Morning Fog

One Last Stab At The Confederate Flag Topic

I know I'm belaboring this topic at too great a length.  Beating a dead horse to death, as a State Department spokesperson (Margaret Tutwiler, I believe) once said in a press conference.

And that's why I think it's important to add a final thought to put the flag issue in perspective. 

First, the Court ruling as I understand it relates to license plates and nothing more.  One may hope as I do that the reasoning from that decision, coupled with outrage at the most recent killings, will offer a window of opportunity for blocking at least some other public displays of the Confederate flag.  But that window is political, not legal, and it will take work.  Opponents may go to court again.

Second, the political cartoon below by Mike Luckovich, publishing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and reprinted in the Washington Post, really provides a powerful perspective on how this whole flag business fits into the broader canvas of race and discrimination in the U.S. --

The Confederacy's Place In History

In recent days, and for many years before, governments, politicians, and others in the U.S. South have sought to justify the continued widespread public display, sale, and reverence for the flag of the Confederacy as a matter of history.  "It's our history," they may say, or perhaps they say they are honoring the valor of those who fought for what they believed in.

I'm very much against any efforts to deny, or to whitewash, U.S. history.  The Civil War (or if you prefer, the War Between the States), is part of what we are as Americans, imbued in our psyches, even for our most recent immigrants, because its effects and its many remaining manifestations are still a part of our everyday lives.  So historians will continue to attempt to analyze and explain it, and museums will continue to offer glimpses of it.

But symbols aren't history, when raised to the top of flagpoles around the country, or splashed across automobile bumpers.  Despite claims to the contrary, they are rallying points that serve only to keep sick ideas alive.  In this country, we teach school children to honor and even "pledge allegiance" to the flag - a kind of a dumb idea in my opinion (a FLAG? Really?), but if we blow away the smokescreen, we have to understand that the "Stars and Bars" is also a claim of allegiance. 

Allegiance to what, though?  Is it history, even if Americans generally have very little regard for history?  Is it pride in relatives who served loyally for a cause? Well, there are lots of people in this country today who are descended from the Tories of the Revolutionary War period, who weren't evil and who believed in their cause, yet I'm not aware of any state in the union today that flies the Union Jack.  Lost causes are embraced only when someone wishes they weren't lost.  

And what is that cause?  Some would have us believe that it has to do with legal issues (the right to secede), or even economic ones (concerns about destroying the economic base of the South).  And it did, in part, at that time.  That's history.  But it also had to do with a principle, or as Vice President of the Confederate States of America Alexander Stephens put it shortly after several states officially seceded, the new CSA government's cornerstone:

...rest[s] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. 

A devil's advocate might suggest that allowing the symbols of Confederate principles to be widely on display would give relatively harmless vent to regressive thinking that might otherwise go underground and turn to violence.    That has not proved to be the case.  It's time to recognize claims on "history" for what they are:  a sham.

Symbols Of The Confederacy

Last week, among several decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, was one that allows states to exercise their judgment in approving which group license plates will be issued.  Specifically, this was related to a suit by the Sons of Confederate Veterans to force the state of Texas to issue plates bearing the SCV's logo with a modified version of the Confederate States of America flag.

This decision was lost in the shuffle of other news, including especially yet another mass shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The Court decided (and not along the usual political lines) that Texas may refuse to issue plates bearing the Confederate flag image, on the grounds that such plates, because they are issued by the state, represent the state's "speech" rather than that of the individuals who request them.  A state can't force an individual to bear a message he disagrees with; but neither can an individual require the state to issue a license plate slogan with which it "disagrees."  This seems like fairly logical reasoning to me.

The decision does present some problems.  A lower court, in a similar challenge affecting Virginia, had decided in favor of the CSV plates and required Virginia to issue them.  I suppose that will need to be undone (and hope that it will be very quickly). 

It also creates some doubts, nationwide, about how states will decide what messages are appropriate.  Most states have too readily jumped on the bandwagon of additional revenue, approving almost any group request for affinity plates.  Virginia seems to have drawn some reasonable lines; it offers over 200 messages, but most relate to military (branch of service, unit, veterans), education (universities, fraternities, sororities), service organizations like Rotary and Lions, or "causes" ranging from conservation through the abortion issue to freeing Tibet.   Texas, on the other hand, appears to have let things get out of hand with plates issued for ReMax and Dr. Pepper!  Well, they'll sort it out.

Meantime, even though the Charleston killings (on Wednesday night) and the court's decision (probably finalized Wednesday but not publicly announced until Thursday) can't possibly be related in a causative sense, together they should help bring about some changes in the ubiquity of the CSA flag, not just getting them off license plates but maybe for example emboldening legislators in South Carolina to do away with the one they have required to be flown over their meetingplace since 1962.. 

A Woman For U.S. Currency

The U.S. Treasury is looking at putting a woman on U.S. currency within the next few years.  That's a fine idea, though there appear to be a few bumps along the way.

A minor one, in my view, is whether she ought to be on the $10, or the $20.  Initially I didn't think it made much difference, but blogger Alexandra Petri helped sway me to the view that if someone must go, it should be Jackson, not Hamilton.  Hamilton's contributions to the building of our nation are more far-reaching and admirable than Jackson's.  I would add one that Petri missed, too:  Hamilton was no slouch on progressive civil rights thinking.

So on this narrow issue, I vote for replacing Jackson if possible, though I suspect the decision will be made on more practical terms, i.e., the twenty has just been updated; the ten is due for remodeling.  We can always dump Jackson later, maybe even Grant and Franklin too, as inevitable and probably irresistible cries arise to represent African-Americans, Latinos, LGBTs, and others on our legal tender. 

The harder question is:  Which woman?  That's going to require a lot of thought.  Coincidentally, Ms. Petri's blog post also helps illustrate the difficulty of making the selection, because to argue the merits of Hamilton and all his contributions to the nation, is, like it or not, also to raise the question of what woman measures up.  The "people's choices" so far identified don't bowl me over in terms of their impact.  I began thinking about others, but had no luck thinking of someone who approached the broad-reaching, fundamental, and lasting impact that Washington, Lincoln, and maybe Hamilton have had.

Might that be because women were unenfranchised in the early days of the Republic?  Obviously, yes.  It just makes the choice more difficult.  I don't have the answer, but I don't envy those who will have to make the decision.  Because, while I am sure we'll come up with a viable choice, I'm sure that choice, be it Tubman, Roosevelt, Anthony, Parks, or another, will evoke objections from the fans of the others.  Let us just hope that politicians can stay out of it, or at least avoid injecting partisan factors. 

One marginal thought:  In this discussion I have heard the view that women must be on the currency so that girls and young women will be led to realize they, too are "worthy," or can reach the pinnacles of success, etc.  To be blulnt: That's nonsense, or I hope it is.  In the 21st century, any young, or even old, woman who needs that sort of visual reinforcement to help her recognize her potential probably is not the sort who has much potential.  She'll need more imagination and gumption than that.  But even if I'm wrong about the power of example, I believe inspiration is more likely to come from depictions in television, film, and popular culture, than from the faces on the currency we never look at.

 

A Brownian Ramble Through The News/Views Of The Day

So, we're going to ban transfats, they say.  People will have different opinions about this.  However, a Washington Post editorial today applauds the decision, insists that "it's not food fascism," and points to additional future non-fascist steps to regulate what people eat, by taxing bad food choices: 

We believe that taxing things the government wants to discourage is a way to achieve legitimate national goals with minimal economic disruption and individual coercion.

I can't agree. I've never smoked cigarettes, don't eat a whole lot of junk food (unless potato chips are in that category - are they?), and recognize that some things may be certifiably bad for us. Yet I think the government's role should be to inform, not to legislate good behavior where individual choices redound mainly to the individual.

Besides, I see little evidence that higher taxes on consumer items really dissuade people. Cigarettes? Alcohol? Gasoline? Now potato chips maybe?  People still buy.  Might we even suppose that they see such items as more desirable because of their high price?

But sorry, Paul Ryan, this doesn't constitute my free pass to squash increases in the gas tax.  Higher tax here is justified because even if it doesn't discourage consumers from consuming, it does raise revenue, which in turn can be (but is not always) used for badly needed infrastructure maintenance.

Meanwhile, back on the food beat, George Will has fun quoting McDonald's's new public relations chief:

McDonald’s will be “more progressive around our social purpose in order to deepen our relationships with communities on the issues that matter to them,

but Will points out that companies like McDonald's and Budweiser probably will not accomplishing much by making appeals to a demographic who are not among their customers and are unlikely ever to be - these are people who have never drunk a Bud and wouldn't think of stopping in at "Mickey D's." 

As Will cautions, "history is a story of vanished supremacies."  To me, the lesson is that these companies are trying to put lipstick on what (to some) is a pig, while losing sight of the fact their core business is selling ham and bacon.  Will they be the next decade's General Motors, or can they "Ford" the troubled waters ahead?  Maybe as they design a business strategy, they will want to take to heart the advice of home designer Nate Berkus, also quoted today in the same Post: 

Design is really about finding a style that represents who you are, and not following the trends in magazines.

And that, finally, leads me to think of the latest candidate to toss his hat into the Presidential race, Donald Trump. Granted, he makes no effort to soften his image, but it does seem likely that his core business relates more directly to building skyscrapers and such.

Security Clearances Rushed

A recent Washington Post item "reveals" that government security clearances (which are actually mostly done by private firms) are often rushed.  One firm reportedly lost its contract to perform such clearances because it was cutting corners to approve clearances more quickly; yet successor firms doing the same work appear to be following similar practices.

Does it matter?  The Post doesn't really say what damage is being done - just implies that hurrying may lead to slips and omissions.  That's possible, but having had various levels of government security clearance for 30 + years, from my early days in the army to my retirement from civilian government, I always felt that security clearances are a necessary evil, but are unlikely to uncover the people who really want to do us harm.

That's because in most cases, a "clearance" consists mainly of a background check.  A job candidate fills out a lengthy personal history, his name is run past all key law enforcement agencies for negative information, from the FBI to the local police where he lives; and his bona fides are checked out by interviews of his associates, neighbors, and friends. 

Therefore the system itself has a few flaws.  For example, how many of us really know our neighbors or colleagues at work very well these days?  The typical response is going to be "Gee he seems like a nice guy when I see him out cutting the grass on Saturdays", far more often than it will be "Wow, we just had a beer together a few days ago and he confided to me that he murdered two people last week."  More to the point, the reality is that someone seeking entrée to the government or military for the purpose of subverting us is probably going to make sure her/his background does not raise any flags.  

Yet further, a lot of the real spy stories that I'm familiar with suggest that it's often only after a person gets into government, and perhaps attains a degree of responsibility, that foreign spy networks might seek to recruit him; and in those cases, immediate circumstances (a need for money, a missed promotion, an unhappy love life, a compromising circumstance in her private life) are the turning point. 

None of this suggests that we shouldn't have a security clearance system (nor that the Justice Department shouldn't be trying to ensure we get what we pay for when we contact private companies to conduct these clearances).  Of course we need to try to detect those who could represent a real danger.  But because of the numbers who need to be screened, it's a fairly cut-and-dried check-the-boxes process. 

Another thing the Post didn't mention was how long a security check may typically take.  Back in the 1960s, an entry-level check might take several months, and I doubt that has changed much.  When you need someone to fill a job but ask them to wait a half a year for an answer, you're likely to find that your best candidates have gone elsewhere.  It's little wonder that the companies that do this necessary but time-consuming work are under constant pressure to move some people, or all people, through the pipeline more quickly. 

  

Slipped Stirrup At Post Time - The Triple Crown

On Monday five days ago, at about this time of day (5 PM) I was just sitting down to try yet again to recover from my writing slump with a new post.  But just as I had managed to write an opening line, a passing thunderstorm zapped our electricity and the computer shut down. 

Could it possibly be a warning, or a review of my oeuvre, from Old Mother Nature herself?  I hadn't been aware that She was even a reader.  However I do recall many years ago when I tried to fool her with a "spread" that wasn't butter, and she was much displeased, so it is apparent that she does keep an eye out, and not just in hurricanes, either.

My five-day delay, though, wasn't due to fear of even more vehement fear of meteorological retribution, but simply to other things that have laid claim to my time -- contractors finishing a project, contractors getting ready to start another, the demands of a yard and garden as summer approaches ... and on and on.

Enough, already.  On to the topic I had intended to address before, now slightly stale:

ISN'T IT GREAT THAT WE FINALLY HAVE A TRIPLE CROWN WINNER AFTER SO MANY YEARS?

My own direct experience with horse racing was limited to a period of a year or two in my college years, when a friend and I used to make an occasional weekend pilgrimage from the University of Kansas (at Lawrence) to Omaha, where the nearest "real" track beckoned.  We took the effort seriously, studying up on the best advice about analyzing and betting, and usually were able to return, after Saturday's full program of 9 races, at least enough ahead to cover our expenses.  Since that time, I've hardly thought about racing, except to watch the big three races that constitute the Triple Crown when I could.

The "Sport of Kings" seems to have lost some of its luster in recent decades, to the point that I suspect some younger generations may not even realize that the term refers to thoroughbred horse racing.  A search of the internet reveals that other sports may now wish to claim that moniker. 

Why?  I suppose the term itself, and the reality that underlies it (i.e. that horse racing, or more accurately racehorse owning, does require the possession of princely sums) is one big reason that the sport attracts less general interest than in the past.  Elitism is out of style.  Some may have succumbed to the idea that racing somehow represents mistreatment of the horses, a view I can't share because these are animals that were bred to run and race.  Also, race tracks aren't found on every corner, or even in every U.S. state or city, and some have closed down, so fewer Americans have had the experience of going to the races, absorbing the rituals and experiencing the fleeting excitement of watching a race or rooting for their favorite.

Notwithstanding all that, though, I think the "big win" the Triple Crown represents is a special thrill - a triumph for the horse, the jockey, the trainer, the owner, but most importantly, for the spectator.   It attracts attention to the sport, and must inevitably have a positive public effect.   As such, I suspect even the owners and trainers of the also-ran horses secretly are elated that some horse, even if not theirs, has finally claimed this prize after a very long dry spell.