, the great majority of offenders are men.)
Incidentally, these folks mostly are dangerous when they get hopped up and hang around in groups. Individually, they are a bunch of pansies.
At the low-end of the distribution chain, we often find those with legitimate prescriptions who sell off part of their scripts for a little mad money.
And then there are the methadone clinics and buprenorphine (e.g., Suboxone®) clinics. These are medical offices where opiate addicts go to receive controlled, ever-diminishing doses of opiates so that they can quit without going through the holy hell of withdrawal.
One practical consideration is that most of these clinics are strictly “cash & carry.” At $300 cash per ½ hour visit plus the cost of drugs, the last thing some of these outfits want is to create ex-customers. Those taint the clinics which really do try to do some good. These outlaw clinics are basically licensed drug dealers. A lot of the opiates which get into the illegal distribution system start there.
Oh, let’s not forget the drug industry! The companies get paid when the first link in the distribution chain is forged. The more drugs, the more money. They have to be responsive to regulations meant to limit illegal distribution, but they don’t have to like it. When something threatens gross sales, drug companies are quite effective in”lobbying.”
Oh, I’m a cynic – I put “lobbying” in quotation marks because it’s often only half of whisker away from bribery.
Seldom do you and I see the hands of the drug companies in this lobbying. Rather, they set up false “grass-roots” lobbying groups with innocuous names like “Citizens for Fair This” or “People for Good That.” Those do-good groups are funded, of course, by the drug companies.
Last winter, the West Virginia Legislature considered a proposal to make pseudoephedrine a prescription drug. Pseudoephedrine is the active ingredient in Sudafed®, Claritin®, and many other brands of allergy medicines and decongestants.
Also, with a little dangerous home chemistry, pseudoephedrine can be converted into methamphetamine. Meth is one of our most addictive and destructive illegal drugs. Particularly, it is ravaging rural areas in the United States.
In response to the legislation, drug companies through their false-face proxies ran ads about government restricting the rights of the people. Specifically, the right to cure their own sniffles.
A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that “up to 35%” of the methamphetamine sold illegally is made from pseudoephedrine medications. Funny, the ‘”citizens” groups’ ads don’t say anything about that.
:::: Sniff ::::
Well, that’s enough miscreants to fill all our reservoirs of self-righteous indignation. The nerve, the gall, and by God somebody needs to do something!
Harrumph!
Hey, you didn’t Harrumph! Harrumph, dammit!
And if that somebody doesn’t do something, knowing full well that these drugs are killing adults, youth and babies, don’t they qualify for their own time in the pillory?
Yes, they do. We do. We the people, friends, me included, are at the edge of the unindicted co-conspirators.
The death of citizen participation has been a theme – or pedantic hobbyhorse – and these Dispatches before.
We have convenient and unrealistic expectations of the justice system as a whole, particularly law enforcement.
It’s convenient because if it is law enforcement’s duty to prevent all crimes, we do not have to participate, and so the failure to prevent crime is not our fault.
It’s unrealistic because law enforcement really doesn’t do very much direct prevention. Law enforcement primarily is reactive. Something bad happens, someone calls the police. Yet we expect every police officer to be the blue-suited Santa Claus, the one who “Knows who’s been bad or good.” And then we hope that the villains will “Be good for goodness’ sake.”
Which belief is part of the continuing triumph of hope over experience.
So if not the police, who?
Take drug dealing, the acts which helped kill baby Jane. Did neighbors or friends know that drug deals were going on? Some of them, probably. Did those who knew or suspected call on law enforcement? Probably not. Would most citizens be willing, voluntary witnesses in a drug case? I haven’t seen very many yet. Why?
We’re back to a formula which comes from my friend Justice Richard Neely. He wrote a book called Take Back Your Neighborhood: Organizing a Citizen's Patrol Force to Fight **, (Ballantine Books, 1991). In it he talks about how citizens have divorced themselves from their personal stake in the safety of communities.
Citizens as a group are disinterested. And lazy. And scared.
Disinterested – It’s not our job. We have better things to do.
Lazy – We're people who whine if we don’t get electric windows in our automobiles. “Minutemen,” hell, we won’t wait a minute for the microwave popcorn.
Scared – Criminals are scary. They posture as really tough people. They depend upon that appearance, that intimidation to keep citizens on the sidelines.
And while most of them are pansies, some individuals are dangerous.
So that threat is brought to us.
I don’t know how to answer the question about how any particular person should respond. I can no more define honor than Congress can create morality by the prestidigitation of statute.
I do know that unless the dynamic changes, all of the Baby Jane’s will just be on their own.
A final word about law enforcement:
It needs noted that we treat police officers like pimps at the church picnic. We bitch in the presence of our children if we get ticketed for stupid driving. We pay them very poorly. We applaud government saving money by defunding pensions, even those of officers still in pension systems which preclude them from Social Security retirement.
Sometimes I wonder why they stay on the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
