June 8, 2022

Guns

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-- Amendment 1


A good friend stopped by to see me yesterday. Like every good and decent American, he is horrified by the mass-shootings that are taking place these days. As a gun owner, he is 100% in favor of outlawing military-grade assault guns for civilians. A person he is friends with had argued they must remain legal, pointing out that the military in Ukraine is using them to defend against the Russian invasion. My friend asked me how anyone could be so stupid?

In my opinion, the only way to have a semi-reasonable discussion with people that stupid -- and they are legion -- is to ask if they think Amendment 2 is intended to protect the "rights" of the human shit-stains that murdered so many innocent people in Buffalo and in the Texas school? Even stupid people seem to be able to grasp the implications, though they generally lack the intellectual ability to take it a step further.

It is more important, in my opinion, to be able to discuss gun control legislation with intelligent people who have concerns about restrictions on Amendment 2. This is not to say that all of their concerns are legitimate. For example, some are concerned by those who speak of getting rid of Amendment 2 and all guns. This is not a serious concern, of course, because there is at most zero chance of it happening. It is as meaningless as those who advocate for no restrictions.

In order to have serious discussions, it is important to study the history of Amendment 2, including the thinking of legal scholars as well as constitutional law (what the Supreme Court has ruled). This, of course, requires an open mind, and the willingness to listen to the opinions of those who disagree with you.

There is a book I recommend, titled, "The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding," edited by Eugene Hickok, Jr. Though published in 1991 by the University of Virginia Press, it is still of great value when considering addressing the sickening amount of mass-shootings happening daily in our country. It contains contributions from various points of view on each of the Bill of Rights.

Likewise, it is good to be able to speak about Supreme Court decisions on Amendment 1, I think, in order to show that there are restrictions on what it protects and what it does not protect. This allows one to go beyond the old "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. The one that I like to use involved Dr. King leading a march in Birmingham in 1963. A state court judge had ordered King and his followers not to march on a specific date, until the planned march was approved by the city.

King decided the march at that time was too important, and knowingly violated the state court's order. Eventually, the case reached the US Supreme Court, as Walker v City of Birmingham, and in 1967, the USSC ruled against King and his followers. Part of their decision stated that "respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law." And I think that line can be applied by those advocating for gun control legislation.

June 6, 2022

Airplane

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-committee-hearing-june-9-primetime/


I remember Rubin Carter telling me a story I'd like to share. A primitive tribe of people, fully isolated from the outside world, came upon an airplane in their territory. A tribal elder decided that the seats inside that plane made a mighty comfortable couch. For weeks upon weeks, he gleamed with pride as he sat on his new couch.

Another person found that by working some of the buttons, he could make the plane move forward upon the ground. He earned honor for discovering the tribe's first automobile. But the tribe never learned that this airplane could fly.

This is a lesson about both individuals and groups. For example, after watching the House Committee's first 2022 televised hearing on the January 6 insurrection, as individuals and as a group, DU members can thin, "I knew the criminals in and around the White House planned this." Or express disgust on an internet forum or telephone conversations. Or, as individuals and hopefully as a group, we can contact the Department of Justice to express our opinion(s).

Some might think the DOJ has a handle on this, and will take care of business after the mid-terms. Others might think the DOJ has to do more, right away. Both views are valid, when one considers the opinions expressed by intelligent, experienced former federal prosecutors on CNN and MSNBC. I respect people's right to either opinion. And this will give everyone the opportunity to express their thoughts -- either by e-mail or telephone -- by using the below links.

Doing so is superior to sitting on our couches. It's better than driving a point home among like-minded people. We need to be organized and start taking flight with the destination of the November elections now.

Thank you for your consideration.


https://www.justice.gov/contact-us

https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice

June 3, 2022

The Gums of Navarro

First, I think President Biden's speech to the nation was outstanding. I had come to think he would be a good president back in 1988, and have had a good opinion of him ever since. A Senator, Vice President, and now President. This is, in my opinion, the best speech of his career. I'm a proud supporter of Joe Biden.

I wish that issues with guns were not political. But republicans make them so. This leaves us no choice but to expose what damaged human beings republicans are. Along with women's health care and January 6 Committee hearings, we have what we need to defeat republicans come November.

The second issue is Peter Navarro. Last night, I participated on a couple OP/threads about Peter's interview on Ari Melber's show. Malaise posted "Navarro is on Ari right now," which led to an interesting discussion. On post #34, I noted that Ari knew Navarro was going to be indicted, which was why he conducted the interview in the manner that he did.

Keep in mind that Navarro has opted to represent himself in legal dealings with the House Committee. Bad choice. Even a moderately talented attorney would have advised him to stay away from the media -- especially Ari's show, where he had already laid out the Trump cult's plan to overthrow the 2020 election. And Ari played Navarro yet again: ask a few questions, and sit back while Peter runs his mouth.

It seemed obvious that Navarro -- who threatened "revenge" in 2024 -- was under extreme stress. He couldn't shut his mouth. As unattractive as it was, it was a good thing.

May 29, 2022

Worms & Lightening Rods

"Not every man who throws worms in the water is a friend of the fish." -- Malcolm X


It's hard to find an official as repulsive as Ted Cruz, but stick with me here. Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior was James Watt. He was widely known as the most anti-environmental ever to hold that position. Although he would later deny saying it, Watt had been quoted as saying something along the lines of using up natural resources would bring about the return of Christ.

I remember watching this being reported on the news with my father. I said, "What a flaming asshole!" My father replied, "No, no. This is a tactic republicans use in a crunch. Watt is serving as a lightening rod, to keep people focusing on him, rather than more criminal things."

When Ted Cruz talks about his "one door" policy, he isn't serious. He's trying to distract the attention away from the discussion about if Amendment 2 is intended to protect the "rights" of shit-stains to commit mass-murder. He is dangling his schriveled penis like a worm, hoping to our attention on him. Cruz does not believe in the nonsense he utters.

As the Civil Rights saying from my youth noted, "Kepp your eyes on the prize."

May 27, 2022

What's Going On

"There is, however, an important difference between individual and social mental illness, which suggests a differentiation between two concepts ..."
-- Erich Fromm; The Sane Society.


The first documented writing about seeing the forest for the trees is found in John Haywood's writings, I believe from the 16th century. It's been a long time since I sat in a university classroom, but I do remember that in discussions of the differences between the concepts of psychology and sociology. One's focus is the individual tree, and the other the forest. Fromm's classic 1955 book intertwined the two in a manner that remains valid.

Towards the end of my career, the word "dysfunction" became a polite word for "pathology," meaning the cause of sickness. Let's look at some of the pathogens that, if an individual or individuals in a family system suffer from, allow us to view that family system as dysfunctional. Substance abuse, mental illness, other serious illnesses, personality disorders, a death in the family, the loss of a job, poverty, and domestic violence. Some cause temporary disruptions and others are entrenched. Others, such as mental illness or, say, cancer, can be treated, allowing the family system to regain balance.

The important factor, for this discussion, is that a single individual (psychology) can cause dysfunction within the family (sociology). Now, let's apply this same thinking to a neighborhood, a community, and a country. There is a tipping point where the number of dysfunctional individuals and families allows us to define that neighborhood, community, and/or nationas dysfunctional (sociology).

In a sick society, as in sick individuals, there is often a twisted interpretation of both social norms and formal laws. Let's consider an example. Does anyone really believe that Amendment 2 is intended to protect the rights of Payton Gendron and Salvador Ramos? To provide them with the weapons of mass murder? If a family allows a sick member to access such a weapon, and does nothing to stop him, does that family not have some responsibility when he goes on a rampage? Would anyone take them seriously if they spoke of his Amendment 2 rights? And would it not be obscene if the responsible family members offered their "thoughts and prayers" for the victims?

There is a great deal of focus on the police response at the school. That is important for a number of reasons. I'm not going to comment directly on their response, as it is such an emotional issue, and I respect everyone's right to react as they see fit. But I will say this: there are distinctions between various groups within police forces, with SWAT teams being far more capable of responding to a horror like this, than the average officer. That same difference demands society's attention when people say there should be an armed cop in every school. Or arm teachers. Hostile situations aren't like a shooting range. They require sharp-shooters. Hostage situations require trained negotiators.

I note that many of the police chiefs across the country support laws to restrict the ability of Gendron or Ramos to easily access the weapons of mass murder. That is an area where I, as a member of the Democratic Party, can identify some common ground as we approach the November elections. More, there are police chiefs who talk about how cuts in mental health services such as case management results in their forces having to deal with issues they are not trained to deal with. And the unfortunate changes in PINS services.

The social pathologies that combine to create the conditions we are confronted with will not be resolved by way of a single change in law, although those changes are indeed an essential element in making progress. To change laws, we need to change who gets elected to represent us, rather than representing the NRA. And to do that requires the best efforts of each of us.

Peace,
H2O Man

May 25, 2022

American Garden

Not a rebel song, says Bono. But a powerful statement on the suffering that human beings inflict upon one another. May 14th, elderly shoppers at TOPS. An elder who ran a food pantry for those in need. Among the victims yesterday, grade school children.

"I can't believe this is happening," an old friend from Indian work says, and not for the first time. "We were told by the Elders it would be here," I say. "Yeah, but I didn't think it would be in my life-time," she says.

"Somehow this madness must cease," Martin Luther King, Jr., said on April 4, 1967. It wasn't a rebel speech. It wasn't a political speech, though it touched on politics. King was speaking as a human being who wanted to end gross violence.

I turn to King in times like this. I recall a line from his final speech, given on the eve of his death. He spoke about the threats against him, and the concerns about what "would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers." He was in the garden of Gethsemane.

I am willing to speculate that, were King alive today, he would disagree with republicans to hold that Amendment 2 must protect the rights of the mass murderers in Buffalo or the school. And that is really the question that confronts our society, over and over again, when one of our sick brothers decides to deal with his angers and frustrations by shooting as many people as he can.

Were King alive today, we know where he would stand. Yet the need of the day is not for a "leader," but for each and every one of us to bring forth their inner Martin.

I will leave you with this:

May 24, 2022

Marlon Brando's Ear-Piece

I do not tend to follow celebrity break-ups. In part, this is because I do not tend to follow celebrities at all. I recognized the name Johnny Depp, and my son assured me that I've seen two movies he was in. But he wasn't in the lead role in either. I had never heard of Amber Heard, so far as I know, until her break-up with Depp.

A step-nephew thinks I'm odd, because I haven't read fiction since high school, and am not interested in many movies. I read non-fiction and watch the news, documentaries, police interrogations, court cases, and congressional investigations. Thank goodness for Youtube. The young man said this ignores the values of "the classics" ..... and I say I only have so much time on earth, and can't possibly read or watch everything. Thus, I focus on what I like best.

One might trace this to my experiencing generational trauma when the Beatles broke up. But that isn't accurate. After the initial shock, I thought some really great music came about, including the above song from John's album "Imagine." As we all know, John and Paul engaged in some of the harsher behaviors associated with break-ups, in interviews, album covers (and the post card in the original "Imagine" LP(, and songs.

While this song had a powerful group of musicians backing John, it's interesting to note that one guy there on that day opted not to play. Ringo heard a version of this song, and said, "That's enough, John," and left. Later, John would note that when celebrities mess up, it is often on "the red carpet." And that is how I view the Depp vs Heard trial.

I am not viewing parts of the trial because I have any interest in the outcome. I don't find myself "taking sides" as I watch. I assume both have -- like most people -- a good and a bad side. I respect acting as an art, though one where actors often pretend to be fictional characters. Thus, I recognize the possibility that both might at least try to put their acting skills to good use on the witness stand.

What I find interesting is the lawyers on both sides, and how the judge responds to objections. I think that both sides have high quality legal representation. I thought that the cross-examination of Ms. Heard by Camille Vasquez was intense. Very impressive. But the most entertaining part thus far was the cross-examination of Dr. Spiegel by Wayne Dennison.

Is anyone else here watching the trial? Or am I a freak of sorts, watching this? In my defense, a friend recently told me he has started watching trials after visiting me, and has told other friends to do the same. More, he got me watching this one. If anyone else does watch, I'm curious of what your impressions of Spiegel was on cross?

As a social worker, I had to testify in court more times than I can remember. My uncle, a Senior Investigator in the NYS BCI, told me to never let a lawyer get under your skin, and make you angry. And never, ever try to debate an attorney, because in the context of a court room, you will lose every time.

May 23, 2022

Cawthorn's Mirth

"Just because a man is appointed to a position, or through the drudgery of years has followed the Peter Principle and risen to his level of imcompetence, does not mean he is immortal. There has never been a system yet that would not gladly sacrifice one of its own got a moment's peace, no matter how brief. If the system is to be changed, then those who would change it should pinpoint its weak spot, its blockage points, and place all the pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared."
-- Vine Deloria, Jr.; We Talk, You Listen; Dell; 1970; page 66.


Vine Deloria, Jr. was a Standing Rock Sioux, had degrees in both law and theology. He was one of the leading spokespersons for Native Americans, and one of the very best authors of that era. I thought that, since I focused on 1972 a couple essays ago, I might write something influenced by Deloria.

We have witnessed examples of what Deloria wrote about within republican circles since Trump ran for president. To fully appreciate that, it is important to recognize that Trump did not create hatred, racism, and division in America. These negative triplets created the opportunity he had been looking for since Bush the Elder was running for the presidency in 1988, and Trump contacted him to say he was willing to serve as his vice president.

Under Bush the Elder's son, Bush the Idiot, this country began the great divide we endure today. With the election of President Obama brought racism in America out in the open in a way more obvious than the systematic racism that has never disappeared. It had just become a tad more sophisticated. This created Trump's opportunity.

The first conservative sacrificed on the alter of Trump was Megyn Kelly, then the star at Fox News. Republican men sat erect to watch her hour each weeknight. But Megyn asked Trump a serious question, enraging him. He began an attack, helped by Steve Bannon, then of Breitbart News. Kelly responded in part by arguing with Newt about Trump's sexism, before being reduced on Fox, soon to be "encouraged" to leave. It was as ugly as when Trump got republicans to sacrifice Bush the Refrigerator Head in the primaries.

In 2018, numerous republicans in Congress decided not to run for re-election, because Trump was attacking them viciously for being "weak" -- meaning they hadn't fully commited to the cult, and were to be sacrificed on that alter. Indeed, they were "weak," though not in the sense the now fully rabid Trump meant. They were too cowardly to use their campaign as a platform to expose Trump, even if it meant losing a primary challenge. They betrayed their oath of office.

The moral-ethical rabies of Trump spread throughout his cult following. Overt, aggressive racism became a badge of honor among the republican party. When rabies is first attacking its host, the creature will engage in behaviors such as chasing its tail in a hostile fashion, distinct from a playful puppy. Next comes the foaming mouth, a clear sign to avoid the rabid animal. But it doesn't end there. Not for Old Yeller, not for the republican party.

The next sacrifice was Madison Cawthorn. At first glance, he would seem the poster boy for the republican party, for he had the ability to tell outrageous lies that dripped faster from his oral cavity like foam dripping from a rabid dog's mouth. But today's republican party thought he was a hind leg caught in a trap, and thus chewed him off. Yes, they did! They chewed that boy right off.

And that is a perfect example of what Vine Deloria was talking about when he said we need to apply pressure ..... in this case, because the republicans are nominating the most rabid of beasts for elections in November, that pressure is best delivered with a club. Now, I grew up on a small farm, and worked on big farms as a youth. I know a thing or two about rabid animals. About clubbing them to death.

Finally, if you encounter some person talking about the usual pattern of mid-term elections, I strongly advise clubbing them, too. Club with with pro-choice and January 6. Beat them until the pattern of splatter makes a rorschach-like picture, so that others can interpret what it means to them.

Have a good day. Remember: walk softly, and carry that big Democratic Party club!

May 21, 2022

On Indicting Trump

"Come what may, all bad fortune is to be conquered by endurance." -- Virgil; Toman poet


Rubin used to tell me that, with patience, the smallest creature can climb the highest mountain. Yet, there were numerous times he expressed frustration at the slow pace of the justice system.

I remember watching the Senate's Watergate hearings. Then the television reports on what Nixon administration officials were indicted. Agnew's resigning in utter disgrace. Media reports on the very real possibility of Nixon not only being impeached and convicted, but possibly facing criminal charges for his criminal activities.

I was not frustrated when Ford pardoned Dick -- I was furious! And that feeling lasted until I realized that, had he been indicted, Nixon planned to have his defense team demand highly classified documents that the DOJ would never have released. Thus, there is very, very little chance an indictment -- however just -- would have led to conviction.

Next came the House Committee's investigation of the Iran-Contra scandal. Watching these explosive hearings, it was apparent that this web of criminal activity posed a greater threat to the Constitution than Watergate. Yet fewer people tuned in to watch the evidence unfold. Still, there would be a new record for administration officials indicted and convicted.

The downside came when the felony convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter were overturned on appeal. The pair had been given limited immunity before the House Committee, and the court ruled their testimony there may have influenced the decision of jurors. And yes, I was furious.

Many of us remember Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame scandal. While Scooter Libby was convicted of five felonies, he refused to turn on VP Cheney. Thus, Fitzgerald openly stated that Congress should investigate Cheney's role, which should have resulted in impeachment and conviction. But that didn't happen.

We all remember Robert Mueller's investigation.Because of Bill Barr and DOJ policy, Mueller concluded he could not charge Trump with obstruction of justice. But his report and later comments made clear he thought Congress should investigate, impeach, and convict Trump. Though I found this frustrating, I hoped Trump would be impeached for obstructing justice, a very serious charge. He was not, of course, but as the two impeachments indicated, there was no way the Senate republicans would convict.

I've said all of that, to say this: I am frustrated that Merrick Garland and the DOJ have not indicted Trump. At the same time, I understand why there is a wait until the January 6 House Committee completes its investigation. There are really good former federal prosecutors who make strong cases for both indicting Trump now, or waiting for the Committee to finish. Most importantly, none of these former prosecutors says that there isn't a very good criminal case to be made against Trump. And when the Committee begins the next round of public hearings -- we did see four law enforcement officers testify last year -- the pressure on the DOJ to indict Trump will become even more intense.

May 18, 2022

1972

My son and I got into Buffalo in the mid-afternoon on Saturday. The four hour ride for his fight in the finals of the NYS Golden Gloves was pleasant. We enjoyed the weather, and talked the entire time about psychology and sociology. That mood changed as soon as we entered the hotel's lobby, and saw the news reports about the horror that had taken place a short time and distance from where we stood.

I was reminded of the same ill feelings I had watching the 1972 Olympics. Although the vicious attack was not aimed directly at the Golden Gloves, a similar reaction permeated the neighborhood, the city, and soon the country. And that is saying something in a country that has suffered from such a high number of mass shootings in every week of 2022.

Now, this essay isn't intended to be about boxing, but rather to use the great sport as a vehicle to make a point. For centuries, in times of social stress, variations of "replacement theory" have taken root. Every tyrant knows that to exploit the fear and anxiety, they need only blame a small group, to confuse the majority into blaming that smaller group for all of their problems. This includes normalizing the hatred of their target, which gives license to the most disturbed among them aiming violence against their "enemy."

Human shit-stains like the one in Buffalo do not tend to watch Fox News. Rather, they inhabit the darkest corners of the internet. But there are connections between a Tucker Carlson and that guy: older men like Steve Bannon that understand that young men often follow the orders of their gym coach/ drill instructor without question. When Fox News -- the voice of the republican party -- repeats lies about "replacement theory" over and over again, it becomes normalized in times of social stress. I remember my late uncle, a WW2 hero, telling me that the Trump cult was what he fought against in Europe.

Now back to 1972. When my brothers and I traveled to cities across New York State to box, the locker rooms were not pleasant places. Different races occupied different sections of the rooms, and there was open hostility between the groups that came as quite a surprise to three hay seeds from a rural, upstate farm. But that has changed for the better. These days, there is a brotherhood among the young men preparing to compete in the ring. Even the old trainers who fought in circa-1972 all get along!

There was the traditional "ten count" to honor the victims at the beginning of Sunday's finals. Plenty of those involved in or at the fights knew one or more of the victims. We were not far from where the savage attack had taken place. Normally, the audience at boxing matches -- especially where alcohol is sold -- are noted for good behavior. So I was glad when the crowd was silent in honoring the dead and wounded.

However, it is important that people not be silent about the horror. To let what is unacceptable to be normalized. We need to counter the efforts of the Tucker Carlsons to normalize racism, and crush the Steve Bannons that inspire the unhinged, And I know that is easy to say. I know. Watching the news reports on the horror after my son dropped me off in the early hours on Monday was extremely upsetting. The more I saw, the more disturbing it was. It brought up old feelings.

I contacted a Clan Mother that I know from the days when I worked with Chief Waterman. Within a couple minutes, I was snarling about if I were as tough as I was in 1972, I'd teach people like the racist gang that attacked my nephew in 1998 -- they didn't like the media attention a brown-skinned high school scholar/ athlete was getting -- a lesson. "Then you'd be in jail, and that wouldn't do us any good," she responded. "Think back to the lessons of the past, and apply them today, for a better future."