Category Archives: justice

All Posts, ethics, justice, medicaid, north carolina, public education, race

WHY DON’T PEOPLE TRUST GOVERNMENT?

Did you ever play a game with a child who wanted to change the rules after something didn’t go his way?  As a child matures, parents and others teach him fair play and we expect him to accept fairness, honesty and basic decency as guiding principles by about the age of 10.

The few who don’t learn those lessons generally become known as whiners, bullies or both.  They typically get their next lessons in places lacking adult supervision.  The bullies get put in their place by somebody who stands up to them and the whiners are ignored until they figure out how to socialize. Most eventually learn to succeed without getting their own way every time.

A few folks never learn the lesson, and as big people (I’m reluctant to characterize them as adults) they are still bullies or whiners.  Their behavior puts the leaders of North Carolina’s Legislature in these categories.  (Please excuse the all-male characterizations in this column.  I don’t know what else to do when all of the Republican leaders are boys.)

Phil Berger, Tim Moore and his predecessor Thom Tillis, as leaders of the House and Senate, changed the rules to enable Republican Governor Pat McCrory to politicize state employment.  Specifically, they passed a law allowing him to hire up to 1500 political appointees into various positions in state government.

When Roy Cooper defeated McCrory for Governor, the bullies decided to change the rules again.  The easiest way to do that was to revise state laws before the inauguration so that Cooper could not veto changes.  They arranged a sneak attack at the end of a special session for flood relief by announcing plans to adjourn and re-assemble on the same day for another special session.  It became obvious that they had been gathering signatures to authorize the session for some time.  They allowed about five hours for introduction of legislation.  In that brief time, carefully crafted legislation increasing the power of Republican leadership and drastically reducing the Governor’s authority was introduced.  The plan was conceived well in advance.

Republicans have the votes to pass these bills.  Given their history with HB-2, they may do it before this column is published.  They can do it without serious debate and without time for consideration by the public.  That’s how they passed HB-2, and North Carolina has paid a heavy price for it.

Here is some of what they want to do.

  • Reduce the number of political appointments by the new governor from 1500 to 300. This would also make about 1200 McCrory political appointees into permanent state employees.
  • Eliminate the Governor’s two appointment slots to the boards of state universities.
  • Remove the state’s Chief Information Officer (responsible for information technology across all state offices) from appointment by the governor and have that position appointed and supervised by the Lieutenant Governor (a Republican).
  • Re-organize and merge the State Boards of Elections and Ethics in ways that reduce the Governor’s appointments and guarantee Republican chairmanship during election years.
  • Make the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Republican) independent of supervision by the Board of Education
  • Require that all of the Governor’s cabinet appointments be confirmed by the Senate.

There is a lot more in these bills and there is no way that anyone can adequately understand their implications without time for consideration and debate.  Much like HB-2, there will be unforeseen consequences in addition to the apparent self-serving intent.

There are two ways to prevent this impending train wreck.  One is for enough Republican legislators to stand up to the bullies leading their party by refusing to pass the bills in a special session.  They can insist on adequate consideration by the public and the legislature.  If they fail, Governor McCrory could grow a spine and veto the bills.  Taking such firm action might even create the possibility of resurrecting a political future for him.

Are there enough Republican legislators who value fairness, honesty and decency and who have the courage to stand up to bullies?  Is Governor McCrory, who no longer needs the support of the bullies, willing to stand up and be counted?  If these bills pass, is there any form of cheating that should be off limits to whoever has power?

I’ll close with a quote from one legislator.  “This is why people hate us.”  He’s right.

For those who are interested, here are links to the as-filed versions of some of the bills submitted for the special session as posted on the website of the North Carolina General Assembly

SB 4 :   http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/Senate/PDF/S4v0.pdf  Ethics, elections and court reform bill creates Republican advantage and control of elections Board

HB 17:  http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/House/PDF/H17v0.pdf changes public instruction, UNC and department head appointments and authority of Superintendent of Public Instruction

HB 6:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015E4&BillID=H6 creates independent CIO nominated by Lt Gov

Link to all 21 house bills submitted for the special session:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016

Link to all 7 senate bills for special session:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016

 

 

All Posts, budget, economy, health, justice, lgbtq, medicaid, north carolina, taxes

We can do well while doing good

The ongoing debate about the economic impact of HB2, North Carolina’s “bathroom law” seems both sad and laughable because its effect is so small when compared to another foolish decision made by the state’s Republican legislature. The economic and human damage done by the decision to reject expansion of the Medicaid program is greater by far.

Republican friends, before you disagree, do your homework and discover the facts for yourselves. Bring truth to the debate and then see how your legislature’s decisions look under that bright light. Before considering human impact, let’s examine some raw financial facts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute have collaborated on research to understand the economic impact on states that rejected Medicaid Expansion. They found that health care funding in North Carolina would be increased by $41 billion in the decade from 2017-2026 if the state accepts Medicaid expansion. That would require $4.9 billion of state funding and would bring $36.1 billion in federal funding. Do the math. $36.1 minus $4.9 equals $31.2 in net gain. Another way to look at it, suppose someone offered you $36.10 in exchange for $4.90. Would you accept it? That is one billionth of the deal that Republicans rejected.  The legislature knew this information when it rejected the Medicaid expansion.

Some will argue that our state budget is too large and we shouldn’t increase it further by expanding Medicaid. That is a reasonable concern, so let’s look at Medicaid expansion in the context of other government spending.

Most federal highway grants require a 20 percent state match. State funding of $4.9 billion would produce a federal highway match of $19.6 billion. That is $16.5 billion less than we would get if we spent the money on Medicaid expansion. Therefore, if one accepts purely financial justification for not expanding Medicaid, the state would be better off by $16.5 billion to reject the highway match and use the money to fund Medicaid.

In addition to providing health care to uninsured North Carolinians, the Medicaid expansion would create thousands of new jobs in health care to replace those lost in other industries.

The argument that “we can’t afford it” doesn’t hold water when made by legislators who spend money on items that yield a far smaller return on investment. It’s a matter of priorities, and this legislature obviously sees other spending as more important than keeping poor people alive and creating jobs.

What about the human effect of the decision? The Medicaid expansion was designed to provide coverage for the working poor, many of whom have jobs (sometimes more than one job) but who are paid so little that they can’t afford insurance even with the help of the Affordable Care Act.  Whatever became of that right wing mantra “take a bath and get a job”? As cynical as it sounds, the Medicaid expansion is designed to support exactly that behavior. It provides health care for people at the bottom of the economic ladder so that they can stay healthy enough to work and support themselves.

Instead of supporting a program that fits with their own traditional philosophies, Republicans rejected the expansion. That leaves us with a law that requires hospitals participating in Medicare and doctors with privileges to practice there to provide emergency and obstetrical care without regard to a patient’s ability or willingness to pay. The cost of that is invisibly built into the prices paid by everyone else. As a result, North Carolinians will pay for surgery to add a few months of life for an emergency patient diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. But we won’t expand Medicaid to pay for the colonoscopy that could have prevented the cancer from forming in the first place. The result of Republican policy is higher cost and a dead patient.

Yes, HB2 is a foolish law that should be repealed. Yes, the cancellation of concerts and sports events has an economic impact on hotels, restaurants and tourism. Yes, the law unfairly discriminates against a largely defenseless class of citizens. Yes, it should be repealed. But so far no one has died as a result of HB2 and the economic impact is microscopic compared to the rejection of Medicaid expansion.

It’s a fabulous opportunity when the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do.  We have two such opportunities at the moment.  Accept the Medicaid expansion.  Repeal HB2.  Everybody will win.

Republican friends, the facts don’t support your policies.  It’s time to change your minds.

All Posts, ethics, health, justice, science

WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE YOUR GENES?

Today I’m introducing epigenetics, a subject that will soon be added to our list of scientific and ethical debates.  Few of us know the word or its meaning, but this emerging branch of science already affects our lives in many ways.

We know that genetic makeup inherited from our parents and nurture provided by families and society are powerful influences on our development.  Epigenetics has demonstrated that environmental factors continuously adjust how our genes affect us. Ethical and legal questions will arise as we learn to manipulate how genes are expressed. Before those discussions begin, we’ll need to understand the possibilities that may unfold.

Every cell in an organism contains the same genes but natural epigenetic stimuli tell cells in a fetus to differentiate into skin, eyes and so forth.  Many kinds of internal and external events can stimulate genes to activate or deactivate.  External factors including nutrition, stress, climate and chemicals have been demonstrated to cause epigenetic change.  In some cases this creates identifiable “tags” on genes.

We have long known that taking certain chemicals into our bodies can cause cancer, addiction, and other health problems but we didn’t understand how it happened.  Now it appears that epigenetic change can cause of some kinds of cancer, diabetes and other illnesses. There are also adaptive and useful epigenetic changes. Here are some examples.

In rat colonies with a safe environment and plentiful food, baby rats (called pups) that have attentive mothers who lick and groom them a lot tend to mature as calm, relaxed adults with high social standing and long life expectancy.  Pups with less attentive mothers display anxiety and are more likely to suffer from heart disease and diabetes.  The difference in pup behavior is correlated to an epigenetic tag.  In dangerous environments, where food is scarce, mother rats have less time to be attentive. In those harsh surroundings, their anxious pups are less likely to be eaten by a predator and more likely to find food.  Both of these environmentally caused epigenetic changes help pups adapt to their environment without conscious learning.

A study of men who were obese and sedentary seems to show that several months of regular vigorous exercise stimulated an epigenetic change that reduced their production of fat.  Another study implies that it is a natural epigenetic process that allows certain animals to grow new limbs when one is severed.  Wouldn’t that be a helpful trick to learn?  Extreme stress and prolonged exposure to stress are being studied as possible epigenetic causes of PTSD and depression.

In much of the research only correlation is proven, not causation. I’ve oversimplified the subject to demonstrate opportunities to prevent and cure illnesses.  They will be accompanied by troubling questions that could have come from science fiction novels.  If epigenetic change can be used to produce more meat from one animal or bigger eggs or sweeter strawberries, should it be legal to do that?  Who will own the intellectual property?

If we could increase our life expectancy by epigenetically delaying the aging process, should we?  Should access to that epigenetic change be a “right” for everyone who wants it?  If we could use our knowledge of epigenetics to pick the kind of children we want, should we?  Would you choose smart?  aggressive?  peaceful?  tall?  studious?  creative?  What if a trait that you want also brings an increased risk of mental illness, violence, diabetes, or heart attack?  If such possibilities become real who can help you use the knowledge?  Will it become a medical specialty limited to physicians or will it be treated like nutritional supplements where anyone can charge a price for coaching you?

What about victims of epigenetic harm caused by pollution or harmful products?   Is it just their bad luck? Do they get compensation from whoever put the chemical into the environment?  Or would society as a whole share the cost?

Some epigenetic changes will be unintentional because we lack sufficient knowledge to predict the outcomes of our actions.  Some decisions will be made by legislatures and others by individuals.  As with nuclear energy, we will find both threats and opportunities. Today is not too soon to start acquiring the knowledge we’ll need to make intelligent choices.

 

 

 

 

All Posts, justice, north carolina, race

WHO CAN SEE POLICE VIDEOS?

Gotcha!  That’s the word that comes to mind when I hear arguments about access to body-cam and dash-cam recordings. Advocates for law enforcement agencies and those who think they’ve been mistreated by police both want to use recordings to justify themselves but the “gotcha” blame game inflames tensions rather than improving public safety.

Controversies surrounding who can see the recordings will make our problems worse.  Imagine the following two scenarios, both of which are likely to occur:

  1.  An individual complains publicly about improper treatment by police. Police respond by releasing a recording which demonstrates that their actions were reasonable and appropriate.
  2. A similar complaint is made and a recording exists but police refuse to release it.

Neither truth nor justice will matter after those events converge into one story.  Together they will appear to be evidence of self-serving decisions and bias by law enforcement – a no-win situation for police and for the public.

More than a year ago, I identified some of the issues and urged passage of a law to regulate access to the recordings.  North Carolina legislators, including local representative Allen McNeill who has extensive police experience, drafted and passed HB 972 which addressed several important concerns.   It’s a good beginning but it leaves law enforcement agencies vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest.

The law allows record retention and release rules that are customized to the unique issues surrounding law enforcement videos by declaring that the recordings are not “public records” to be made generally available like minutes of meetings and government correspondence.  Nor are they “personnel records”.   This will prevent:

  • mass requests for videos by those who want to scan thousands of records for instances of certain kinds of behavior by a particular ethnic minority or police
  • “witch hunts” against a particular officer
  • social media posts of half-dressed people recorded while police intervene in domestic disputes.

HB 972 creates a presumed right to disclosure (seeing the video) for anyone appearing or heard in the recording and for their designated representatives.  It also provides more restrictive criteria for release (obtaining a copy) of the video and it includes a list of circumstances where disclosure or release could be denied.

Four flaws in this otherwise reasonable law make allegations of conflict of interest by police virtually  inevitable.

  1. HB 972 requires the head of the law enforcement agency to decide whether to disclose or release videos.  A citizen who is denied access must hire an attorney and go to court in order to appeal. Public confidence could be improved by reversing the burden of proof – requiring police to go to court to justify denying access to the videos.
  2. A provision of the law allowing police to release videos for “any law enforcement purpose” should be tightened to prevent suspicion that police will release videos that make them look good and withhold those that make them look bad.
  3. One criterion in the law allows denial of access to protect “the reputation of an individual”.  That protection should be limited to bystanders.  It should not apply to interactions between officers and the public.  It is precisely because of concerns about behavior of officers and the public that the recordings are needed.
  4. The law does not allow access to videos by news media, advocacy organizations or the public under any circumstances.  They could only obtain recordings from an involved individual who had met  the police-administered criteria.  The ban on public and news media access to recordings should be reconsidered to see if good criteria can be created.  That will be difficult but probably less harmful than making public release totally subject to police discretion.  The levels of suspicion that already exist between police and some segments of our society mean that police will not be trusted to make unbiased decisions about releasing recordings.

Legislators deserve credit for making this first effort and there is much in the new law that can be helpful.  If they quickly fix its flaws, this otherwise promising law may help build trust between police and citizens.  Without changes it is more likely to generate allegations of bias and conflict of interest by police, no matter how hard they struggle to be fair.

Lives are at stake along with mutual trust between police and the public that they are sworn to protect.  Let’s not play political “gotcha” with these videos.

All Posts, economy, justice, poverty, race

IS THE SYSTEM RIGGED AGAINST YOU?

2 Comments

Try Googling  “Is the system rigged?”  I found:  “FBI Director Comey: I need the American people to know the system is not rigged”  “Trump on Clinton FBI announcement: The system is rigged” “71% of Americans believe economy is rigged”  “The System Didn’t Fail Eric Garner. It Worked How a Racist System Is Supposed to”

The stories shared two disturbing qualities.  1)  Each is about an American institution.  2)  Each contended that some “system” is rigged.  Those headlines introduce angry stories that are backed by at least a few grains of truth.

The people who brought down our financial system avoided prosecution and most of them kept their ill-gotten gains. There is energy for deporting undocumented immigrants and their children but very little for prosecuting employers who hire them without mandatory benefits and wages.

The FBI Director didn’t recommend prosecution of a Secretary of State who was careless with national security information because, he says, she didn’t intend to break any law.  But when I unintentionally made an illegal right turn because I didn’t see the sign prohibiting it, I paid a fine.

We’ve seen people of African descent unjustifiably killed by police and the killers walked away.  Black youth are arrested for possession of marijuana in convenience store parking lots but campus police don’t arrest white college students for the same offense.

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”  That one-liner isn’t funny anymore.  Unfairness, whether real or imagined, is a great danger because our freedom and democracy work well only when the great majority of us support the system and see it as fair.

It is the need for fairness, not fear of violence, that should drive our national conversation about these issues.  The violence often comes from one deranged soul (lone wolf) not from Advocacy organizations.   One enraged man (not associated with the Black Lives Matter movement) used their Dallas demonstration as an opportunity to kill five police officers.  One Christian extremist (not associated with the Right To Life movement) shot five officers and six civilians at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Clinic.  The movements express the concerns of substantial numbers of Americans about laws or institutions that they see as unfair. Most don’t promote violence.

During a previous era of dramatic social and economic change, when family farms and the shops of cobblers and blacksmiths were giving way to mechanized industries, America saw similar unrest and even greater violence.  In 1882, Congress passed the  Chinese Exclusion Act banning all Chinese immigration because their cheap labor was perceived as driving wages down.  In 1887 there was a labor demonstration (The Haymarket Affair) in Chicago supporting an 8 hour work day.  Someone threw a bomb.  Gunfire followed.  Seven police and at least four civilians died.  In 1901, President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who blamed his unemployment on government policies.  In 1920, Wall Street was bombed, apparently by an activist who believed that the financial system was rigged against him.

Recent events are strikingly similar to our history.   Activists and political candidates promise to fix rigged systems with simplistic ideas: Exclude immigrants.  Build a wall.   Block trade treaties.  Hold police accountable.  Enforce law and order.  Many Americans believe that “other” Americans are rigging our institutions (the system) against them, and that does not bode well for our future.

Our nation’s systems for finance, justice, law enforcement, health care, education and others that compose our national identity must be perceived as fair for all of us. We’ll need genuine improvements in fairness, not just slogans and polite listening. Otherwise we will continue to experience demonstrations and rage from those who believe that systems are rigged against them.

After successful efforts to pass civil rights and voting rights laws, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. shifted his attention toward economic justice by addressing financial and wage issues affecting Hispanic and white workers as well as blacks. At the time of his assassination he was in Memphis supporting a strike for higher wages by public sanitation workers.  Nearly half a century later many issues of economic and racial justice have not yet been addressed. Now is the time to improve, not because of fear but because our national sensitivity to fairness has been raised.    It is said that “Most people don’t read the writing on the wall until their backs are up against it.”  I can feel the wall now.

 

All Posts, justice, lgbtq, north carolina, public education

THE TRANSGENDER CULTURE WAR

6 Comments

The United States Departments of Justice and Education have notified state governments and publicly funded schools across the nation that they will lose billions of dollars in federal funding if they discriminate against transgender students.  Amidst the flurry of lawsuits, threats, corporate relocations, event cancellations, and propaganda arising from North Carolina’s infamous  HB 2, this is the most meaningful of interventions because it is national in scope and it has big teeth.  I’ll attempt to describe the federal intervention and the rationale behind it.

I was stunned by the brevity and clarity of the federal correspondence.  It’s only 5 pages long. The law is equally understandable and only 9 pages long. The US Court of Appeals decision that documents federal authority to intervene is long and complex but understandable to non-attorneys.  The sample practices raised as many questions as answers, and didn’t seem particularly helpful, but they were distributed only as information not as advice or rules.  My suggestion is that people who are truly interested read the documents for themselves.  Here, in my opinion, are the key points.

From the letter:   “The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.” …  “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”

From the law (Title 20):   Compliance … may be effected … by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance … to any recipient (for) a failure to comply …

The US Court of appeals supported the federal policy that “…a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”

All of the interested parties would be better served by calm and open discussion of the issues.  Public policies and laws that protect the rights of transgender people while being sensitive to the modesty, privacy and safety concerns of all parties can best be created when there is mutual respect and trust.  Instead we have threats and misinformation.  Our national behavior is disappointing but not surprising.  It’s consistent with how human rights evolve and social change happens here.  Similar events accompanied emancipation of slaves, reconstruction, women’s suffrage, organized labor, school integration, civil rights laws, and marriage equality.

In every case change began in a few local communities and states.  Then a conservative backlash brought legislation to embed discriminatory traditions deeply into public policy.  Reactionary leaders used fear and traditional prejudices to rally support then used raw power and secrecy to impose their will.  In the case of HB 2, a few Republican legislators cooked up the scheme then called an emergency session of the legislature to pass it without public debate.  The public, the press, and many of the legislators who voted for it were not even allowed to read the law until the day it was passed.

Similar ideas have emerged in several Republican dominated states. That is the environment into which the federal government has stepped – just as it ultimately stepped into the other human rights issues that I listed.  That intervention can create a baseline of fair practices to protect transgender people, but it is far from ideal.  Instead of allowing local creativity and cooperation, reactionary intransigence has forced federal intervention and poured gasoline on the always smoldering American culture war.  Federal action will, at best, prevent discriminatory practices.  It can’t produce ideal local results or tolerance.

The debate is over.  Transgender people are entitled to the same protection of laws as people born to that gender.  As we learn to collaborate on the best ways to move ahead it is good to remember that during war, safe and nurturing places often become battlefields where innocent bystanders are victims of the conflict. That is true of culture war as well as military warfare.  Our best course is to plan and accommodate changes that are constructive and safe for everyone.  We can achieve that if we learn together and collaborate toward that goal.

All Posts, guns, justice

RECONSIDERING GUN LAWS AND POLICE SAFETY

3 Comments

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING OF TAMIR RICE

Of all the highly publicized police shootings that we’ve experienced recently, the killing of 12 year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio troubles me the most.  Many blame the child or the officers.  But could it be that our laws, traditions and beliefs make such events almost inevitable?

Rice had not violated any law.  He had a toy gun that is designed to shoot plastic pellets.  They are promoted and sold specifically for people who want to play combat and gunfight games.  The guns and ammunition are available online from mainline retailers including Amazon, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart.  People play gunfight games in forests, parks and at businesses organized for the purpose.

Someone called 911 to report a person with a gun in his hand near a recreation center.  The caller wanted police to check the situation and added that the person might be a child and the gun might be a toy.  As police approached, the toy gun was in the open and visible. Then Rice appeared to put it into the front of his pants. It was no more “concealed” than if he had placed it into a holster.  His actions with the toy were legal.  Had he been an adult, he could legally have done the same thing with a real gun because Ohio is an open carry state.

Video from a nearby camera shows that less than two seconds elapsed between the time the patrol car stopped and the time that Tamir Rice was shot.  Rice had not violated any law and was not threatening anyone at the time police arrived.  They had the imagesopportunity to communicate with him from a distance over their loudspeaker and to approach him slowly.  Instead they drove the patrol car close to him at speed and stopped abruptly – enough to frighten anyone.  By using less intimidating procedure, police might have avoided the problem, but they squandered that opportunity and rushed to confrontation.  The case went to a Grand Jury which did not indict either officer.

From the police perspective, two officers were dispatched to look into a situation where someone was reported to be pointing a gun at people.   The officer who killed Rice says that Rice appeared to be handling the gun in a threatening way.  He says that he feared for his own safety and shot Rice to protect himself and his partner. Despite video evidence that the atmosphere of threat and fear was created by the police themselves, the grand jury agreed that the officer had cause for fear and therefore was justified in shooting Tamir Rice .

Police were legally justified in shooting and killing a person who had committed no crime because they perceived that individual’s actions as threats to their safety.  That interpretation of law has been upheld in many places and at many times including this case where a child was treated in a threatening manner by police and then killed by them because they perceived his behavior as threatening.

The Rice family did not feel that justice had been served.  After the Grand Jury returned no indictment, they sued the City of Cleveland. Recently the City agreed to pay $6 million in damages but did not formally admit any fault or liability by the city or its officers.  Even though there was no criminal prosecution,  the City’s attorneys obviously thought it likely that a jury would find the killing unjustified.  The  historical significance of this case is demonstrated by the Smithsonian Museum’s interest in preserving the recreation center gazebo where in occurred.

If police fear for their safety because you appear to have a gun in your hand, does that justify them shooting you?  And if not, how does the officer protect himself from criminals?  Is it time to examine and reconsider laws that allow open carry of firearms?  Or is it time for police to stop bothering people who openly carry guns?  Should parents continue to teach children, especially black children, to fear police?  Or should it be illegal for police to intimidate people and then shoot them, as they did with Tamir Rice?

The answers to those questions may be complex but I’m confident of one thing.  Reconsideration of our laws is long overdue.

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, campaign finance, Congress, Constitution, justice, north carolina, war

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON’S ADVICE TO AMERICAN VOTERS

4 Comments

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

I’ve invited an old friend of our nation to compose most of this column.  George Washington served with great distinction as leader of our military forces in the war for independence then gave another eight years of service as our first President.   Approaching the end of his second term in 1796, he published a farewell address that included his assessment of our history and his advice about the future.  Here are some of his words and some questions to ponder.

“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize”… “For the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.” That hasn’t changed but our perception of who is entitled to the benefits of liberty has expanded to include people regardless of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. Why do so many among us now see government as our biggest problem?

President Washington said that by maintaining our national unity, we could “…derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments…” thereby avoiding … “the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”  Why do we have armed forces stationed all over the world and why have we been at war so long?

Regarding relationships with other nations, he said, “nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated…The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible…”  Why are we continuously involved in trying to change the internal affairs of other nations?

Washington wrote, “In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views.”  In North Carolina, Republicans designed legislative districts to guarantee their continuous hold on power.  To benefit themselves, they divide citizens rural and religious against urban and secular.  The situation in Washington is similar.

Speaking of associations and political parties, President Washington said, “…they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”  Could anyone better describe how political parties and PACs serve the interests of the very wealthy, huge corporations and other special interests?

Still speaking of factions and political parties, President Washington told us that “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection”

Please think about it.  Need I say more?

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, Congress, environment, justice, war

KILLING BERTA CACERES

5 Comments

A friend recently described the life and death of Berta Caceres to me. Today, I’m sharing her story with you along with concerns about America’s role in the affairs of other nations.

Berta Cacares and Pope Francis with other human rights activists
Berta Caceras and other human rights advocates with Pope Francis during his visit to Honduras.

Caceres was co-founder of COPINH, an organization created to protect the interests of the indigenous Lenca people of Honduras and to save their natural environment from rapacious development.  She and her organization received threats and were victims of violence over the years.  The controversy escalated when COPINH was able to stop construction of a huge hydroelectric dam that would have taken water and land historically belonging to the Lenca people.  It was jointly sponsored by Honduras-based DESA and Sinohydro, a Chinese company that is the world’s largest dam builder.  Defeating that project earned Caceres the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize (perhaps the world’s most prestigious environmental recognition).  It also earned her the enmity of some very powerful people.

On March 2, 2016 Berta Caceres was shot and killed in her bed.  The assassins were reportedly  graduates of the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” (AKA “School of the Americas”) that is jointly operated by the US Army and the CIA.  That school also educated at least 10 military dictators including Manuel Noriega (Panama) and Juan Velasco Alvarado (overthrew the government of Peru).  Their training by American professionals included assassination and torture.

In January, 2006, Manuel Zelaya was elected President of Honduras.  He ran on socialist principles and soon created closer ties to Venezuela and Cuba.  That engendered concern from Honduran and American business interests and from the Bush Administration in the US.  In June 2009, Zelaya was kidnapped and taken to Costa Rica by the Honduran military.   Pre-arranged support from the Honduran Supreme Court included immediate installation of Pofiro Lobo as President.

Honduran social cleansing victims discovered
“Social cleansing” to reduce the population of ethnic minorities that oppose the government have been reported. This man was thought to be a victim. Read more HERE.

Central American Nations and the European Union called for Zelaya’s return to power but dropped their insistence when the Obama Administration, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, encouraged recognition of the new regime.  The never-stated quid pro quo may have been American acceptance of the regime’s legitimacy and its domestic policies in exchange for their collaboration in a war against drug lords.  The Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America reports specifics of 229 politically related Murders under President Lobo.  Many who died or disappeared at the hands of government death squads were environmentalists or social reformers.

When the journal “Intercept” interviewed Berta Caraces about security concerns and threats from government, businesses and paramilitary interests she said “The army has an assassination list of 18 wanted human rights fighters with my name at the top, I take lots of care but in the end, in this country where there is total impunity I am vulnerable.  When they want to kill me, they will do it.” The Catholic Herald reports that many church-affiliated groups are urging the US to conduct transparent investigations of multiple political murders including that of Berta Caraces, but the US has not responded.

There are rumors that the dam project will be resurrected with support from banking, land development and construction interests.  Assassinations and arrests of opponents continue, as does the drug trade; and Honduras continues to have the world’s highest murder rate.

Mass market journalists have paid little attention to these events, but recently the well respected National Catholic Reporter (US based) has confirmed the story and added that, “The leader of the coup, Honduran General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, was a graduate of the notorious School of the Americas, a U.S. Army training program nicknamed “School of Assassins” for the sizable number of graduates who have engaged in coups, as well as the torture and murder of political opponents.”  Nevertheless, US policy created by Secretary Clinton and still supported by her today is to refuse refugees from Honduras while continuing to accept them from Cuba.

After all the bloodshed, it seems that the US would have learned that training and equipping citizens of other nations to kill each other and overthrow their governments doesn’t help anyone.   It certainly did not help Honduras control the drug trade or help Iraq eliminate terrorists and it made lots of new enemies for Americans.  We’ve tried it without success in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Peru, Chile, Cuba, Syria, Guatemala, Nicaragua and probably in some places that I don’t know about.  It’s evil.  Let’s resolve to never do it again!

All Posts, Constitution, justice

POPULISM VS THE CONSTITUTION

Image 1 Comment

“The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say anything more.”   “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” –  Recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

“(The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court…(and)  shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” –  US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

“Except when it would make us unpopular with our constituents or donors” – This is not a quotation.  It is a conclusion based on the behavior of elected officials.

President Obama says that he will follow the constitution and do his job by nominating someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Judge Scalia’s death.  Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell says that he will not allow a vote on any candidate nominated by President Obama.  McConnell is backed by other Republican leaders who have pledged not to meet with nominees or hold hearings to consider them.  They argue that the nomination should be delayed until after the next Presidential election so that voters can influence the matter.  But voters have already spoken.  We elected a Republican majority to the Senate and a Democrat as President (twice).

In this matter the President is following the Constitution and Senate Republicans are not.  Republicans accurately respond that Democrats have done similar things, including seeking to delay nominations to the Court until they had a chance to win a Presidential election.  We could reasonably ask leaders of both parties, “Didn’t your parents teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?”

Which ones have been doing their jobs and serving the nation?
Which ones have been doing their jobs and serving the nation?

The behavior of both parties is particularly onerous when they attempt to manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court in order to influence its decisions on specific issues.  Most Republican officeholders interpret the Constitution as allowing state or federal laws that ban all abortions while Democrats think it protects the rights of women to make decisions about their own bodies.  The battle lines over marriage equality, regulation of gun ownership, immigration and other social issues are drawn in approximately the same place.

On each side of our hot social issues there are powerful advocacy groups with vocal supporters demanding that elected officials do whatever it takes to win the day.  They often insist that office holders ignore constitutional obligations if that will help their cause.  Anyone who doesn’t comply is likely to face well-funded opposition in the next primary election.  That is how populism works.

Populist behavior is as old as our nation and its constitution.  President Andrew Jackson and the Congress provided an early and extreme example.  The United States agreed by treaty that The Cherokee Nation was independent, with its own legal boundaries but white settlers (illegal immigrants) persisted in occupying Cherokee land.  When Cherokees removed some white settlers forcibly, they demanded military protection. Then gold was discovered on Cherokee land and the problem quickly escalated.  States passed laws banning meetings of the Cherokee legislature and argued that the federal government had no right to intervene in state affairs. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees but American voters and powerful interest groups wanted the gold and the land.  President Jackson, with support of the Congress, defied the Supreme Court and allegedly said of the Chief Justice, “John Marshall has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it.”  Jackson dispatched the Army to remove the Cherokees from their land, sending them on a journey to Oklahoma that we now call the “Trail of Tears”.  If ever there was a time when a Congress should properly have impeached a President and removed him from office, this was it.

When you hear the word “populist” used to describe a politician, it may refer to someone who will do whatever it takes to implement the will of his hard-core constituents, even defying the Constitution, courts, and laws to the extent that he can.  Andrew Jackson, George Wallace, Joe McCarthy, and Donald Trump are a few examples.  They are very dangerous because they are willing to sacrifice the principles of a free nation on the altar of one special cause if that will get them elected.  If you notice one of them running for office, I hope you’ll vote for someone else.  I plan to.

CLICK BELOW

to hear Harold Thom and the Cumberlands sing the story of Cherokee Chief Junaluska,  who saved Andrew Jackson’s life then lived to regret it after walking The Trail of tears.