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.

If This Goes On: Statues and Names That Annoy

We a name places. That is how we identify them. I suppose we could use of numbers, but “State 06” does doesn’t have the ring to it than “California” does.

And we name places after people, events, use Indian words, use European, Greek or Roman words, and some times we just make stuff up.

We even change the name of places from time to time. The Town of Monongah, West Virginia (that came from “Monongahela,” the name of a river, Shawnee for “The River of Falling Banks”) was first known as “BriarTown” for all of the briars there.  Fairmont, West Virginia, was originally known as “Middletown.” The Town of Fairview was originally known as “Amos.” Significantly – to me – there was a town in West Virginia named “Mole Hill,” which change its name to “Mountain,” which goes to show you that you can make a Mountain out of a Mole Hill. No kidding.

The current civil unrest is resulting in a press to rename locations by government.  It’s also urging government to remove statues of people now deemed unpopular.  Some  highly motivated individuals are even willing to tear down statues.

Let’s look at statues.  When one makes a statue, that requires considerable work. That should be done only for somebody who, when the artist does it, is admired. Christopher Columbus discovered America, sort of, and 1492. “Sort of” because it was previously discovered by the Vikings and maybe by Irish priests, and in any event was “discovered” 10,000 (or so) years ago by people who migrated from a Asia over the land bridge that is currently the Bering Sea. Columbus, to be fair, started the Central- and Southern European interest in America around 1500.

Also statues exist of various people who were associated with African slavery. This includes any number of people who lived in the southern states and fought for the Confederacy and many public officials who preceded the Civil War. The Civil War figures include Robert E. Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, John C Calhoun, and others. They include various speakers of the house, Presidents Jackson (a slaveholder), President/General George Washington (a slave owner) and other historical figures who owned slaves or tolerated slavery.  (George Washington was bothered by slavery, but only manumitted them in his will.)

Now, the people who tear down statues are apparently not all learned in history. They have torn down statues of Ulysses Grant, who was the commander of the Union forces which led to universal manumission, Theodore Roosevelt (who took endless noise about inviting an African-American gent to dine at the White House) and even Abraham Lincoln, who is commonly – and really accurately – credited with freeing the slaves. Well, I don’t expect that people in America now have a intimate knowledge of history, but you have to wonder what the hell they were thinking.

Let’s consider people statues of who we agree that in modern terms were greatly in error.

Christopher Columbus. He was an Italian navigator working for Spain who missed his goal by 10,000 miles. He wanted to get to the Indian Ocean and mistook the Caribbean for that. In doing so, he “discovered” a “new world,” previously only feebly known in Europe. The European presence in the Caribbean and, later, in the North America, introduced European viruses and bacteria, diseases against which the natives of the continent had no natural immunity. So, those diseases ran rife over the native North Americans.

(I am aware that Russell Means, who founded the American Indian Movement, called the native Americans “American Indians,” because that is what Columbus, etc. called them. Personally, I think Russell Means was a valuable figure in American life.)

I have read that people want to some people want to change the name of Columbus, Ohio. Presumably, the same people would like to change the name of Columbus, Georgia, and probably the “Federal district,” now known as the District of Columbia.

So let me stop for a minute there. When you think of Columbus, Ohio, do you have a picture of Christopher Columbus in your mind?  Do you think of Columbus, Ohio, as celebrating imperialism (which, after all, Columbus was a part of) and rampant disease?

I don’t. I don’t think of the District of Columbia or Columbus, Ohio, as honoring Christopher Columbus. It’s just a name. And this is a question: Does it really offend people that we have named locations after somebody who has been dead for 500 years? That is a real question. Does it offend you? Why? And why now?  The names are 150+ years old.  Why now?  He’s still dead.  On the biblically questionable theory that he knows, what can he do about it?  Do you think it hurts him?

Of course, I can make a good case for not naming something out after somebody is who is universally hated. Hitlerville is the name of no place. I think Mussoliniburg and Tojo City are likewise non-existent. I don’t even think there is anything named after Edmund Ruffin.  (Look him up.)  But we serve have a lot of counties and cities named after John C. Calhoun.  A WHOLE lot of places named after George Washington.  Is the mayor of Washingon, DC, ashamed?  How about the mayor of Washington, PA; the Governor of Washington State; even the mayor of Washington, WV?  

Consider the name of Virginia, West Virginia, Virginia Beach, and Virginia City, NV and MT. They all refer to “the Virgin Queen,” Queen Elizabeth I. This is a direct reference to her sexual activity. Does that offend you? Or do you not think of “virginity” when you hear the name “Virginia”?  Is it really our business?

A couple of days ago, protestors/rioters/or people who like to pull down statuary pulled down and burned a (metal!) statue of Albert Pike.  (There are products which produce enough heat to melt bronze.  Lighter fluid is not one of them.)  I know of maybe two or three readers of these Dispatches who really know what Albert Pike was known for.  He was a Confederate general who had a thoroughly undistinguished military career.  I just off the top of my head mentally named 16 Civil War generals who were much more prominent.  (Grant, Lee, Rosecrans, Chamberlain, Bragg, Johnston, McClellan, Custer, Sherman, Sheridan, Longstreet, Stuart, Forrest, Scott, “Grumble” Jones, Garfield.)  (Now for the rest of the day, I’ll keep thinking of them.  Let’s see, Hancock, Burnside, Wheeler, . . .)  Albert Pike also was an appellate judge, equally undistinguished and thoroughly average.  I doubt very much is the people who tore the statue down had any clue who he was, other than hearing that he was a Confederate general.  What Pike was known for was being a leader of Freemasonry long after the Civil War.  He was instrumental in founding the “Scottish Rite,” and wrote a seminal (and strange) book, Morals and Dogma.  The problem with Morals and Dogma is that the author was a classical scholar who wrote lots in Latin, Greek and Old Egyptian, all without translations, and the author expected to make a point.  Do you accidentally punish him for obscure writing?  Does he care? 

Can you honestly look at the list of generals and identify who fought for the Union and who Confederate? 

A CONTEST!  The first person who tells me in an email or comment that s/he correctly identifies the Federals from the Confederates wins a book of my choosing from the Never-Ending Bookshelf™.

Is it time to think and discuss before we demand – after just a bit of thought and sober discussion – that name be changed? Is it time to consider who we honor with statuary? Is it time to judge whether to judge those people by our times or their time? I don’t have an answer.  I really don’t much care.  But I really do think the question deserves to be discussed before we change in names, pull down statues, and do other things which really don’t solve much in the way of problems. 

Mizpah!


(The book prize will probably not be the first edition Gutenberg Bible.  I think I'll keep that.)

If This Goes On - The Atlanta Police Killing

First, let me say that it misses the point to concentrate on one violent act, whether justified or not.  We constantly deny it, but the world is a violent place. People die by  violence every day.  Not many people are involved with violence, and those who do really do not talk about it.  So it’s one of the many avoided topics of our society. But it’s real, whether it is violence from a motor vehicle accident, a fall, a shooting, or any of the many, many ways that violence can intervene in life and death.

Rayshard Brooks was asleep at a Wendy’s drive-through.  That is a distinctly odd place to fall asleep.  Management called the police, which was entirely proper. The police responded and interacted with Brooks and both police officers and Rayshard Brooks were low-key, polite and friendly.  One officer did a preliminary blood alcohol test on Brooks, and we don’t know what it showed.  Presumably, it showed the use of alcohol, probably more than 0.8%, because one officer said that he had had too much to drink and proceeded to start to handcuff him.

A word about handcuffs – when one is handcuffed, one is largely defenseless.  When one is handcuffed by an officer, it accomplishes two things. First, the individual is far less dangerous to the officer and the officer can relax. That is why, in the event of a citizen-shooting, one should expected to be handcuffed when the police get there because the police do not know what happened. And that’s okay. Second, the person handcuffed has to trust that the police will not assassinate him or her. In a vast majority of the cases, in all but cases which make the news, that’s true. But it takes only one or two occasions contrary to make people doubt. The video of the George Floyd murder is there for anybody to see, and an example of now you CAN be dealt with while you are handcuffed. That is unfortunate, that is this distinctly improbable, but still, many citizens have a little bit of doubt. The fact that the George Floyd murder might have had personal causes has been lost in the discussion. Apparently, the officer had worked with him and knew him and, so far, we have no idea what the officer was thinking when he killed him.

(There, I violate my own role. I do realize that it is not a murder until 12 old darlings on the jury unanimously agree. But I can have an opinion, and the First Amendment applies to me, too.  It does point out that it will be DAMN hard to get an impartial jury in the murder trial.)

So to continue with the Rayshard Brooks story: When the officer started to handcuff Brooks, Brooks resisted and fought the officers. He was apparently strong and in good shape for he fought to officers to a standstill. Mind you, the officers should have been trying to avoid hurting him, but we don’t know as we were not in the officers’ minds. Brooks seized a Taser and ran. As he was running, he turned and fired the Taser at a pursuing officer,  The officer then drew his weapon and the killed Rayshard Brooks.

Another word: Here, the undeniable images of video tell us all what happened from the perspective of the camera. It doesn’t tell us what people intended, but it tells us more than mere witness testimony, particularly where one of the witnesses is dead.

The Atlanta mayor immediately fired the officer and suspended the other officer.

Now, we have a advantage which is inherently unfair. We get to judge the videos by looking at them repeatedly, judging what what the officers intended and whether they were justified. Mind you, this happened in real time for the officers and they could not and did not have the time to the reflect that the we now do. But law enforcement requires real time awareness. So what do we determine?

From here on, it is my opinion. My opinion may or may not be a knowledgeable one, but it is merely mine, and not binding on anybody.  And I approach this from the aspect of being a former prosecutor who very much sympathizes with the police.

In my judgment, the officer did not need to shoot Brooks. It was an excessive use of force. It is nothing vaguely like the George Floyd murder. But we have to examine each case without being our judgment being affected by any other particular case. In this case, Brooks had a Taser. If you look at the video, you will see that the Taser is a bright yellow. There is a reason for that. Police carry a number of weapons. One is a pistol, which introduces lethality into the mix. Usually, it is black, dark blue or stainless and it is worn on the predominant hand side. So when an officer reaches for a pistol, it is the only weapon located on that part of that officer’s body. This comes from a San Francisco case where a “security officer”, who was armed and not trained very well, meant to pull his Taser and pulled his gun and shot somebody by accident. With the body alarm reaction being what it is, the makers of Tasers recognized that they needed to delineate their products clearly. That’s why it’s a bright yellow and that’s why it is worn cross-draw, so the officer needs to reach across his body to draw it.

Is it murder? Frankly, it beats me, it looks more like a manslaughter, but bear in mind that any homicide results in a dead person. Should he had been fired? It may have been driven by politics, but it was not clearly wrong and in the end, it should not matter because he should stay fired.   It may be unfair. But we expect police officers to exercise good judgment in lousy circumstances.

This is a very rough time to be an officer. It is also a rough time to be arrested, because we have been sensitized to realize that when an officer has arrested us, we are essentially helpless. Only the passage of the time will help. We need to relearn, again and again, to trust officers. One guy, the George Floyd murderer, has caused many people to fear officers. That may be justified, it may not, but the important thing to remember is that the condition exists. We have to deal with it.

God, save this nation. And I don’t know exactly what that means yet.

Mizpah!

George Will Get No Justice; Demonstrate Away, You Can't Change It.

George Floyd is a guy who I never met, never was destined to meet and anyway, we all  missed our chance.  In an arrest for a non-violent crime this week, one or more officers of Minneapolis Police Department killed him.  (Was it murder?  Not until 12 old darlings on a jury says it is.)

Public disturbances – bordering just a touch on rioting – have broken out in Minneapolis.  The theme:  “Justice for George.”

Nope.  Not going to happen unless you have an outlandish sense of what it just.

Take the immediate demands of the demonstrators:  An immediate arrest, a successful prosecution and a prison sentence.  Will that give George justice?  Will his personal loss lessen in any way?  Enlighten me if you believe he gets justice.  Some religious folk hold that a murdered person rests easier in the afterlife when the murderer(s) is/are punished.  I know of no authoritative proof either way, but it seems to me that – if that is indeed so – it is hardly justice.  Justice, to my way of thinking, returns one to the status one would have had if the wrong was not done. 

An arrest of some people does take time.  It does seem to me that the officer directly (hands-on) responsible can be arrested immediately.  But it has to be done by somebody other than the Minneapolis PD.  While a county prosecutor can approve the initial charges, s/he needs post haste to get a special prosecutor from somewhere far away.  What s/he cannot do is bury the case or make any kind of deal, even a fair deal.   I cannot begin to define what a fair deal with consist of.  In murders I have done, I only recall deciding what a fair deal would be in the first week once in 25 tries.  (Nope, not gonna tell you details.)

That the Minneapolis officer(s) is criminally responsible has occurred to everyone, right, left, north and south.  I was reading a post by Joe Ligotti (The Guy from Boston™) going on in his usual blunt (read obscene) fashion about how guilty the guy is.  If Joe’s against an officer, the officer has very little hope of any neutral publicity coming.

The media is assuming that a civil suit will result.  (The odds of it NOT happening are about the same as me winning the Boston Marathon.)  But when such a suit happens, and the insurance company (aided by premiums paid from tax money), the City of Minneapolis (aided by tax money from everyone including the demonstrators) and the individual officers (who don’t have much to begin with) pays a few million dollars. 

To whom?  Well, they can’t pay it to George.  They’ll pay it to whoever Minnesota law designates, his heirs or others entitled by a statute to take money from a wrongful death.  Will the money give George justice?  Tell me how.  How about the people who actually get the money?  Will they feel, at least, vindicated?  How about the lawyers on each side?  Will they curse the act but bless the day it was referred to them?  Maybe secretly.

How about a clever trial lawyer demands changes in the police departments training and policies?  (That will likely happen, but that the state attorney general for the federal DOJ will move on this is more likely than the survivors’ counsel.)  That might prevent further harm to others, but not so much as you might think.  Doing child abuse cases made me think of the limited use of a class that starts "Don't beat your children."  If a student is that dense, do you suppose you can get through to them?

So you decide – Does George get  justice?  I'd like to hear how, I really would.

Moral?  Maybe the world is not just.  Our much vaunted justice system gives, at best, a poor ration of justice and often to the wrong people.  

Maybe a better moral is that there is no reset button in life.  Once a stupid or evil act is done, you have to live with the consequences.

Mizpah.  

Look it up – I really mean it, Mizpah!

Right to Work and Judicial Elections

The West Virginia Supreme Court just upheld the WV Right to Work law.  This prevents an employer (and a union) from requiring union membership as a condition of employment.  Twenty-seven states have Right to Work laws, and the rest don’t.  In the other twenty-three, union membership or “agency fees” may be required as a condition of employment.   (“Agency fees” are the amount of dues used for collective bargaining, but not for other political/advocacy activities.)  (The decision is Morrisey, Atty. General, and State of WV v. WV AFL-CIO, No. 19-0298, available at courtswv.gov.)

The WV decision was authored by Justice Evan Jenkins.  He is a former Republican congressman and, predictably, he is a conservative.  In the opinion, he follows the United States Supreme Court Janus decision, which says that Right to Work laws are constitutional.  I’ve  never met Justice Jenkins.

A “concurring opinion” was filed by Justice John Hutchinson.  A “concurring opinion” is one that says that the writer agrees with the result but not necessarily the reasoning.  Justice Hutchinson is running for the Supreme Court whenever the State gets around to having a primary.  He garnered an endorsement from the State’s largest union, the AFL-CIO.  But after concurring in the result, the Union has pulled the endorsement.  The United Mine Workers just pulled their endorsement, too.

The process of endorsing a candidate is protected by the First Amendment.  It may be distasteful to endorse for a judicial office, but it’s still protected.  (That’s the fundamental beauty of the First Amendment:  If somebody does something that pisses you off, it’s pointless to scream “You can’t say that!”) 

Apparently, Justice Hutchinson is much in sympathy with the Unions.  His opinion expresses the value of unionization over American history for the American worker.  I probably have met Justice Hutchinson – he was in law school in a different class while I was there – but I haven’t talked to him and wouldn’t recognize him in a line-up.

The Unions withdrew his endorsement because he didn’t rule for them.  They have a right to do that.  But they are punishing him (to the extent that a lack of endorsement is a punishment) because he is upholding his oath to apply the law.  In this case, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Right to Work is constitutional where it’s been passed.  (The WV Constitution is a touch more generous as to rights as the US Constitution, but not in any relevant point.)  The Unions require for an endorsement that this judge decide what he cannot do and uphold his oath: Decide directly contrary to law. 

So unions are withdrawing endorsements from someone who has philosophical agreement with them.  That seems self-defeating. 

Me?  I’ll irk everyone.  I like Right to Work laws with agency fees.  On the other hand, were I a judge, I’d vote with the majority.  The answer is not one for the Courts.  It’s one for the legislature and – obviously – the majority of the legislature currently wants Right to Work. 

People expect to much from the Courts and expect the Courts to make policy decisions even if the legislative branch has done something contrary but Constitutional.  Courts call balls and strikes.  If you love the A’s, and the A’s pitcher throws outside, should you call it a ball or a strike?  Judges should call a ball even if they personally regret it.

Well, I don’t get to vote in West Virginia.  Not my problem.

George III Redux: Governors and Their Emergency Powers

It is a heady day to be a Governor.

A Governor has daily televised press conferences.  Everybody watches them because it’s a time of emergency and Governors have enormous – even plenary – powers.   They can de facto suspend Constitutional rights, like the right to gather in groups, the right to go to public areas (even alone, apparently), the right to work (even mostly alone) at certain occupations, and even the right to buy garden seeds and paint.  (That’s a reference to the illogical conclusions of the Governor of Michigan.  In her defense, she had to make sudden decisions in a culture of panic and delicious opportunity, and she made understandable illogical decisions.)  This is (mostly) justified by medical science given the nature of a pandemic and (mostly) necessary to maintain public health.  And some of it is driven by what drives the IRS, “because we can do it, screw you.”

The Governors are exposed to considerable dangers and you and I are exposed because Governors are exposed to temptation.  They make important decisions, ostensibly on advice of experts, but we have only their word for it.  Ultimately, “the buck stops here,” on the Governor’s desk, so they can do as they like.  The temptation is that they actually have power and naturally believe that they have the wisdom to use the powers wisely, more wisely than the unwashed masses.  And they know that they Have The Best Interests of The Public At Heart.  (Oh, the same thing applies to the President and Cabinet, but they have much stronger national political checks than does a Governor.)

This is all tolerable in short spurts.  Not even a Governor with extraordinary power can screw the people long term with a brief emergency.  An incompetently handled hurricane or tornado justifies only a couple of weeks of emergency powers.  Then, the emergency vanishes and powers vanish.

The virus is different.  Governors have already had 45 days of this inebriating power.  With the phased-in return to work, they have the power to slow the process and prolong the power.  Mind you, in their mind, they are pure public servants.  It's in the public interest, isn't it?

When do they turn into George III?  And when do the protestors pass from “nuts” to “patriots.”  It’s the itchier parts of society which drives opposition to government overreach.  Government is starting to overreach.  To what extent will Governors - and the President and the Cabinet and FEMA and mayors and city councils and everybody who is wise and unappreciated – willingly give up their emergency powers. 

   

We live in interesting times.

Mizpah!

Unimportant thoughts on the virus emergency; Ho-hum

I continue to learn things from the current emergency.  Some of them are personal, some global, some useless and some questions about future effects. 

Global:

I still stick by my prior post about declaring states of emergency.  

It is a dangerous world. We have modified some dangers, we live in a very comfortable lifestyle compared to almost all of human history, and we have been led into the belief that nothing bad can happen.

The other person may be racist, sexist, stupid, treasonous, stingy, sociopathic, psychotic, irreverent, Godless, God-incessed, irresponsibly communist, irresponsible capitalist, irresponsibly fascist, irresponsibly apathetic, clueless, evil, immoral, unethical, dishonorable, politically correct, politically incorrect,  rich, neavuoz riche,  poor, criminal, addicted to (fill in the blank), or (fill in the bad term.)  However, in their eyes, they are reasonable and honest.  You can disagree, but to deal with them by cursing at them will waste your time.   Deal with them rationally or marginalize them, if you can.  (You probably can't; you can just ignore them.
  (The people who admit that they fly the pirate flag are rare, although a pleasure to deal with.)

The perfect is the enemy of the good or good enough.  In other words, a good plan commenced beats a perfect plan still in utero.  The three (so far) of the US government response to the virus emergency are imperfect, to say the least. Some people are getting money they don’t deserve, some are getting not enough money, some people all wholly excluded, and other people get public money that they really don’t deserve. Of course, who those various entities are is subject to disagreement. If we had not passed imperfect legislation, we would still be arguing about phase 1 and nothing would have been done.

Political cooperation is possible, although it has really become rare. Gone are the days when the president and other-party congressional leaders had dinner, drinks, and told jokes together. 

Preparation for bad things happening is primarily a personal obligation. It is a difficult, especially for poor people.  You cannot count on government to bail you out dependably.

All things being said, this life is still the only game in town.  Play or quit.

Moving production capacity out of North America for economic reasons has now bitten  us.  Will we continue to trust China and (fill in the blank)?

Criminals are planning ways to get your $1,200.  For details, send the low, low price of $39.95 (+ P&H) to the undersigned.

Medical science has led to extension of average age.  It has not cured the death problem.

Assigning blame has minimal short-term utility.  The crisis exists no matter who is at fault.  Better to devise a response to the existing problem. 

We are not in charge.  God, Fate, random chance, Odin, or the Force is in charge.

The death rate – so far – of coronavirus is less than 2%.  On the other hand, if you get it, you either live or die.  If you die, you die completely, not 2% worth. 

Perhaps we need to take the current emergency as a drill for a REALLY devastating emergency – The climate warms up suddenly, electricity fails, a virus equivalent to the Black Death strikes, nuclear winter, and (fill in the blank with something you can’t image) strikes.

Personal:

I’m still a dab hand in the kitchen and grill.  Not anything like my son Tim, but a dab hand. 

I’m still not watching the Food Network as entertainment.  Sorry, Tim.

Airline, cruise ship lines and entertainment appear to be bad investments right now.  (My investments are in oil.   One tank at a time.)

Telecommunications stock (skype, google, facebook, etc.) may be great investments now.  (Me, I’ll stay in oil.  The Batmobile requires it.)

Words like “apocholyptic” are used by foolish people.  Just my take. 

Useless:

Triage and do-not-resuscitate doctrine are not new.  They are unpleasant, but then life is unpleasant at times.

Celebrities in sports and entertainment are no smarter, but the current emergency has made them a bit more shrill.

Future effects:

How will we go to the movies in the future?  The theaters are set up to maximize viewers, but maintain the illusion of personal space.  Who will go to theaters, concerts, political rallies, hockey games or churches?  (The hockey game part hurts.)

What will air travel look like?  I don’t revel in the thought of climbing in an aluminum tube with recycled air butting shoulders with 8 people to take a trip across country.   You can bet that the airlines are exploring filter systems, less seating and other things that I can’t think of (since I don’t fly often).  Ditto Boeing and Airbus.  The planning staffs are meeting secretly right now.

Planning staffs of big restaurant companies or investment companies are meeting to plan how to take over restaurants and restaurant chains that fail.

Mizpah!