The Tapestry of Our Lives

The thunder and lightning have passed, and it’s time to get back to the blog.  Not that the thunder and lightning in the country have abated in any significant way.  Senator Dean Heller seems to have attracted one strike:

The National Rifle Association has endorsed Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller and three other Republican candidates for Congress ahead of the June 12 primary elections.  Heller received an “A” rating from the NRA, which is given to pro-gun candidates who support the organization’s positions on key votes or who have a record of supporting Second Amendment.  The gun-rights group also endorsed Republican Rep. Rep. Mark Amodei who is seeking re-election in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District. [NVIndy/News4]

May 18, 2018 10 people were killed and 13 injured in a mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas.  Another month, another mass shooting in a school.  Once more the NRA wants to talk about anything except the guns.  It’s violent video games. It’s mental health. It’s Ritalin. It’s anything anything anything except the easy access to guns.  Sometimes we tend to express regret for the loss of talent as the tally of gun violence victims increases, but we might be missing an important point.  It’s the details that matter.  Perhaps there were or were not individuals who would have gone on to do great and notable things, that’s debatable. However, we do know that there were losses represented by the victim counts.

We may have lost an electrician?  A barber? A receptionist.  Someone who would have gotten up every morning to put in a days work, and come home every evening to be incorporated into the life of their family.

April 22, 2018, 4 people died and 3 others injured in a Waffle House in Antioch, Tennessee.  We lost a musician, we lost college students, we lost more threads in the fabric of our lives. We found a hero, an unarmed young man who stopped the shooter at great peril to his own life, and then went on to donate donations to his social media account to the families of victims.  We didn’t find a fantasy hero “good guy with a gun,” rather we found a good guy with courage, compassion, and the ultimate in civic responsibility.  We found James Shaw Jr.

April 18, 2018 a mother and her children died in a hail of gun fire from an ex-boyfriend in Asheville, North Carolina. The children loved to run track and to dance. We’ll never know if we lost a future Olympic medalist that day, we do know that we lost a family.  We lost a mother who was so scrupulous about housekeeping friends and family said, “You could eat off her floors.”  A mother who took her children to church every Sunday.  [ATC] We lost a family.

February 14, 2018, we lost 17 lives, with another 17 injured at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. They’ve Marched for their Lives. They’ve organized voter registration drives, they’ve appealed to the better angels of our nature.  They’ve warned politicians like Heller and Amodei that NRA endorsements aren’t what they used to be. We’ve lost and shattered too many families.

Every day the death toll mounts from mass and individual shootings, from suicides and accidents, we continue to lose plumbers, secretaries, mechanics, cooks, and soldiers.

February 10, 2018 a family of four was massacred in a murder-suicide in Johnson County, Kentucky. [lex18]  We continue to lose parents and grandparents.

Each time more victims are added to the lists we’ve lost more firefighters, carpenters, solar panel installers, roofers, landscapers, bookkeepers, and bus drivers.

November 5, 2017 27 people died, another 20 were injured in a church in Sunderland Springs, Texas.  Each time we add victims to the list we lose more truck drivers, reporters, day care providers, steelworkers, pilots, housekeepers, and file clerks.

October 1, 2017, a mass killing cost us 58 victims and 441 injured at a music concert in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Each time we add victims to the list we extinguish the lives of more people who matter. We lost a man shielding his wife on their wedding anniversary.  We lost a health care management major, a commercial fisherman, a kindergarten teacher, a police department records technician, a registered nurse, a member of the US Navy, a waitress, a soldier, a teacher, a secretary, a family law attorney, a contractor, an office manager, a financial adviser, a home contractor, a librarian, a make up artist, a corrections officer, … girlfriends, wives, mothers, grandmothers, boyfriends, husbands, fathers, grandfathers…

Our economic fabric is in the details.  We are a composite of the electrician, barber, receptionist, plumbers, secretaries, mechanics, cooks, soldiers, firefighters, carpenters, solar panel installers, roofers, landscapers, bookkeepers, bus drivers,  truck drivers, reporters, day care providers, steelworkers, pilots, housekeepers,  file clerks,  health care management personnel, commercial fisherman,  kindergarten teacher,  police department records technician,  registered nurse,  member of the US Navy,  waitress,  soldier,  teacher,  secretary,  family law attorney,  contractor,  office manager,  financial adviser,  home contractor,  librarian,  make up artist,  corrections officer…

Reduce the numbers of the people who make our economy run, eliminate the waitress at the small diner who brings that first cup of coffee with a smile to start the day, make the auto mechanic who figures out why there’s a persistent problem with the fuel injection system vanish, and we are all reduced as the power in our multiplicity of economic gears is reduced by one.

Our social fabric is in the details, in the relationships between boy friends and girl friends, wives and husbands, mothers and fathers, children, grandparents, grandchildren, neighbors, friends, and co-workers.  Eliminate any of these relationships in our communities, and we are all reduced by the unraveling of all those tiny threads which combined together form the incredibly complex and beautiful tapestry of our social lives in this nation.

No “endorsement,” no pandering for a few votes, is worth the grains of sand in our economic gears as grain by grain we add problems by reducing our numbers.  No “endorsement,” no pandering for a few votes is worth the unraveling of the tapestry of our lives, the loss of each loved one pulling at loose threads until we fray from the edges.

Politicians Heller and Amodei may take pleasure in their A ratings from the NRA, I am only sorry they cannot take as much pleasure in the defense of the lives of our children, our boyfriends and girl friends, our wives and husbands, our parents and grandparents; in the wonderfully interwoven tapestry of American life.


Leave a comment

Filed under Amodei, Gun Issues, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics

Hardening Targets Is The Wrong Target: Harden Access to Firearms

I’m going to hear “we have to harden the targets” one more time coming from my TV speakers and my neighbors may be able to hear me yelling in the direction of the set.  Another day in America. Another school shooting. More deaths. And yet another press conference in which I’m told “the guns belonged to the _____” (in this instance, the father).  Here’s an idea: Harden the access.

This latest atrocity was perpetrated by a 17 year old, armed with his father’s firearms, but we also need to remember that in 2017 there were 17 toddler shootings that resulted in a fatality and another 26 which inflicted non-fatal injuries. [WaPo]

So, we’re going to have another spate of “Roundtable Run Arounds?”  May we assume the tables will include representatives of the gun manufacturers’ lobby? During which “all” viewpoints will be allowed access?  There’s nothing quite like a “roundtable discussion” replete with the same old hoary contentions, ideological arguments, and self-serving lobby interests to forestall any meaningful action — unless, of course, it’s the drafting of “reports,” by committees of “interested stakeholders,” edited by those with the most at stake.  Translation: We can stall any action by taking a “thorough” (read – long) look at the problem and drafting a blue ribbon panel report on the subject. (read – the production of dust catchers and door stops).

For starters, let’s assume a world governed by adults who really do want to protect children.  They want to protect them at home, at school, in churches, at concerts, and in clubs.  Do we really have to make it easy for miscreants to get access to firearms?  There’s good news and bad news on the subject:

Eleven states have laws concerning firearm locking devices. Massachusetts is the only state that generally requires that all firearms be stored with a lock in place; California, Connecticut, and New York impose this requirement in certain situations. Other state laws regarding locking devices are similar to the federal law, in that they require locking devices to accompany certain guns manufactured, sold, or transferred. Five of the eleven states also set standards for the design of locking devices or require them to be approved by a state agency for effectiveness. [Giffords] (emphasis in original)

The good news? Eleven states have done something, however there’s a range of effective to almost ineffective statutes within that range.  The bad news is that only eleven states have enacted safe storage legislation, which means that thirty-nine have nothing between the adult, the teen, or the toddler, and the victims.  There are some common sense measures which can, and should, be legislated in all states to harden the access to firearms.  The Giffords organization recommends the following:

  • All firearms are required to be kept disabled with a locking device except when an authorized user is carrying it on his or her person or has the firearm under his or her immediate control (Massachusetts, New York City).
  • Locking devices are required on all firearms manufactured, sold or transferred in the jurisdiction (California).
  • Standards are set for locking devices (California, Connecticut, New York).
  • Locking devices are tested and approved by a certified independent lab before they may be sold in the jurisdiction (California).
  • A roster is maintained of approved locking devices (California, Massachusetts; Maryland maintains a roster of approved locking devices, but only for handguns).

Nevada has child access prevention statutes on the books, but no assault weapons ban, and no safe storage or gun lock requirement. [KFF]  Every gun owner is “responsible” until he or she isn’t.  Until he or she leaves a handgun within reach of anyone unauthorized to use it, anyone too young to understand what can really happen if it is used.  Until he or she leaves a handgun or long gun unsupervised and it gets stolen. Until he or she leaves the gun safe keys or combination in plain sight. Until he or she decides to leave a loaded gun within reach of a child, or keep the guns and the ammunition conveniently located in the same insecure location making access easy for the unauthorized individual or the garden variety burglar.

Before we place our children in lock down, behind steel doors and bullet resistant windows; before we enter the church nave through metal detectors; before we attend country western music festivals in full armor; before we go out for an evening of music and dancing at a club wearing enough protection to make only “doing the Robot” a practical way to move to the music — we should think about hardening access to the firearms which plague our streets and venues.

We should “harden access” by forbidding the sale or transfer of military weapons of war to civilians.  Should a person want to fire a real military weapon we have several perfectly fine armed services always looking for top quality volunteers.  We should “harden access” by requiring safe storage of all firearms.  We should prevent straw purchases.  We should require reporting of stolen guns.  We should preclude those with a history of domestic violence and abuse from accessing firearms — nothing predicts a shooting quite so well as a history of domestic violence.

It isn’t the “target’s” fault if a toddler finds a handgun.  It isn’t the “victim’s” fault if a domestic abuser commits a family annihilation.  It isn’t the “crowd” at fault if  person in a sniper’s nest decides to rain down terror upon the concert goers.  It isn’t the congregation’s fault if a domestic dispute turns deadly.  If an office party becomes fatal. If a college campus becomes a battle zone.  If…   We speak as though it’s the “target’s” fault if fatalities happen.  It isn’t.  We need to speak of hardening access to firearms, of hardening our attitudes toward those deluded souls who believe gun shots are a form of conflict resolution; and, harden access to the siren call of gun manufacturers who sell fear and guns in equal measure.

Comments Off on Hardening Targets Is The Wrong Target: Harden Access to Firearms

Filed under Gun Issues, Politics

Conflation, Obfuscation on Immigration

Not much imagination is required to conclude the Trump Campaign is back on the trail with its prime topic for the upcoming elections.  Immigration.  “Make America Great Again,” was never much more than code for “make America white again,” and the persistent reference to immigration policy, combined with vague commentary about who is under discussion, compounded with a conflation of immigrant with “criminal” doesn’t leave much room for conjecture about intent.  Those who advocate for DACA recipients, or who champion comprehensive immigration policy reform, are to be painted with a three inch gesso base-coat brush as protecting the “animals,” and the “criminals.”  Consider the following items from this past week:

As he has in numerous private meetings with his advisers at the White House, Mr. Trump used the session to vent about the nation’s immigration laws, calling them “the dumbest laws on immigration in the world.” He exhorted his administration to “do much better” in keeping out undesirable people, including members of transnational gangs like MS-13.

“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,” Mr. Trump said in the Cabinet Room during an hourlong meeting that reporters were allowed to document. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.” [NYT]

We can drill down a bit more into the nuances, if such there are, into this round of conflation.

SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.

THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy.  [Vox]

As the article posits, there was a definite lack of specificity in this exchange, and a President who was in no hurry to clarify the matter.  Clarification was left to a question to the Press Secretary on May 17th, who asserted the President was definitely talking about members of MS 13.  This certainly sounds deliberate, and the pretext for the policy becomes subtext for the audience.

“If Trump understands his own administration’s policy, he’s never acknowledged it in public. He sticks to the same rhetorical move every time: refer to some specific criminals, call them horrible people and animals, say that their evil justifies his immigration policy, and allow the conflation of all immigrants and all Latinos with criminals and animals to remain subtext.”  [Vox]

The problem, of course is that his actual policy doesn’t match his rhetorical flourishes.  A quick look at FY 2017 statistics belies the President’s assertions on who is being deported for what:

“Deportations overall were down during the 2017 fiscal year, most of which was under Trump’s presidency, from the previous year, in part because fewer people were caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. But the number of undocumented immigrants without criminal convictions deported from the interior of the country rose dramatically.

People with no criminal convictions accounted for 17 percent of those deported after getting arrested by ICE within the country ― a sharp increase since former President Barack Obama’s last full year in office, when those without criminal convictions made up 8 percent of interior deportations. In total, nearly 14,000 noncriminals were deported from the interior of the country in the 2017 fiscal year, compared with about 5,000 the year before.”  [HuffPo]  (emphasis added)

One more hammer blow on the nail head — there has been an increase in the number of NON-criminal deportations under the current administration, while the President insists on talking about members of a specific gang.  We can probably safely estimate there are between 8,000 and 10,000 members of MS 13 in the US.  [AzCentral] Insight Crime has a helpful publication, available in pdf, describing the gang and its operations which is well worth the time to read carefully.  One major point to consider from the report is that MS 13 is a transnational gang, not a transnational criminal enterprise.  Secondly, it should be noted that the gang follows traditional migration patterns — it is not pro-actively ‘setting up cells.’  The members, indeed are vicious and violent, however neither their numbers, nor their significance deserves the emphasis placed on them by the administration in its efforts to gin up a good Two Minute Hate.  They certainly do not stand as proxy for all immigrants coming to this country.

The President, as usual, is basely playing to his base.  Nor will it do much good to present facts and figures to the members of that flock.  Their response to immigration policy isn’t rational, if it were they wouldn’t be bleating “Build the Wall.”   What is necessary is a solution to the DACA recipients’ problems — created by the President himself — and a legislative package of comprehensive immigration policy reform legislation, which doesn’t reflect the ideology of the White Nationalists among us.  Given their proclivities, the hardliners in the White House and the Congress would have forbidden the immigration of Dolores Huerta’s grandparents to this country, while being more attuned to the philosophy of the likes of Anders Breivik from Norway?

We can make America great again by doing what we’ve always done. Recognize a problem, analyze it rationally, evaluate possible solutions, and discuss compromise legislative remedies.  None of this can occur during a Two Minute Hate, with Sheep, or in the midst of irrational rhetoric and flights of emotional fancy.  If 40% of the populace wish to be irrational fear-ravaged sheep, they need not take the remaining 60% of us off the cliff with them.

Comments Off on Conflation, Obfuscation on Immigration

Filed under Immigration, Politics

DB’s tired of: Pundit Edition

The problem with national pundits is that they are national pundits, which is a problem when we’re discussing local and state races.  Here’s why —

(1)  Local races are won by those who best represent the views of local people. Granted, national pundits from the right are interested in how the tax cut legislation will play in beautiful downtown Smudgeville, and left leaning pundits are interested in how civil liberties legislation will go over with Smudgeville’s citizens.  Neither may prove to be essential.  What if the major issues for Smudgeville’s residents include health care and education spending?  The candidate who can convince the residents his or her views are aligned with theirs on these two key issues will probably win.  This will not be based on national polling numbers, and certainly not predicated on national issue polling  What’s important in Smudgeville (District 1) may not apply to Downerville (District 2).

(2) Generalizations may not describe local and state political situations. For the sake of argument, let’s assume immigration is a major issue in both District 1 (Smudgeville) and District 2 (Downerville).  However, demographic statistics indicate a large number of naturalized citizens in District 1 as opposed to a low number of naturalized citizens in District 2.  A higher number of naturalized citizens may be predictive of success for a pro-comprehensive immigration reform candidate.  But wait… what if there are historic trends showing low voter turnout from members of the naturalized citizens in the community?  What if there are a lesser number of naturalized citizens in District 2, but these people tend to vote in higher percentages than their cohorts in District 1?

What if a higher number of citizens in Downerville have college and advanced degrees? What if a lower number of citizens in Smudgeville have college or advanced degrees, but they tend to vote more consistently in state and local elections than their counterparts in Downerville?

Pondering these purely hypothetical problems should cause some musing on the part of local campaigns — what exactly IS the composition of the electorate of the two Congressional districts? What exactly are the voting trends in those two districts?  How likely is it that trends may be altered or broken entirely in an upcoming election?

Generalizations have their uses, but any campaign which relies on generalized polling and issue testing will “generally” be out of touch with the electorate in question.  It’s fine for national pundits to rely on generalized data for the purpose of speculating to fill up time on cable broadcasts.  It’s not fine for local and statewide campaigns to do the same.

(3)  Never assume an issue is an issue.   Again, for the sake of debate, let’s assume District 1 is generally considered “working class,” with median household incomes of approximately $50,000 per year or less.  Does the candidate automatically assume that Gun control will be a major issue, with most voters aligned with pro-gun interests?  Careful here.  What if there is a strong and growing pro-control movement going on in the District, independent of the campaigns?  What if meetings of Moms Demand Action is drawing more attendees than pro-gun rallies?  What if March for Our Lives has signed up a significant number of younger voters in recent weeks?  What if Candidate A runs on a pro-gun platform while the voters are primarily worried about health care costs?

Alternatively, what if Candidate B runs on a pro-health care plan as a major element of the campaign in a district in which there is scheduled to be the closure of a large manufacturing plant?   The moral of this part of the story is that national pundits are no better at predicting this race than if they were located on Mars, especially if they don’t have access to internal and local polling and focus group data.

(4) Merely because an issue is of importance to national pundits doesn’t mean it’s of importance or even a modicum of interest to local voters.   We’ve all watched the national pundits pontificate on their favorite topics — immigration, income inequality, student loan reform, health care, gun legislation, religion, tax cuts…ad nauseam.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this, unless the pundit is trying to squeeze the election in District 1 or 2 into the shoe size of his or her favorite topic.  “Candidate A is facing an uphill battle because of his position on abortion…” unless, of course, abortion isn’t a major issue in the district. “Candidate B is facing headwinds because of her position on education spending…” unless, of course, education spending is barely moving the needle in District 1.

(5) Gratuitous advice is free, and should be treated as such.   “Oh, what will the Democrats do if the Republicans run on ‘impeachment’?”  So?  See items 1-4 previously. If the Republicans and Democrats in our hypothetical Districts 1 and 2 are running quality campaigns, then they are already pouring over data from their constituencies down to the precinct level; they are already reading local newspapers — not for the endorsements but for the lead articles; they are already meeting with local leaders and major local organizations.

While the activities of national parties, and national PACs, may play an important media and financial role in local and state campaigns, this is tempered with a need for caution. Precious few locals like to be told how to vote by “outsiders.”  Similarly, national ad campaigns may or may not, be focused effectively on local issues.  Finally, while phone banking and GOTV efforts are efficacious, they are more efficient if they are conducted by friends, neighbors, and other people from the districts.

In short, sometimes the old rules of the game are still the best rules of the game. The party which recruits the best candidates, candidates who fit the districts they seek to represent, and who are willing and able to run campaigns aligned with local concerns, are more likely to be successful.

If the candidates don’t quite fit the Perfect Candidate Profile of the national punditry, so be it.  The sooner the national pundits get over themselves, and their purity tests, the better.  It’s probably OK for a Republican to run as pro-choice in a pro-choice district, and for a Democratic candidate to run on a DACA yes, comprehensive immigration reform no, platform in a DACA yes, comprehensive plan no, district.  It’s obviously more important to have representatives who align with the voters in their states and districts than with national pundits who “struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Comments Off on DB’s tired of: Pundit Edition

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics

The Ever Entertaining GOP Primary in Nevada

Is it something in the water?  The main GOP candidates for the lieutenant governorship in Nevada are a real bunch.  Exhibit A, the Recall King (Roberson) whose efforts yielded a large Zero [LVRJ] and then there’s Exhibit B, the Scientology promoter. [NVIndy]

The GOP headliner in the governor’s race looks to be Trumpian Adam Laxalt [NVIndy].  Laxalt is the Koch Brothers’ own boy: “Laxalt has far outraised his opponents, cornering donations from the Adelson family that owns the Las Vegas Sands, Station Casinos and their owners, the Fertitta family. He has more of a structural advantage, garnering endorsements from sheriffs across the state, opening campaign offices and mobilizing large teams of volunteers. He also counts on support from outside groups such as Freedom Partners, part of a network run by conservative billionaires the Koch Brothers, which has paid for $1 million in ads to introduce Laxalt to Nevada voters.” [NVIndy] Interesting.  If one’s last name is “Laxalt” and there’s a felt need to use the services of Kansas based fossil fuel behemoths (Kochs} to “introduce” you to Nevadans, something may be amiss?

It seems like a fine year to be a Democrat.

Comments Off on The Ever Entertaining GOP Primary in Nevada

Filed under Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

Distraction to Destruction: The Great Immigration Diversion

If a political party doesn’t want to discuss problems like, say, income inequality? Or, gun violence? Or, vote suppression? Or, Heaven Fore-fend, the interference in our elections by a hostile foreign power? — Then what better diversion than Immigration.  Better still, the issue can be framed such that it appeals to the lesser little devils of our nature like racism, and thus be an “acceptable” way to insert racism into our national political discourse as if it were a legitimate topic of immediate consideration.

“Immigrants today account for 13.4% of the U.S. population, nearly triple the share (4.7%) in 1970. However, today’s immigrant share remains below the record 14.8% share in 1890, when 9.2 million immigrants lived in the U.S.”  [Pew]

Thus much for the Huge Wave of Immigrants. It shouldn’t escape anyone’s notice that the immigrants being vilified are coming to our southern border. Those would be the Mexican immigrants, and those from Central American nations — probably the brown versions of human beings, and therefore not likely to assimilate.

“Mexico is the top origin country of the U.S. immigrant population. In 2015, 11.6 million immigrants living in the U.S. were from there, accounting for 27% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest origin groups were those from China (6%), India (6%), the Philippines (5%) and El Salvador (3%).  By region of birth, immigrants from South and East Asia combined accounted for 27% of all immigrants, a share equal to that of Mexico.”   [Pew]

Oops, there goes another bit of nativist mythology.  Interesting, those crowds bellowing “Build The Wall” aren’t chanting about the 27% of immigrants from South and East Asia.  We can drill down on this a bit more:

“About 1 million immigrants arrive in the U.S. each year. In 2015, the top country of origin for new immigrants coming into the U.S. was India, with 110,000 people, followed by Mexico (109,000), China (90,000) and Canada (35,000).

By race and ethnicity, more Asian immigrants than Hispanic immigrants have arrived in the U.S. each year since 2010. Immigration from Latin America slowed following the Great Recession, particularly from Mexico, which has seen net losses in U.S. immigration over the past few years.”  [Pew]

The “Build The Wall” Gang seem to have missed this point.  To miss the point is to base one’s perception of immigration on the situation before 2010.  Moreover, the Wall is whatever the audience wants it to be.  It’s a real, physical barrier [ChiTrib] [vox] or a metaphor for making white Americans feel like the government is ‘protecting’ them (and their privileges) from incursions by brown people. [Hill] [VanityFair]

What is generally missing from coverage of the administration’s use of the Build The Wall campaign litany is any factual context.  It seems sufficient to the corporate media to show clips of the incantations of “Build The Wall” during rallies, without offering any information explaining that the pretext is a vision of American immigration which is at least eight years old, and is currently statistically indefensible.

It’s also readily apparent the corporate media would rather not discuss the elephant in the room — the underpinning of this perspective on immigration is partially if not essentially racist.  This shouldn’t be too surprising.  This would be the same press that can barely enunciate the word, and applies a host of euphemisms to describe racist remarks as “racially charged,” “distasteful,” “derogatory,” and “racially tinged.” [HuffPo] Again, this would be the same DC press which keeps labeling Trumpian expressions as “counterfactual,” “factual shortcut,” “stretched truth,” and “misleading statement,” [Week] instead of the more accurate old fashioned term — L.I.E. [NYT]

The current occupant of the Oval Office may be right about one thing — his is a made for TV administration, replete with a continuing fountain of daily (hourly?) emissions which fill what might otherwise be dead air.  It is, “news” from a fire hose.  The problem is that it floods any time which might be spared for context and analysis.  Should even tenuous contextualization, analysis, and evaluation be applied the Occupant screams “fake news,” and the chanting rally crowds applaud Dear Leader.

Caveat Emptor.  The chanters are investing in a distraction to divert them from the destruction of their own economic well being, and sense of community.  Arguing with them doesn’t work; their fact-free bubble of Faux News precludes any analysis in conflict with their fundamental racism.  Better to speak to and for those who advocate for a rational and comprehensive immigration policy, and out-vote the ditto-heads who chant “Build The Wall,” and “Amnesty,” whenever it might be suggested that a rational comprehensive policy would be preferable to emotional, irrational, racism.

Comments Off on Distraction to Destruction: The Great Immigration Diversion

Filed under Immigration, Politics

Robert Jackson: Links and Speeches

It’s nice when cable TV actually IS informative, as when DAG Rosenstein put his knowledge of Robert Jackson on full display.  There’s an entire archive of Jackson’s speeches at the Robert H. Jackson Center.  The speech many people are looking for at present  is the 1940 address concerning “the Federal Prosecutor.”

The Federal Prosecutor was one of Jackson’s most significant speeches made as the 57th United States Attorney General. Delivered during the Second Annual Conference of the United States Attorneys, the speech outlined the duties and role of the federal prosecutor and more importantly laid out Jackson’s vision for their ethical and proper conduct. []

The full text of the speech is located HERE.  (There is also a PDF transcript version)

The Department of Justice also maintains links to Jackson’s more important speeches listed by date and event, though not by title.  There is much to learn and discern from Justice Jackson’s writings and speeches, and the Federal Prosecutor is as good a place to start as any.

Comments Off on Robert Jackson: Links and Speeches

Filed under Judicial, Justice Department, Politics

%d bloggers like this: