Morning Fog

Broken Premises

The U.S. and its government are founded on a handful of premises that were understood by (nearly) all as positive statements of principle:  equality, individual rights including especially the right to vote, the idea of the fairness of representative government, and many others we could name. Really though, we were always aware that these premises were objectives to be striven for, but not fully realized in the original Constitution. For where is the equality in counting blacks as less than whole people, and how complete is the concept of "popular vote" when those same blacks, as well as women, were not permitted to exercise it, or while the people's representatives to the Senate were not popularly elected at all?

Luckily, provision was made for amendment of the Constitution, and as the nation progressed, we gradually, subject always to retrogressive political pressures, progressed, fixing some of the worst political compromises the "framers" left us with.    

This truth puts paid to the judicial idea of "originalism," which purports to read in the Constitution exactly what is written there. In what logical world would we seek to reverse course? Or in more contemporary terms, does it really make sense to start undoing rights and freedoms previously recognized as Constitutional? 

NO, it does not. Yet the Supreme Court, with its decision on abortion rights, has jumped feet first into a rabbit hole, a leap that could easily lead to the erosion of other recognized rights, even taking us back to the "good old days" when Blacks knew their place and women couldn't vote. Is this what the radical right wing of the current Court wants?  Apparently it is. "Originalism" leads to an Alice-In-Wonderland world where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are perverted from a list of positive rights that a government guarantees, or hopes to secure, for its citizens (as do most constitutions in free countries) into a list of shalt-nots. It's all very biblical, isn't it? That is the problem. The court's right wing has much in common with radical Islamic mullahs.  

With this decision, it became clear that the Supreme Court is broken. (Some of us thought that back in 2000.)  As NBC news commentator Chuck Todd observed, from now on, everyone is going to see those justices robed in red or blue, not black. And despite the very limited "success" of the gun bill the Senate approved yesterday, the broader picture on the political scene is that Congress is broken too. And the Executive branch? Aah, the executive. It's limping along on crutches under Joe Biden, after having all its legs and arms broken and its skull crushed by Donald Trump.  Yep, it's broken too.

It's hard to see what this means for average Americans. Who or what can save the nation some of us still hope to preserve?  Those few of us who don't own guns could go out and get one, and we could have a war, but I don't see that happening. More likely we're in for a period of anarchy, when people just do what they want or can, lives their lives, and mainly just ignore politicians and their minions on the Supreme Court. The only thing that may stand now between us and chaos is that much-maligned group known as "bureaucrats," i.e., dedicated civil servants, ranging from mid-grade Justice Department officials to dedicated state- and county-level officers like Arizona's House Speaker Rusty Bowers, who speak the truth to overweening egos. But beware as you vote this fall, the would-be Constitutionoclasts are going full steam to try to replace such people. 

 

What Should A Biden Government Do?

Two weeks ago, in its magazine section of January 17, the Washington Post invited a group of randomly selected "experts," and seven "artists" (?), of many of whom I've never heard, to write essays about "one surprising thing" the incoming administration should do. Some were breathtakingly broad and not at all surprising (e.g., Address Climate Change, or Tackle Gun Reform). Others seemed naïve and very boring, like "Convene a Racial Truth, Justice [sic] and Reconciliation Commission" (a big fat report of learned soles' verbose prescriptions for changing human behavior is sure to be a best seller) or "Learn From the Rest of the World" (hey, we can't even learn from ourselves!).

If they had asked me, I might  have proposed "Start a Race to Space for the Discovery and Settlement of Other Planets."  Personally, I would really enjoy moving to a planet with intelligent life.

None of this was much help to our new President, I'm afraid. Fortunately, in the past two weeks, Biden seems to have set a fairly clear list of priorities, and is acting on them. 

All these recommendations propose legislative and government action. That's fair enough - after all we do have a government and it's supposed to "do things" for the common good. But surely we all recognize the reality that progress in a landscape fraught with political antipathies will be hard to effect. 

So, I nominate as the surprising thing Biden must do early:  To broaden the "big tent" of the party by bringing new voters to it.  Success there will bear even more fruit, two or four years hence, than any programs he gets passed. But it's a different track from steps he has taken to date. It will mean talking about issues and drafting legislation in ways that reflect he truly means he intends to be the President of all Americans (Trump said it, but never meant it). In effect this means drawing away voters from the Republicans - those who voted for Trump for no better reason than an inchoate sense of "what have I got to lose?"  The GOP is already a minority party. Pulling away as little as 5 percent of their voters, may shake them awake to reform, or kill them off, leaving room for a new party.  Now THAT would be an interesting development! 

Breaking news: As this "goes to press" Matthew Dallek writes in the Washington Post today about the possibility that "the Republicans still living with us in the real world" can force the fringe voters out and reclaim the Republican Party as their own. Dallek's argument is worth a read (he suggests there is a parallel in the way the party dealt with the Goldwater fringe in the 1960s). In a way Dallek and Morning Fog are making the same point: The Republican Party needs to deal with its fringe groups and get them shoved back in the closet. But I'm not at all convinced that the party's current leaders could make that happen. They'll need to be much more scared than they are now. If Biden can make good his case that he is a President for all, he can be an agent of positive change, no matter which way events break.

Disgrace

I feel sure no one - left wing, right wing, or buffalo wing - will be surprised that President trump decided to release Congressman Nunes's memo alleging political bias behind the FBI's investigation of Our National Embarrassment.  Hey, it's divisive, it's self-serving, it's untrue, it's partisan, and it insidiously sows mistrust of the core institutions of our democratic government.  WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE?

In talking about his decision, Trump offered a comment: "Disgraceful!"  Yes you are, Donald. But we would expect no less of Little Donnie, whose button may work but is very obviously miswired. Do keep in mind that for everyone but you in your narcissistic fog, your terror of this investigation only suggests that you have something  to hide. A LOT to hide. Gosh what was that old movie in the 60s? Was it the Manchurian Candidate ... or the Muscovite candidate?

 Anyway, this latest kerfuffle takes me back to the State of the Union address. Trump was well behaved, even sedate (they must have really doped him up), otherwise unremarkable except for his corpse-like insincere grin and his rhe toric that seemed designed to destroy the "union" he has said he wants to defend. But it occurred to me how much he resembles the beautiful corporations he so much admires (but never quite succeeded in joining as an equal). Like them, he is completely without morals, ethics, or national loyalty, and he requires the Supreme Court to define him as a "person."

The Dow dropped more than 600 points today. It's premature to call it a trend, and pundits are out there trying to explain it in economic terms. But the market is extremely sensitive to political instability, and I cannot help but think that when our little-p president seeks to destabilize the country he is sworn to defend, markets react. 

 

A Letter To A Past President

Dear Dopey:

You have cemented your place in history as the ONE! (=Our National Embarrassment). We all knew you were an empty-headed, amoral, self-absorbed, unqualified demagogue but you fooled your way into the White House.  Shame on us! Once.

But after six months of your tomfoolery, despite our hopes that something good might materialize from your Presidency, I think most of us who aren't mentally deranged are fed up. I certainly am. Your belated and inappropriate reaction to the recent violence in Charlottesville, Virginia laid bare your lack of a moral compass. Further, as the media and politicians sought to maintain a veneer of polite democratic discourse by asking themselves 'who is to blame' for such violence, that question is only rhetorical:  YOU are to blame. Throughout your campaign, you purposely stirred the hornet's nest, you fomented and encouraged hatred and racism; you cynically exacerbated rifts in our national unity. The fatalities in Charlottesville lie at your door, like one of those bags of dogshit that jokesters used to put on people's doorsteps and light on fire. You tried to stamp it out, but gosh, it just made a worse mess.

Long story short, your political legitimacy is forfeit, except with the diehard base that you tried so hard to appease.    

So you need to go.  I mean, before the next election 3+ years away. I'm sure you've realized that, haven't you? You are trampling the Constitution as well as cherished American values. 

In some quarters, there has been talk that you should resign. It's true you should, but I don't see that as a solution that you would ever accept. 

So I'm signing up for the impeachment option. The process would likely be messy. It would be divisive. Your party, in particular that pillar of civic virtue and guardian of governmental rectitude, Mitch McConnell, would have to take the lead (hey, why should Democrats dirty themselves with cleaning up your mess?). And sadly, you could do a lot more damage to our nation in the intervening months or years. Perhaps worst, impeachment would leave us in the hands of the puritanical Pence. A Presidency is a terrible thing to wreck - worse even than "beautiful statues."  So impeachment isn't perfect but it may be the best option we have.

Or...

Wait - have you considered suicide?  Now, I don't mean to make light of suicide.  Generally our society abhors it, and takes steps (counseling and the like) to discourage those considering it, be they troubled teens or despairing oldsters. But that's because we assume those people have some redeeming social value, some contribution to make.  

So let's have a look: I know, I know, right off the bat, doing yourself in doesn't sound like your style, any more than resigning. But it's not hard to imagine that a supreme egotist like you could become terribly wrought up over your abject failure to achieve anything, or/and be driven to despair at the consequent ravaging of your reputation. This move would eradicate the stink of wimpiness that hangs about you now, and put you back in the mold of the daring iconoclast - the first U.S. President to off himself!  Just imagine the headlines!  Sounds perfect, doesn't it?

Before I go (and before you do) I feel you owe me for suggesting a perfect solution, so just one request:  You've got to persuade that Pence guy to go with you. Make it like, a lover's pact (you know he never really loved you ... he just used you). Or maybe stage it as a terrorist attack - even more headlines!  

  

A New Crime: Felony Voting?

In Virginia, on April 22, Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe signed an executive order providing that felons who have completed their sentences and are no longer under supervised probation or parole will automatically be eligible to vote (no longer having to apply for approval to do so). It's estimated that this stroke of the pen restores voting rights to about 200,000. The Governor characterizes this as restoring the rights of full citizenship. Big-"D" Democrats in the state have applauded this move. It seems to me that any small-"d" democrat should be happy with this move. And aren't most of our politicians, of whatever party stripe, professed democrats?

Not so fast! The Commonwealth's Republicans are crying foul, suggesting it's all a cynical political move to enhance Democrats' election prospects this coming November. For you see, it happens that a large proportion of those 200,000 people are African-American!*  Well, such is the game of politics. The GOP may choose to conjure up the new crime of "felony voting," but I for one think it's self-evident that if a criminal has paid his/her debt to society, it's only fair that he/she should again be able to vote. 

By the same token, Morning Fog has more than once taken issue with the Democratic Party position that asking voters to produce a identification is a cynical political move. Here again, the idea is fair and reasonable (why shouldn't a voter have to identify himself?) and whatever the political fallout may be, it's irrelevant.  Hmm.... that rather reminds me of the voters of the District of Columbia, who have no voting representation in Congress...there's something else that needs fixing, regardless of the politics of the situation.

*A fact tangential to this discussion but which I found shocking:  One in four African-American voters in Virginia, according to the Washington Post, has been banned from voting because of felony convictions.  1 in 4?

 

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. 

  

Pouting Police

Yesterday was the funeral service of NYPD Detective Liu, the second of the two who were murdered just a couple of weeks ago, just because they were cops.  The shootings were senseless and tragic.  And I've always said that the police are much underrated and underappreciated; the risks they take, the dangers they are constantly faced with, are far from commensurate to the respect or the pay they get.

Nevertheless, I do think those who choose to turn their backs on the Mayor at these events are making a mistake.  First, because the Mayor is responsible to the voters, and therefore to public opinion.  Not to the police!  He should of course support his people (the NYPD) where possible, yet some of the problems recently brought to light can't be defended by any elected official. 

Second, because the policemen's willingness to "act out," fight their bureaucratic battles in public, and blame the mayor makes them look not just childish, but unprofessional and selfish; it makes it appear they are more concerned with defending themselves than honoring those who died.  Worst, an emotional response like this reinforces the impression that they may react emotionally, rather than measuredly, under pressure, and this is the very thing that has raised questions in the first place.

In short:  NYPD, suck it up.  Like professionals in service in other walks of life, you should understand that it's not about you.  Your reaction (if you're among the back-turners) obscures what you stand for (or should stand for).

Following The Money On Smoking

In today's Doonesbury comic strip, Gary Trudeau has some fun with the fact that many of the states that received gobs of money from the big tobacco settlement -- the one that was supposed to provide funds for states to run anti-smoking campaigns, educate young people about smoking, and the like -- are not spending it for that purpose, but for other ordinary budget items.

I say "fact" above.  Of course just because it's in Doonesbury doesn't mean it's true, but I have little doubt that it is.

The same tendency to cadge any available funds, even those earmarked for other purposes, for immediate needs infects local, state, and national government.  (For example, a funny thing happened on the way to the bank with the Social Security "trust fund."  And it happened almost from the first deposit they were supposed to make.) 

The problem seems self-perpetuating.  Absent clear laws or rules of procedure to prevent it, can we count on our elected leaders to correct things?  Not if what they've accomplished on campaign reform is any indication. So no. Politicians, no matter what their party, seemingly can't resist these little experiments in fungibility.  Addicts can't cure themselves. 

Perhaps there is no fix.  Wouldn't it be an interesting spectacle, though, if the tobacco companies themselves, or perhaps a group of anti-smoking organizations, were to sue over this misspending?

 

  

Pearls And Lumps Of Coal

Pearls turn up occasionally in our collective memory of famous quotes and sayings.  How about, for example, "a pearl of great price is not to be had for the asking," or the old saying about "casting pearls before swine?"  Obviously the idea is that pearls are valuable, and not to be squandered on those who can't or won't appreciate them.

If you think of the right to vote as the pearl of the democratic form of government, you might be legitimately alarmed that it is being squandered.

Point:  Today my wife and I went to the polls for a very simple election - choosing a new member of our county Board to replace one who resigned a few months ago.  A great deal of controversy has developed locally over the current Board's approval of at least two expensive and not-exactly-essential projects. Not an exciting election, perhaps, but one that clearly affects people's taxes.  Yet in a group of about a dozen of our peers later in the day, we found that only three of us had voted (or had a clear intention to).  Others said they weren't familiar with the issue, so "probably won't vote;" and still others said they didn't know there was an election taking place.

Point:  Jeb Bush, former Florida Governor, is exploring his chances to run for the Republican presidential nomination.  That in turn, or course, leads to talk of a political dynasties, actual or potential:  Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Harrisons, Roosevelts, and even Adamses.   Haven't we had enough of political dynasties?  If part of our national myth is that every little boy and girl can dream of being President some day, shouldn't we be able to come up with good candidates who aren't related? Yet it appears that these dynastic candidates have pretty good chances of winning, if nominated.  And sadly, it's probably often little more than name recognition. 

Point:  The Supreme Court recently advised us that it's pretty much OK to buy votes, if you have enough money and you do it at arm's length - pay the candidate's campaign expenses, though apparently you can't directly pay the voters, not yet.  (You'd be correct if you surmise that I do not buy the argument that money is speech.  Money talks, but in a different way.)   The wealthy of any political persuasion may now dole out real pearls, enabling those few swine who appreciate them to scoop them up before a disinterested and uninformed electorate awakens to their value.  

Non-Point:  At first glance, the little town of Divide, Colorado appears to be another example of the vote being undervalued.  Reports are that eleven different animals are running for the office of Mayor.  But we'll drop this one out of the lineup, because if you read the fine print, you'll find the town actually has no mayor, and the fake "election" is a way of raising funds for an animal shelter. 

I realize, of course, that political theoreticians like to say that "not voting" is itself a vote, and is the citizen's right. True, as far as it goes, but I think the adages are right:  A thing whose high value we fail to appreciate is too easily taken away from us.     

 

Ending Coinage And The Coin Age

There has been a lot of buzz in the media lately about the cost of producing coins, particularly the lower-value pennies and nickels.  A penny, it is said, now costs 1.8 cents to produce, while a nickel costs 9.4 cents.

I used to think that was a good argument to do away with these coins, especially pennies, but I'm not so certain of that any longer.  It occurs to me that regardless of what it costs to mint them and put them into circulation, their value in our monetary system is determined by the multiplier effect of their being circulated over a long life cycle.   Governments don't exist to make a profit; the cost of minting coins is just a "cost of doing government."  So the cost argument, as far as I'm concerned, is just a non-starter.  

That's not to say that we shouldn't try to reduce costs of production.  The more obvious ones are to stop using expensive zinc in pennies, nickel in nickels, and copper in both, and to substitute steel or some other cheaper material.  The days are long gone - nearly a century ago - when anybody felt the value of a coin had to be backed up by an equivalent value of some precious metal in it.  Otherwise, we'd still be making silver dollars.

Now, there is (of course) a penny lobby, Americans For Common Cents.  But like so many other lobbying efforts that seek to disguise themselves as groundswells of public opinion, this one is operated/funded by the zinc industry (!) because pennies are currently made mostly of costly zinc.  So the interesting thing about the penny lobby is that it's basically uninterested in the survival of the penny as a coin.  It's far more interested in the survival of the penny made of zinc.  The other folks who fight to preserve pennies are the ones who make those coin-sorting machines. 

Bottom line: we can, and should safely ignore Americans for Common Cents.  Would that be difficult, given the political pressures the mining industry can bring to bear on their politicians like Senator Rockbottom of Minnerado?  Probably.  But maybe we could let the Mint sell pennies directly to businesses (or individuals) who need them.  That would raise a hue and cry from retail businesses that could easily drown out the Zincists and Nickelodians (Hah - nickel, lode, good one huh?) 

The fact is, though, that there are lots of good reasons to abandon pennies, perhaps even nickels, to wit:  

• They don't buy anything anymore; in my local parking meters, even a nickel now gets me only two minutes.
• The need for pennies and nickels arises largely in the context of paying retail sales tax on cash transactions.  But there are far fewer cash transactions these days (I see millenials whipping out credit cards to pay for a single cup of coffee); sales tax calculations could easily be adjusted; and surely those conservatives who insist we must have a penny wouldn't object to just rounding everything to the next dime, right?
• There is no "cent" key on my keyboard, and even to find it as an add-in symbol is a bit of a hunt.  What does that say about our need for pennies?
• One of the greatest mysteries in all this discussion, for me, is why the Mint has to keep producing so many of them.  They last indefinitely, need for them is decreasing, so why isn't production falling off?  Maybe it's because a lot of people, faced with a pile of pennies in their pocket or on their dresser, just toss them in the trash.  I've done that; I expect other people do.

So yes, definitely, let's do away with pennies and nickels, and for the die-hards who insist we must have them, let's allow the U.S. Mint to continue production for a while and offer them directly for sale to businesses and the public -- at the cost of production, of course.  That should pretty well do in the fake demand for these coins.

--

Postscript:  Did you know that tire manufacturers and safety experts are cooperating in the effort to get rid of pennies?  The old advice on judging your tread wear (replace if you insert a penny and can't see the top of Lincoln's head) has been declared passé; now, you're supposed to use a quarter and look for the top of Washington's pate).