Everybody seems to have one, usually more than one. Yeah, you thought you knew what I was going to mention, until I said that usually it was more than one. Actually, you would have been close.

Arms? Fingers? Toes? Televisions? Cars? No. I am not alluding to anything desirable or useful. I refer to idiots supposedly representing our interests. I speak of simpleminded politicians.

Here in Tennessee we may not have the most, but only because there are much larger states. On a per capita basis we must be a leading contender. Our “representatives” may have set a new standard for stupidity.

My Personal Embarrassment

Deborah Maggart is my state representative. Checking out the bills she sponsored in the latest session, one might come to the conclusion that she has some expertise in education, mental illness, taxes, the Constitution and such. Not really.

She is concerned with the safety of our children. She sponsored a bill that keeps local government from storing magazines or gun powder within a mile of a daycare center or school. Presumably, it is acceptable for private companies or individuals to do so.

It’s just a guess but she does appear competent to assign names to bridges and highways.

Miss Debbie joined with her peers to commit what may be the supreme act of legislative witlessness.

Specifically, the bill is an amendment to the Tennessee Code Annotated Title 39 – Chapter 17 – Part 362. Harassment.

(a)  A person commits an offense who intentionally:
(1)  Threatens, by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication, including, but not limited to, text messaging, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or Internet services, to take action known to be unlawful against any person and by this action knowingly annoys or alarms the recipient;

Edited here for length and pertinence.

(4)  Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose:
(A)  (i)  With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or
(ii)  In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and
(B)  As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

Back to the real world

It seems impossible to write a bill with a broader brush. Particularly given the animus of present public discourse, is there any comment or action to which this law could not be construed to apply? I would not recommend spending wasting too much time musing on that question.

I considered not mentioning this and holding my home state up to such ridicule. Then I saw it as a story on a national newscast. Maybe I should take this as an opportunity to feel better about myself; to see myself as superior to the bozos that elected this bunch from their midst.

Many of you may be familiar with our new governor’s family business. It is Pilot, by far the largest company in the business of operating truck stops along our nation’s highways. I should think a person operating a billion dollar business would have vetoed such a monstrosity. Silly me.

Since the state is already a laughing stock, my actions cannot possibly put it in a worse light. This law should be challenged and the remnants hung around the necks of those responsible. Having been disappointed in my home state with some frequency, it may not be challenged if I fail to do so. Here is my attempt to challenge this embarrassing, ridiculous law. Come and get me. I am putting myself in jeopardy of a year of imprisonment and a $2,500 fine.

Blacks can certainly claim that the flag above leads to emotional distress. So can any true American; anyone of normal human sensibility. My calling it a symbol of treason should piss off everyone else. So there, I admit to the proscribed action and to the illegal nature of the symbol.

Before signing off let me attend to two details. That flag is not the flag of the Confederacy. It was Lee’s battle flag. Few worshipers of it know that little tidbit of history. The other detail has to do with the title of the act. It covers harassment. Almost everyone mispronounces the word. It springs from the same root as the words to harry, harried, harrier (as in the vertical take-off jet fighter) and my own surname, Harris. The emphasis is on the initial syllable: har’ ass ment.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It is now okay to own up to your obsession with Betty Crocker or Ronald McDonald. As a kid I found myself attracted to the Morton’s Salt young lady. A handful of salted peanuts can bring up memories of days gone by.

Carrying a torch for Sara Lee or Big Boy was never really akin to bestiality but now you are equals. I would caution, however, that some of these attractive ladies are considerably older than they appear. Even Little Debbie is 55 years old.

Though parts of the Deep South held on to their anti-miscegenation laws until the very last gasp, they were not to be found bringing up the rear in jumping into bed with big business.

I need to leave this aspect of the situation. My wife says I am already taken. Besides, in seeing a historical romance novel, I am reminded that, at my advanced age, all romance is historical.

The ruling by the Supremes makes no sense on any level nor from any perspective. I would highly recommend reading, or re-reading, the article I wrote at the time of the Citizens United ruling. Otherwise, I will have to reprint it here. The title of the article was Supreme Stupidity.

One can show how ridiculous the decision is by poking fun of corporations enjoying rights that only make sense for humans or humans trying to enjoying the special privileges and advantages only permitted to corporations. How would you like to be a corporation?

My apologies for bringing up a sore subject but it hasn’t been too long since you sent in your gift to the IRS. It helped to be able to deduct that mortgage interest, didn’t it? Did you deduct all that you spent for the principal? On food and drink? On travel? On vacation? On all of your wife’s clothes? On her trips to the beauty shop? On her lipstick and perfume? You didn’t?

Why would you not deduct everything you spent? Your fellow corporations do. Food and drink are your personal energy sources. Oh, don’t forget to deduct the toilet paper. Corporations are only supposed to pay taxes on their profits – whatever remains after all of their spending. Then they call in the experts to take advantage of the subsidies and other giveaways their lobbyists bought for them.

How much profit did you make last year? How much did you have left over for savings?

Investors in corporate human beings have the protection of limited liability. If someone slips on your sidewalk and incurs an injury costing a few million dollars, your $48,000 average income might not be enough to cover it. But, the court can hold you fully liable. That’s when you need to tell the judge that you are a corporation.

Did you commit a crime? Richard Nixon wanted to know. J. Edgar Hoover wanted to know. Did you think? Tailgunner Joe McCarthy wanted to know. They wanted to get you out of their way. They threw a few in jail. But, those human corporations never came to share a cell. There are no banks in prison for illegally taking your home. There are no health insurance corporations serving time for ripping off the government (you) of billions of dollars. There are no drug companies on death row for lying about the safety of their medications, even when the number of victims is a large multiple of those lost in the Twin Towers.

Our church had nearly 12,800 in attendance to commemorate Easter. Not a single corporation showed up to exercise their rights of freedom of religion. Why don’t they exercise their right?

Corporations fail to exercise their right to trial by jury frequently enough for my taste. I’m referring to the 6^th Amendment right in criminal trials, not the 7^th Amendment right in civil trials. I’d be willing to make a career of serving on juries for the opportunity to play a role in holding my fellow corporations people to account.

The previous paragraph begs the question of how corporations are themselves able to avoid serving on juries.

A question comes to mind. Given, a corporation can own a firearm. How does it bear that instrument? But the real question is, in those states and localities requiring the bearer attend safety classes and/or exhibit a degree of proficiency on the firing range, has their right been abridged by such a requirement?

If a corporation has the right to unlimited free speech, in order to effect the voting, how is it possible to deny them the right to vote? If having more money provides them more free speech, does having more money also translate into having more votes? If not, how is that justifiable in light of the expanded rights regarding speech?

If money is speech, is an impecunious mute denied his right? In a land proud of its political equality, why is political speech powered by a factor that is based on an inequality that we glory in? Would equating money with speech not require everyone to have the same amount of money to ensure equality? Is this just a countervailing stratagem to compensate for the loss of privileges that ensued when ‘one man – one vote’ was enforced?

If logic, common sense and comedy can be stretched to give constitutional rights to corporations, there is no possible legal rationale sufficient to keep the franchise from further extension. I am inclined to think that animate beings would be next. Bunny rabbits do present the possibility of overly diluting the prerogatives of people and human beings unless we can legally restrain their proclivities for procreation. I’m uncertain as to how to handle a case such as Harvey’s.

As corporations are inanimate, my earlier supposition that animate entities would likely be next in line could very well be mistaken. Would it be fair to give man-made, or corporation-produced, objects preference over natural ones? It might be presumptuous to favor items made by humans over those created by God nature.

Perhaps I should have read the Supreme’s decision. Surely they covered all of my questions and concerns therein. After all, they are all educated, reasonable, rational, disinterested diviners of the inner thoughts of the Founding Fathers.

Since those First Daddies readily made known their fear and hatred of corporations, they must have changed changed their minds once they got to heaven. I wish I was also blessed to be privy to the thoughts of those heavenly beings. Absent that, we should count ourselves blessed that the Almighty’s hand ensures the Court is always populated with that ability.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Although I have never marched around dressed up funny with a bunch of weirdos, I have studied the Constitution.

I find it amazing how people that haven’t displayed any particular affiliation with government, history, law enforcement, responsibility, weapon use, constitutional law or the English language are convinced of their expertise on all of these subjects.

Perhaps, we should post the 2^nd Amendment before looking into it, our subject for today.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I find it logically difficult to see these staunch “supporters” of the Constitution as such when they insist on ignoring the Constitutional justification of their favorite part.

The only stated reason for allowing people to own arms is for the maintenance of a militia. So, let’s look at what constitutes a militia?

A militia is a military force. A bunch of individuals running around packing heat, shivering in a duck blind or standing watch over a salt lick has nothing in common with a “military force.”

A militia is for the purposes of defense of the community or enforcing the law. While individuals make up the community, one doesn’t organize a militia for the benefit of an individual. That’s another thing: a militia is organized.

There is a small but important consideration to be found in the passage of the Amendment. As passed by the Congress, the word people is not capitalized. As ratified by the states, it is. Meaning? The final version reflects with very specific intent that the Amendment is for “the People” not a bunch of individuals

That part about enforcing the law is interesting. The rabid supporters fear the government and feel the need of protection from it. I always thought it was the government that established the laws that need to be enforced. That would seem to require that the militia act in concert with, and for the benefit of, the government, not as an antagonist.

The second half of the introductory phrase gives further support to the logic of the above. It states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

There is the justification. There is no room for additional, paranoia-inspired, extraneous, verbal contortions to make the Constitution support its enemies.

I have heard some of the new members of Congress and others claim that the Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms because they were sufficiently prescient to realize we would one day need to fight the government. Wow!

Accepting that really puts the Founders in a weird position. Instead of the obvious explanation that they wanted to protect the system they were laboring so hard to develop, they were really providing a way of arming its enemies. Is it possible that the people in tin hats today see something the Founders intended but forgot to include? Did the Founders really expect their handiwork to become the enemy?

What if the Founders really did expect the Amendment to be needed by a group individuals, who are smarter than the rest of us, for the purpose of carrying on a war with our government? Will they repel the government with a Colt 45, a Glock, a shotgun or even an Uzi? I can’t figure out how.

To take on the most powerful military force this world has ever known, I would recommend a few tanks, bazookas, helicopters, attack submarines, missiles and thermonuclear devices. Could they get by without satellite support for their GPS-guided weaponry?

Rambo, Dirty Harry and the former Governator will not be able to provide much help. More than celluloid and duck tape will be necessary to take on the Pentagon.

The biggest problem with an unlimited interpretation of the Amendment may be the very ones who consider guns so important. How is that? They may have become excellent marksmen. They may be able to impress you with their mastery of the nomenclature of these weapons. Still, they don’t understand the most basic aspects of handguns.

As a former commissioner of police, let me make certain that people know that both the national organizations of police commissioners and police chiefs are strongly in favor of fairly stringent gun control laws.

An idiot congressman from Arizona refuses to retreat from his public statement that he wishes there had been one more gun at the recent shooting aimed at his fellow congressperson. There was another gun in the crowd.

Think about it. A handgun is for the purpose of getting the drop on one or more others. If someone already has the drop with his weapon, bringing another handgun into the situation is more than likely to increase the body count. A weapon used in a robbery, for instance, may be intended only for intimidation. Introducing another weapon significantly increases the possibility of gunfire.

The man in the aforementioned crowd pulled his gun. He says he was within a second of firing at the guy holding the gun. Fortunately, he realized that the person he was aiming at was holding the gun because he had just disarmed the shooter. In such a confusing situation, it is possible for such mistakes to happen.

Another consideration is that more than 90% of the shots fired by police miss their target. That does not mean they don’t hit someone. It only means that they don’t always hit the right someone. Remember, that accuracy rate is from trained, experienced police officers.

Almost all of these “supporters” of the 2nd Amendment received their understanding of weapon application from television, movies and comic books. For some reason, I don’t find that overwhelmingly reassuring.

There is the matter of self-protection, of course. The death rate in homes with guns is far, far higher than in those without a gun. We too frequently see a news report of a child accidentally killed in a home with a handgun.

A domestic disagreement often escalates to homicide simply because a handgun was available. The problem there is that such events are only local news. On average, several of these incidents occur daily across the country.

Now these yo-yos want to carry handguns in bars, in churches, even the floor of Congress. That should give you a good indication of how far they reside outside of reality.

Keep in mind, whenever you hear someone advocating the absence of gun control, you are likely hearing the absence of sense. Even when written in an opinion of the Supreme Court, it is probably the result of ignorance of handguns, ignorance of history, paranoia-based excursions from the real world or a dupe of those people.

These people have no concern for your freedom or your safety. Their concern is for their deluded desire for power and/or their other political agenda.

With few exceptions the people constantly campaigning against handgun control are your enemy. My hope is that you never become their victim.

Puzzle Me This

I’ve heard it ad nauseum. You’ve heard it too.

They say that guns don’t kill people. They say that people kill people. Is that really true? If so, why do so many people spend all that money buying guns? It just seems redundant and wasteful to me.

Guns may be used for target practice. They may be used as paperweights. They don’t work very well as flower pots. Whatever, they are designed to kill.

People may kill but if they were designed for that purpose I would guess that someone expurgated that from Genesis.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Yes, class warfare has been waged against those of the middle class and the poor for decades. No, the middle class and poor have not been fighting back, at least not yet.

I am suggesting a new and different strategy for at least the first significant counterattack. The plutocrats have handed us the weapon we need. They and their toadies have maimed the economy. Would you believe that can be turned into a weapon?

While they are somewhat cushioned from the results of their mischief, I have found a way to turn their weapons against them. Jujitsu is a method of using your opponents force against him rather than directly confronting that force. Everything old is new again.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the World Justice Project. It is an organization dedicated to “lead a global, multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the Rule of Law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity.“ It’s honorary chairs have included a range of Supreme Court justices from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Sandra Day O’Connor. Others are Desmond Tutu, Colin Powell and Jimmy Carter.

Recently, they published the results of a study, called The Rule of Law Index. It evaluates and ranks how laws are implemented and enforced around the world. Countries are ranked on such factors as whether government officials are accountable, whether legal institutions actually protect rights, and how ordinary people fare in the system. The index ranks 35 countries but will double that next year.

Of the 11 industrial countries, we were at the bottom in accessibility and affordability. We fell below such countries as Mexico, Croatia and the Dominican Republic. When polled, the responses were telling. “For instance, only 40% of low-income respondents who used the court system in the past three years reported that the process was fair, compared to 71% of wealthy respondents. This 31% gap between poor and rich litigants in the USA is the widest among all developed countries sampled. In France this gap is only 5%, in South Korea it is 4% and in Spain it is nonexistent.”

I’m inclined to believe that the reason for the rich litigants’ satisfaction being only 71% is a matter of spoiled brats not getting everything they want even when they win. The system does at least occasionally recognize the need to provide the gloss of fairness.

You and I suffer a disadvantage in our courts system. Other studies prove that perception of a disparity is real. Obama has appointed the acknowledged leading legal mind, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, to address this problem. Less than one in five poor people with a legal problem obtain legal services of any kind.

Is this really a serious problem? Mr. Tribe says, “The truth is that as a nation, we face nothing short of a justice crisis. It is a crisis both acute and chronic, affecting not only the poor but the middle class. The situation we face is unconscionable.”

Bernie Madoff went to prison for ripping off a relatively few. The Wall Street bankers and mortgage brokers ripped off millions. How many will Bernie ever get to see again? When the Dow dropped from around 14,000 to the neighborhood of 7,500 many IRAs, 401ks, pension funds, university endowments and such, many people experienced a sleepless night or two.

But, apparently, the consequences of destroying several trillion dollars of other people’s money do not include any perp walks. Actually, this year the result was $144 billion in bonuses.

Let’s step back and assess where we are. The poor and middle class, quickly merging, have little access to the courts and less satisfaction. The elite does have access. The parasitic plutocracy avoids paying the price and ends up profiting from their greed.

The problem is actual criminal activity. Fraud was committed when sub-prime mortgages were rated and sold as AAA investments. Any lawyer worth his three-martini lunch can come up with a dozen collateral charges. If some of these bad people were sentenced to a year for each offense, they could watch the dying of the Sun through the bars on their windows.

The pension funds and others managing large amounts of investments suffered major financial hits. They do, however, have the wherewithal to pursue legal remedies. They also need to fear action charging them with failure to do due diligence and fulfill their other responsibilities. They should be harassed, poked and prodded until they seek redress for their clients. Use one pack of parasites to squeeze another pack parasites. Some activity in the civil courts, with concomitant publicity, will make it easier to pressure the authorities to bring charges in the criminal courts.

Additionally, there needs to be a constant drumbeat for accountability. That accountability should be for those handling those huge amounts of your pension money. It should be extended to include government officials, politicians, anyone culpable. This will not be something that comes quickly. This will not be something to which the plutocrats and their lackeys will easily acquiesce.

We have a justice system that puts one of every four prisoners in the world in our prisons. We have the longest sentences in the world. Yet, a financial heist that dwarfs anything we could have imagined fails to stir our justice system to punish even one malefactor.

We can’t directly force the system to act. It is possible, however, to get those financial geniuses to face off against each other. We might benefit as a side effect. Some of you may get a bit of your retirement back . . . or maybe a little revenge and a justice system we deserve.

Let’s begin a class war by proxy.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I have often wondered if the FBI and the Keystone Cops share the same parentage. I will explain my lack of regard for this august body in just a bit.

The FBI was brought to mind by an article I read. It reported that Wikipedia had been threatened if they did not discontinue displaying the FBI’s logo on their site’s article devoted to the agency.

Silly me. I thought the Feebies were busy catching communists terrorists; saving all of us innocents from what’s-his-name.

The legal office of the FBI opened with:

“Unauthorized reproduction or use of the FBI Seal is prohibited by 18 United States Code, Section 701, which provides:

One would hope that we had put the messianic personality of JEHoover behind us. It has been 40 years and more since I was involved to the extent that I felt I had a realistic take on the tragicomedy that was the FBI. When I was involved, there were eleven investigative agencies in the federal government. The last count I heard was sixteen.

The agency with the best conviction rate was Customs. That was likely because, the way they worked, they almost always secured the evidence at the time of the apprehension.

The FBI had the lowest conviction rate. I lay that to incompetence, sloppiness and hubris. They tended to believe their press clippings.

Have you been watching reruns of The FBI Story, I Led Three Lives or any other series based on that agency? No? You would bust a gut at how consistently cornball those shows were. Hoover’s office demanded and got editorial control of essentially anything portraying the agency. Though several presidents wanted to get rid of Hoover, no one had the guts to upset him.

The majority of cases that the FBI handled, when I was paying attention, were stolen cars. You didn’t know that, did you? When a car was stolen, it was assumed that after 24 hours it had crossed a state line. This caused the local law enforcement to notify the FBI. They, in turn, issued a regional (not all-points) bulletin. Yep. That’s what they did.

When the car was eventually found by a local police or sheriff’s department, they notified the FBI. The FBI fetched the vehicle and returned it to the original jurisdiction. That counted as a successful case for the Bureau. Padding their statistics thusly, they still had the worst record of any agency.

At a Washington party, Hoover once refused to shake hands with the Soviet Union’s ambassador and pretended to ignore him. His obsession with communism caused him, and therefore the Bureau, to see them everywhere. It was said that he could see communists under the bed who weren’t there but couldn’t see a real, live communist standing in front of him.

His devotion of resources to ferreting out communists caused him to flood the Communist Party USA with spies. While there  were only about 9,000 members of the Party, 1,500 were FBI agents. It was truly comic with so many agents stepping on each others toes.

There was a directive sent out to all 1,500 of these agents not to pay their dues on time. They were afraid it would be a giveaway that they were FBI and could afford dues. The average member of the Party was rarely successful enough to be able to afford to pay their dues on time. This is what Hoover feared so much and, by his efforts, brought the public to an irrational level of fear of a takeover of the country.

Did the FBI discover the Shoe Bomber? The Bloomers Bomber? I think ordinary citizens discovered them. The FBI did find a bunch of kids who intended to blow up the Sears Tower, despite not knowing how to construct a bomb and not having enough for bus fare to Chicago. I think they did know that the Tower was in Chicago.

The Brits discovered a plot over there and told the Yanks. They regretted it. It seems Bush needed to boost his image and the Americans forced the operation to be closed down before the British could round up the entire group of plotters. Public relations trumps national security and relations with competent members of friendly foreign agencies.

Please don’t turn me in for posting their badge. If I were eating when they came a-calling, I might choke during my hysterical reaction.

It would not get me in trouble to post the logo of the CIA. It’s likely no one there would recognize it.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Pew Research has come out with a new poll. I know it’s difficult to believe but people complain of big government.

Only 22% feel that big government is acceptable. Would you like to be in that elite group? Would you care to guess where my sympathies lie?

I would appreciate you reading this post and letting me know not just where you stand but whether this caused you to reassess the issue to any extent.

First allow me to confess. I have been audited three times. Once they discovered it was a clerical error and that they owed me more than what they had claimed I owed them. Another time I went to tax court sans attorney and my bill was reduced by a little more than half. The last time they wanted to avoid tax court and negotiated an amount that was almost reasonable.

You really get to experience the power of the government through the auspices of the IRS. I know that, had our resources and power been comparable, I would have not had to pay any extra those last two times. As the song goes, you have to know when to fold them.

I also had the opportunity to experience the power of the government as meted out by sergeants in general and one captain in particular. The captain denied me the right to marry. He ignored the evidence of the Korean ceremony we had as an option after his denial. His actions meant that the only time I saw my wife in the following three years was when I paid for a trip as a civilian to marry again in the American Consulate.

My wife was pregnant when I was shipped home ahead of schedule and my son died without me ever having seen him. I don’t imagine too many members of the Tea Party have more reason than I to be concerned about the power of big government.

After fifty years my perspective on the subject is somewhat less the prisoner of passion than formerly. I am aware that there are dangers. I am aware that there are abuses. But, I am also aware that the issue is not as simple as one person’s subjective experience.

You have probably heard of the SEC bringing fraud charges against Goldman Sachs this past week. Although Senator Dodd says the financial reform bill he is putting together would have kept that fraud from occurring, many say that the government has all along had the tools to remedy that problem. If that is the case, one might think that the problem to this point is not that the government was not sufficiently large but that there was at least one part of the government that was not doing its job.

I imagine that I would find many agreeing that if the government already has the size and the tools to accomplish its obligations we might be well-advised not to be precipitous in enlarging it. That really isn’t a tough call.

If as they say, the government has the tools to protect us from Wall Street, do they really have the size? One case against the financial industry may require reading hundreds of thousands of emails and a host of other documents. It requires battalions of forensic accountants. It requires specialized legal teams. With the scope of the problem, one case at a time would be analogous to trying to empty an ocean one thimble full at a time. The SEC must be greatly enlarged.

It would help to give the SEC as much authority as the FDA. The FDA fails to use its authority on behalf of consumers but that is due to the relationship its staff and executives have with the industry. That needs to be rectified. Just making the SEC larger and giving it greater authority is insufficient. We have to demand they protect the right segment of our society.

What authority should we give the SEC? One way to cut down on the need for unlimited staff would be to re-engineer the front end of the system. We should prohibit the financial industry from offering any new products without permission. This is at least the supposed policy of the FDA. Such a policy could have prevented Credit Default Swaps and other forms of derivatives. Or, it could have insured that the government knew they were coming, what they were, understood the dangers and imposed real regulations and rules.

The issue of enhancing our protection from the Wall Street mafia seems to find that rare commodity, bipartisan support. We expect to find substantial agreement that a large military comes in handy, when it is not being used as a police force. There are obviously other areas that require a government with sufficient resources to serve and protect us. Think mine safety inspectors, food inspectors, port inspectors, et al.

There admittedly are areas that could be run with fewer people. At least 60% of our prison population is due to nonviolent drug offenses. You don’t always get to see or recognize the money and other resources being spent on this. It clogs our courts. It consumes law enforcement resources and manpower. One of every four prisoners in the world are in U.S. prisons. Are we that bad as a people? Or, do we always vote for whoever is ‘toughest on crime?’

I am certain that you know of other areas of need for big government and other areas where it could be reduced.

Some government services actually bring us social and financial benefits. The state parks system in Tennessee has been voted the best in the nation. A recent study found that for every dollar the state spent on this system it saw a return of $16. So, what do we do? Do we listen to Blue Dog Democrats and Republican fiscal conservatives and cut the parks budget? We shouldn’t but to them such a government service is considered low-hanging fruit. Cut. Cut. Cut.

It isn’t as simple as ‘the government is too big.’ Nor is it a simple ‘the government needs more resources.’ It’s both. It’s neither. Government is complex. And, it is not going away; nor should it. We have the responsibility to decide where government can serve us and where we need it to butt out. We can’t do this to our best advantage with ideologies, slogans and shouting at each other.

With well over 300 million souls to be responsible for, one shouldn’t expect a small government. With a society as complex as ours is, we need services. With all of the dangers we face, in our local and national security, mad cow disease, botulism, Wall Street, internet and other fraud, medicines that kill, increasing stress that affects and endangers us, Toyotas and all of the rest, we will frequently find a place for government.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, the present economy doesn’t inspire us as individuals to go on a spending spree. Neither does it have that effect on businesses. Local and state governments are cutting back, adjusting to greatly reduced revenues. The economy needs stimulation. People need jobs. The federal government is the only entity with the resources to do that.

It would have been nice if we hadn’t partied so hardy on credit when the economy was in better shape. We would have less of a problem accepting temporary but necessary deficits to help us ride out the hangover. We could have a 10-year recession as Japan did or we can bite the bullet and pay for our economic sins.

Much of the Tea Party thrust is for small government. They are puppets. Most all of the behind-the-scenes organization for this phenomenon is being paid for by big money interests. They want distraction from actually dealing with our problems. They want a government that has not the resources to police their activities. I wish these people in their tri-corner hats and parading around with misspelled signs would take a break – take time to think. They don’t have any solutions. They have slogans and cant.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Back in September of 2008 I posted an article that has special pertinence this week. Stay with me. We will get to that after a few facts concerning this present explosion.

I’m sure you have heard of the mining disaster in West Virginia. It is the worst we have experienced in over two decades.

It is a regrettable situation, particularly as experts say all such accidents are preventable. If that’s true, why did it happen? Would you believe pure, unadulterated greed? Would you believe that the state’s supreme court played a role?

The mine is owned by the Massey Energy Company. This company was cited for 495 violations last year. During that same period production more than tripled.

Back to these accidents being preventable. Almost all of the deaths in coal mining are at nonunion mines. Why? Because union mines, by contract, have safety officers.

The coal industry is fond of telling us how cheap it is compared to other fuels. I guess it depends on how one calculates the price. What is the cost of 1,000 miners’ lives lost to explosions?

What is the cost of 50 miners coming down with black lung every week? What about the eventual deaths of these people with black lung after years of suffering? What is the cost of treating them? How much does coal really cost?

All coal mines produce methane. It has to be vented. Massey told its supervisors to not bother checking methane levels. Methane is the primary explosive material.

In 2000-1 this mine had 501 violations. Their three largest competitors combined had 175, while producing twice as much coal. Record numbers of violations don’t automatically translate into more money. It did last year because of the types of violations. They became more serious.

Massey’s CEO is Don Blankenship. He makes certain to keep his salary under a million. That is for show. It’s difficult to get a fix on his actual compensation. Forbes put his 2008 number at a little more than $11.2 million. The Associated Press put it at $19.7 million for the same year. Whatever, he is the highest paid executive in the industry. It is somewhat more than he pays his nonunion employees.

Mr. Blankenship has been described as a right-wing nut. He thinks Both Democratic and Republican politicians are out to destroy his America. You know, the America that stays out of his way with all of those ridiculous ideas about safety and taking the well-being of people into consideration.

Back to the Past, Present and Future

As I began this post, I recalled one from September 2008 that involved this same company and its CEO. Remember that West Virginia may be the only state that elects its supreme court. The episode memorialized in my post long predated this year’s U.S. Supreme Court’s travesty of monetizing free speech. Why did our Civics teachers lie to us? Anyway, here is the link to that other post, Free Speech – In Remembrance. Maybe I’ll look more prescient now.

What is the present-day significance of the event described in that former post? Just that if you get away with bad behavior once, you have less reason to behave after that. Calling the deaths of 25 human beings the result of bad behavior seems far too restrained. It should be treated as criminal homicide but that will eventually involve the court that Mr. Blankenship has already purchased.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Thirteen states have filed a lawsuit claiming that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.

Will they win or are they just wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to look good to their political bases? If you guessed the later, you didn’t require anyone to read this to you.

Given that we have five Supremes who can’t differentiate between human beings and things that human beings create, anything is possible. By the way, since voting is the most important form of free speech, why have corporations never voted? Sorry, I didn’t mean to give them any ideas.

Even if the courts were to rule in the favor of these thirteen grandstanding attorneys general, they can’t win.

They claim that it is unconstitutional to require people to purchase private health insurance. If someone doesn’t have health insurance, others must pay for it out of their taxes. The requirement is a protection measure for the rest of us.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see people forced to give these private monsters more money. This law, as presently configured, gives these corporations an additional 31 or so million customers. That is estimated to increase their bank accounts by some $70 billion annually. No. I definitely am not pleased with that.

Having the public option is less rational than Medicare-For-All but it would at least provide an alternative for many of this 31 million and others. Most of that $70 billion would not go to the leeches. We have been promised that the Congress will amend the law to include the public option.

So, there is a possibility that the courts could rule in their favor. What happens? This law, as with most others of any complexity, includes a separability clause. That means, if the courts rule against any part of it, the entire law is not scrapped. The remainder remains.

Interestingly, the suit cites no case law or precedent. Why? Because there is none. Federal law overrules state law.

Under the commerce clause of the Constitution the government has broad, unchallenged power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has historically been interpreted very broadly. Also, the right of the government to tax has been firmly established.

Even given the present makeup of the Court, there is almost no likelihood that the attorneys general can prevail with this suit. A few may prevail in their races for the governor’s seat in their state based on the publicity they will garner.

The solution, should the courts rule in their favor, is to offer the public option, or make a public program mandatory. All the former would do is offer a better deal at less cost by eliminating about 30% of the costs that unnecessary overhead represents. Making it mandatory simply means reducing the amount one pays for coverage and calling it a tax rather than a premium. The courts have already ruled that Social Security, Medicare, et al., are constitutional.

So, if they win, and their win brings a public option or Medicare-For-All, what have they won?

America’s Favorite Loon, Michelle Bachmann, or as she calls herself on her web site, Amaricas Congress Woman, has introduced a bill which calls the healthcare bill unconstitutional. If she can’t spell America’s correctly or punctuate it correctly or doesn’t know that Congresswoman is one word, her bill may need the services of an editor.

Were it anyone else, save Sarah, we would consider her to be doing this only for its symbolic effect. She, however, seems convinced that the bill will succeed. How she will attain majorities in either house no one can explain. Then, either the President must sign it or his veto must be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. I would be hesitant to put too much money on any of those possibilities.

Then we have the Republican leadership saying that the passage of this bill is the death knell of the Democratic Party. Before passage they were exhibiting great concern for the welfare of the Democrats (pun intended). Their solicitude was impressive and heartwarming. Despite their concern for the wellbeing of their compatriots they intend to take advantage of this misstep by the Democrats by running on the position of repealing the healthcare bill.

I can see their logic. The people will swarm to their standard in order to reinstate the bar by the insurance companies of preexisting conditions. Their support will be overwhelming for reimposition of annual and total limitations of coverage.

Kids up to the age of 26 want to be independent. They will flock to the sides of the Republicans freeing them from sharing their parents coverage. Geezers like me will truly appreciate their efforts if we don’t have to worry about what to do with all of our money. We can just luxuriate in the do-nut hole and let the drug companies do all of that worrying.

I think those cagey Republicans have discovered the magic talisman of electoral politics.

Silly suit? Of course. But look to the source. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Silly is as silly does.”

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Did someone revise the English dictionary while I wasn’t looking?

Reading and watching the news is disconcerting and disorienting.

Liz Cheney, a graduate of law school and self-proclaimed patriot, calls the Department of Justice the Department of Jihad. Why? Because seven attorneys in that department once represented terror suspects before the courts.

This law school graduate says that lawyers agree with their clients. She thinks some people should not have a right to an attorney. I must have misread or misunderstood our Constitution and legal system because Liz shouts quite loudly and clearly that she is a patriot. Should I have put that in all caps?

Who is a patriot? Is Liz, who has no understanding or appreciation of our Constitution a patriot? How about her father? He violated the Constitution more times than he received deferments to avoid serving the country he loves so much.

Patriotic teabaggers call our president a Nazi. They blather about how inept our government is; how much they distrust it; how much they hate it.

Patriots want to take away your right to redress, your right to sue. They want to give businesses and corporations immunity from responsibility for ruining your life.

I am beginning to believe that I no longer understand my mother tongue. Let me explain what I think patriotism is, or used to be, and what Joe Main Street thought it was.

Most people probably thought patriotism was a virtue. They thought it was simply a love of country. They thought it was exemplified by soldiers who sacrificed their life and limb for our country, for his fellow countryman.

Watching the teabaggers and their ilk, I see no love of anything. I see hatred of minorities. I see hatred of fellow Americans. I see hatred of anyone different. Really, we are seeing hatred of themselves.

There is another word that people throw around. Nationalism. People, not just in this country, usually see patriotism as a positive and nationalism as a negative trait. Actually, they are the same. People like to portray themselves as patriots and furriners as nationalists. Many word carry emotional baggage. These are just two.

Is patriotism really a positive thing? Many thinkers over the centuries have not necessarily thought so. Let me list a few quotes on the subject. The first is what we used to like to think of it as, when we were in junior high civics class.

“Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” – Adlai E. Stevenson

But far more observers held a less favorable view.

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” – Oscar Wilde

“Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy” – George Bernard Shaw

“You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.” – George Bernard Shaw

“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” – Samuel Johnson

“Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.” – George Jean Nathan

“Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country.” – Bertrand Russell

“Patriotism is as fierce as a fever, pitiless as the grave, blind as a stone, and irrational as a headless hen” – Ambrose Bierce

Most of those quoted must have missed civics class. They likely do not differentiate between patriotism and nationalism.

So, maybe we can’t define it as love of country but does that mean the teabaggers are right? Is patriotism merely hate of your government and your fellow man?

The word has an unarguable hold on us, regardless of how it is defined. Those of the lunatic right know this. They jumped out in front to wear it as a badge of honor. Whatever its real meaning or their lack of devotion to its commonly accepted tenets, it has a political value.

But, one should always remember that admonition, “Never trust anyone who wears his religion or his patriotism on his sleeve.” If you love your fellow man and the ideals for which your country stands, there is no need to advertise it. People will know. If you abide by the teachings of your religion, showing the love and morality of that god, there is no need to advertise it. People will know.

If you see any love for you or me coming from the Cheneys, check to see if there has been an invasion from outer space by creatures using our bodies as hosts. If you see a teabagger or Republican politician having a kind word for Obama, your are likely having an implausible dream.

Is our country perfect? No. Are our leaders motivated by our best interest? Seldom. Are our Congressmen and Senators intelligent, reputable people? I’ll have to get back to you on that. No luck so far.

My last word of warning. Distrust and avoid anyone wearing this underwear.

It is becoming ever more difficult to claim your American citizenship when traveling abroad. The teabaggers and others of that ilk are a cause of either consternation or bemusement or amusement among those looking at us from outside these borders. I care enough about my country and fellow countrymen to not enjoy others seeing us as the global village idiot.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Despite what some may think, I was not around for the Dred Scott decision. That aside, I had comforted myself that the Supremes could not make a worse ruling than the one that gave us Bush the lesser.

I was wrong, horribly so.

We are now the only developed country in the world that allows corporations to legally spend unlimited amounts to control the government. Aren’t we special?

Stay with me a couple of minutes. You will see how stupid and/or corrupt at least five of the Justices really are.

How did we get here and what needs to be done? It is simple but the ramifications cannot be overstated.

First we are dealing with a bunch of hypocrites. The radicals of the Court loudly proclaim that they believe in following the intent of the Founding Fathers. They also maintain that the courts should not legislate, nor usurp the legislative role. Yeah, sure.

No Supreme Court has come close to the activism of the present Court. They have overturned more legislation, by far, than any Court of which I am aware. That tendency alone was sufficient to make all predictions on the latest travesty easy. Commentators from the entire spectrum got it right. This ruling was no surprise.

How about their claimed devotion to what they term ‘strict construction?’ That is also a gross mischaracterization. What was the Founding Fathers’ opinion of corporations? It may not be common knowledge but is far from a secret to any scholar or amateur enthusiast of our founders.

With the exception of Alexander Hamilton, all of the founders hated and/or mistrusted and/or feared corporations and the threat they represented to the nation to which they had given birth. This at a time when corporations were relatively rare and weak compared to the present. Back then one must prove a societal need, a benefit to the public, in order to obtain a charter.

Corporations are not mentioned in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The last time I checked, the wording was still “We the people . . .” Corporations had only the latitude to function as was delineated in its charter. Where did this idiotic concept of corporations having a legal personality originate? Not from the Supreme Court. It came from an essentially parenthetical couple of sentences by one Justice.

The year was 1886. The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The doctrine of corporate personhood was included by Justice Morrison Remick Waite before the beginning of arguments. He stated, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

So, two sentences by a single, junior Justice changed the Constitution, laws and the dictionary definition without argument, without discussion, without any attempt at rationality. It subsequently became the very foundation of corporate law.

Let’s look at this. It doesn’t require looking too deeply. It doesn’t require a degree in Constitutional Law. It does require more intelligence than five of the present Justices. It requires common sense. It requires an absence of devotion to the plutocracy, a jettisoning of ridiculous ideologies. Here we go.

Everyone acknowledges that a corporation is property. It, and/or its shares, not only can be owned, by its very nature it must be owned. If it is a person, it enjoys the constitutional prohibition of slavery. You are not permitted, under any circumstances to hold a person as property. Ask your wife.

A corporation speaks with one voice. Although the textbooks tell you that the shareholders control it, or that the directors control it on behalf of the shareholders, the reality is that management rules. Management’s priorities are rarely the same as the stockholders. Stockholders also are further removed from participation by mutual funds, hedge funds and similar devices. Does anyone believe that corporate lobbying efforts are always (sometimes) consonant with the interests or opinions of shareholders?

While many other legal and logical arguments reach the same, or supportive, conclusions, no serious arguments have been proposed that contradict those arguments. We have no need to pursue any further the irrationality of claims for corporate personhood. Let’s proceed to the ramifications.

The last presidential campaign was easily the most expensive in history. The estimates I saw last year were well over $1 billion but less than two. I haven’t seen your checkbook but to me that is significant change. Actually, I consider that amount obscene. It distorts and corrupts. There is no upside for anyone who values their right to vote.

Now let’s look at real money. The major Wall Street casinos have announced record, or near record, profits. These profits are after record amounts being set aside for bonuses. Have you paid attention? These bonuses total about $150 billion.

If Wall Street decided to redirect only half of that amount to campaign finance, we would never have to watch another non-political commercial in an election year (every other year) again. Although that might seem initially to be an attractive side-benefit, all you have to remember is how quickly campaign advertising begins to pall.

While we know better, politicians owned by special interests insist that they are not swayed by lobbyists’ bribes. Given the amounts now available to them, they likely will not even bother to address such questions. The $150 billion cited above represents only that available from the major institutional players of one corrupt industry. Factor in the insurance industry, PhRMA, agribusiness, energy and a host of others wanting laws that benefit them, to our detriment.

There would not even have been the sham of the healthcare debate with its foreordained outcome. The drug pushers could sell morphine as a toothing medication for infants again, as Bayer did before it became famous for its aspirin. The Department of Agriculture could eliminate all of those pesky areas and become a foundation to channel taxpayers dollars directly to ConAgra, ADM, et al. Exxon and its peers would not have to waste another nickel cleaning up after themselves. There no longer would be a need to debate global warming, or spending any funds on research. Government could really be streamlined.

How much have you ever donated to a political campaign? Look on the bright side. Now there is no need to.

I believe that there has never been a law or ruling which so drastically changes and damages our system.

Many people get upset about the power of the government. Permit me to reminisce. Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s there was a little flap at Delta Air Lines, where I was working. You need to understand that at that time aircraft mechanics were treated like royalty. They were the princes of the industry and highly prized by the airlines.

One of these princes let his sideburns grow to the level of the bottom of his ears. No, they were not mutton-chop sideburns. Though wild hairstyles could be seen everywhere across the country, his could not be considered wild by any definition. He was fired.

Except when I was in military service, I would never expect the government to be so intrusive, so controlling of the minutiae of people’s lives. Corporations are not bound to respect any of your rights, beyond the prohibition of discrimination. The government is constrained by the Constitution. With the Founding Fathers, I have always feared corporations far more than I feared the government – until now.

All is not lost. The Court struck down campaign finance laws, not corporate laws or regulations. The Congress unquestionably has the authority to control corporate behavior through changes in corporate law. It could be done by regulation. You and I are, as people, are not controlled by laws in this area so it cannot be claimed that corporations are being discriminated against or denied that to which people are entitled.

I would ask that you notify me the next time you see a bunch of corporations exercising their right of freedom of assembly or, perhaps, their freedom of religion. I would love to attend a baptismal ceremony for one of these ‘guys.’

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites