Who is the Fool?

Leave a reply

In the movie Can-Can (1960), Frank Sinatra, playing, François Durnais, is in court and addresses the judge:

“Your honor, I am a member of the bar and wish to represent myself.”

The Judge replies: “You realize that a lawyer who represents himself is said to have a fool for a client?”

François Durnais responds: “That may be true, but it’s better than having a fool for a lawyer.”

The website https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/30/lawyer/ attributes the earliest iteration of that retort to a book published in 1682 and to numerous others thereafter.

I mention that as background to the remarkable circus playing out in the New York fraud trial against Donald Trump in which it is alleged he, and perhaps other family members, manipulated the values of various assets to secure loans at favorable rates and reduce taxes below appropriate levels.

Overall, the testimony of Trump and family members consists of two points: (1) Trump: the businesses were worth way more than we claimed, I don’t care what anyone says; everyone involved made money so what’s the problem? I relied entirely on accountants and others for valuations despite what I might have signed off on; sure, I was a trustee but, no, I take no responsibility; and (2) Trump family members: Who, me? I wasn’t involved. I know nothing; I relied entirely on accountants and others for valuations despite what I might have signed off on; I just took the money that magically appeared at the end of the rainbow; no, I take no responsibility.”

And together: “We are innocent of all charges, as usual. We did nothing wrong. We are rich because we deserve to be. Thank you; we’re leaving now.”

Nothing about the reported testimony of Trump and family is surprising. What is surprising, shocking really to any sane, responsible lawyer, is the manner in which Trump’s lawyers have adopted his personality and style in addressing the prosecutors and the judge.

It is the most appalling display of bad judgment imaginable. I am hard to surprise at this late stage of life but am stunned that lawyers would think it’s in their client’s interest to attack the prosecutors openly and repeatedly and, worse, to attack the judge handling the case. The normal, and correct, approach is to be respectful at all times, make your arguments, fight for your evidence but always, always show respect to the judge and court staff.

The only “strategy” implied by Trump’s lawyers’ contrary approach is that, having no other meaningful or substantive defense, their attacks might goad the judge into making an appealable mistake by, for example, lashing out at the defendants or making an egregiously bad ruling out of frustration/anger.

The judge is highly experienced, however, and likely knew what was coming. So far, based on the reports, he has maintained his composure and has not made any meaningful mistakes that would support an appeal by the Trump as against the overwhelming evidence that Trump approved, indeed drove and promoted, the use of wildly incorrect asset values in the pursuit of his life-ambition to enrich himself beyond all reason.

How Trump’s attorneys think it is smart to attack the very people who hold their client’s future in their hands is simply beyond understanding, unless it is simply their personal need to get maximum media exposure for themselves by behaving like hooligans in court and to provide more fodder for Trump’s political base that is prepared to believe anything except the truth about him and his grifter family. If that’s what they are doing, they deserve the severest sanctions for gross malpractice for, among other things, putting their interests ahead of their client’s.

In this case, the adage about having a fool for a client appears to miss the mark. This client appears to have fools for lawyers as well. Client and lawyers alike.

Guns Shows & the American Curse

Leave a reply

[The following is a guest post by Nadine Godwin, a longtime friend and former editor of Travel Weekly among other gifts. She routinely spends huge time investigation important issues that are being considered in federal agencies and preparing/circulating alerts, often with drafts of comments. Her messages to a select list of recipients date back to 2017]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has proposed a rule that would effectively, for the first time ever, require almost anyone who sells guns on the Internet or at gun shows to obtain licenses to make those sales.

This matters because holders of federal firearm licenses are required to conduct background checks on their buyers, to sell only guns with serial numbers and to record the sales.

Currently, gun sellers on the Internet and at gun shows don’t have to be licensed, which means they don’t have to do background checks. This circumstance is often called the gun show loophole, but the loophole is way bigger than gun shows.

These days, nearly a quarter of all gun sales occur without background checks or adherence to the other rules associated with a license to sell firearms. Furthermore, up to 80% of firearms used to commit crimes are obtained from unlicensed sources, i.e., without background checks.

Meanwhile, Americans overwhelmingly (87% to 90%, depending on the poll) favor expanded background checks for gun buyers. I support the ATF proposal because I am one of that huge majority.

The deadline for comments on the ATF proposal is Dec. 7. 

Background + some details of the proposal

Sellers on the Internet and at gun shows aren’t licensed now because the relevant law, the 1968 Gun Control Act, was too vague about which gun sellers must be licensed. Besides which, Internet selling wasn’t a thing in 1968.

As a result, brick-and-mortar operations have gotten licenses, but other sellers have not been pressed to do so. Gun traffickers, individuals with dodgy backgrounds and buyers with lethal intent could thus make their purchases essentially unnoted. It is easy to see how this increases the odds for gun violence.

For the good news (my view), the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed last year, set the stage for expanding background checks.

Whereas the 1968 legislation required licenses for those with the “principal objective of livelihood and profit,” the 2022 Safer Communities law requires licenses for anyone who deals in guns “to predominately earn a profit.” That language isn’t very specific either, but it does contemplate licenses for anyone selling guns for profit even if profits aren’t a significant portion of the seller’s livelihood.

It was left to the ATF, the only federal agency with a mandate to regulate the gun industry, to create the rule that makes clear which sellers must be licensed, based on the updated language found in the 2022 law.

For starters, the ATF proposal states, a person is presumed to be in the business of selling firearms if among other things the person:

    • Repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms within 30 days after they were purchased,
    • Repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms that are new, or like new in their original packaging, or
    • Repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms of the same or similar make and model.

Furthermore, the proposal says, it will be presumed a person intends to “predominantly earn a profit” if among other things the person a) promotes a firearms business, however casually; b) keeps records documenting profits and losses; c) obtains a state or local business license for the sale of firearms, or d) buys a business insurance policy that covers firearms inventory.

The rule, if finalized, will apply to gun sales in flea markets and mail-order businesses as well as in the oft-discussed Internet and gun show venues.

The ATF estimates that anywhere from 24,540 to an astonishing 328,296 unlicensed persons selling guns for profit would be affected by this rule.

Geez, a lot of people sell guns!

What to do

The proposed rule wouldn’t require universal background checks for gun sales (our feckless Congress must legislate that), but it gets us a lot closer.

If you support this enhancement to ATF regulations, please speak up by filing comments by Dec. 7 here: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ATF-2023-0002-0001.

I am adding a few sample messages, prepared by gun safety groups, that you can use for inspiration.

Finally, please share this letter with anyone you think might want to comment, as well.

Thanks

Nadine Godwin

P.S. For those who would like to know more about this proposal, I am also adding a helpful explainer. It was prepared by Giffords, a gun safety advocacy group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords after she was shot in the head and nearly killed while meeting with constituents in Arizona in 2011.

SAMPLE MESSAGES:

From Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

I strongly support the proposed rule to ensure that individuals who are “engaged in the business” of selling firearms are licensed, thus requiring them to complete background checks for all firearm sales and maintain records of those transactions, and that dealers who have lost their licenses may no longer sell firearms to the public.

A recent study found that more than one in five gun sales in the U.S. are conducted without a background check, amounting to millions of off-the-books gun transfers annually; many of these transactions are facilitated by individuals who profit from the repetitive sale of firearms yet avoid the oversight required of licensed dealers.

This is a public health and safety issue, and I urge the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to finalize the rule in order to prevent further firearm transfers to prohibited purchasers.

From Everytown for Gun Safety

Our background check system was created to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who are not allowed to purchase or possess them. But loopholes in the system — like the ones that allow unlicensed gun sellers to sell guns online and at gun shows without running background checks on their buyers — undermine it.

That’s why ATF’s proposed rule must be finalized. It will help close loopholes in our background check system that have, for decades, been exploited by bad actors like gun traffickers, straw purchasers and other prohibited persons, including domestic abusers and convicted felons.

I support the proposed rule because it makes clear that firearms dealing can take place wherever and through whatever medium guns are bought and sold — whether at a gun show or at an online marketplace — and that conduct, such as selling guns of the same or similar kind and type, constitutes firearms dealing. Such gun sellers will need to become licensed dealers and, as licensed dealers, run background checks.

More to the point, the proposed rule will save lives. That’s why I support the proposed rule and why I encourage ATF to finalize it.

Another canned message prepared by Everytown for Gun Safety

I support the ATF’s proposed rule (Docket No ATF 2022R-17), which would dramatically reduce the number of guns sold without a background check.

I urge the ATF to finalize this rule as soon as possible. Guns sold without background checks — both online and at gun shows — are a huge source for gun traffickers and people looking to avoid a check. These guns often end up trafficked across state lines, recovered at crime scenes in major cities and used against police officers. This contributes to the gun violence epidemic plaguing our country.

The long-standing lack of clarity around which sellers must become licensed and run background checks has made this problem all the worse.

I support the clear commonsense standard laid out in this rule: Anyone offering guns for sale online or at a gun show is presumed to be trying to make a profit and should therefore be licensed and run a background check on each customer. This rule will save lives and should be urgently finalized.

GIFFORDS

COURAGE TO FIGHT GUN VIOLENCE

 FACT SHEET: FEDERAL REGULATION TOEXPAND BACKGROUND CHECKS

THE PROBLEM

Under current federal law, certain individuals with a history of felony convictions, domestic violence, or involuntary mental health commitments are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. This law is enforced primarily through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which licensed gun dealers, those holding a Federal Firearms License (FFL), are required to contact, either directly through the FBI or indirectly through state or local law enforcement, to determine a person’s eligibility to possess firearmsbefore selling or transferring a firearm to them.

There is, however, a significant loophole that exists when guns are sold by unlicensed individuals. Only those sellers who are required to obtain an FFL through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) must perform background checks via the NICS system. As a result of this loophole, unlicensed gun sellers frequently sell guns without background checks online, at gun shows, and through unregulated person-to-person sales.

This loophole makes it far too easy for people prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns to circumvent the laws on the books and obtain guns. Up to 80% of firearms used for criminal purposes were obtained fromunlicensed sources, meaning no background check was required. With the rise of social media and the expansion of internet access, new avenues for unlicensed gun sales have opened up via websites like Armslist.This expansion of access has made the background check loophole an even more salient issue, and in fact,nearly a quarter of gun sales in recent years have occurred without a background check.

“ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS” AND CHANGES MADE BY BSCA

Fortunately, the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) provides a remedy for the above issue. The 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA) mandates that all those “engaged in the business” of selling firearms acquire an FFL. This status triggers federal laws and regulations that licensees must follow, including the requirement that they conduct a background check on potential purchasers. Before the BSCA,the GCA was unclear as to the level of sales activity that distinguishes someone who sells guns occasionally-and is thus not subject to licensing requirements-from someone who is “engaged in the business” of firearm sales and qualifies as a firearms dealer.

The BSCA updated the definition of “engaged in the business.” Now, instead of including only those who sellguns with “the principal objective of livelihood and profit,” the law includes anyone who deals guns “topredominately earn a profit.”

giffords.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone Should Watch This

Leave a reply

 I recently decided that I had to cull my old emails. There are more than 9,000 in my inbox alone. Many remain from the horrors of the pandemic in New York City. I accumulated them with the idea that, at some point, I would find time and inspiration to write about them. I still aspire to do that, but realistically it seems improbable.

In any case, in the course of reviewing them, and deleting as many as possible, I came across this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/aocs-speech-about-ted-yohos-apology-was-a-comeback-for-the-ages/2020/07/23/524e689a-cb90-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

I don’t recall many things about our year in the epicenter of the COVID pandemic and I do not recall watching this. But I watched it today. Standing alone, it is remarkable in many ways. But it doesn’t stand alone. It is an exemplar, I believe, of the core problem that faces our country and indeed the world. That problem, our curse as a species, is the dehumanization of the “other” with whom I/you/we disagree about something/many things/everything. It is the problem that Donald Trump did not create but that he authenticated, that he promoted, that he legitimized in the minds of many.

AOC, you will observe, was not reading a speech, not following closely a long set of notes, not reading from a teleprompter. This one came from the heart.

First, Nothing – Then …. [Repost]

2 Replies

{Originally posted September 11, 2021 — two years later, nothing has changed]

In the beginning, the Earth was a void. Just a roundish rock, really. Lots of volcanoes and other nasty things in the early times. How it came to exist, or more importantly, why it came to exist is a question to which mankind will almost certainly never have the answer. Some people are happy to simply believe that some spirit put it here and then planted humans and all the other biological forms. Whatever.

In my worldview, over an unimaginably long time, evolution took its course. Single-celled “creatures” formed, evolved … you know the story in general outline. That’s more than enough for most of us. We could continue to struggle with the question of how to reconcile those biological facts with the spirit mythology but, for me at least, that’s a waste of time. It turns out that evolution gave humans the ability to believe two or more inconsistent concepts at the same time. We live with the cognitive dissonance, partly by compartmentalizing. You can pray on your knees in your worship space on Sunday to the spirit of your choice (there are many to choose from) and then drive in your high-tech car or search for information on your computer/smart-phone and never give a thought to how both are valid. So be it. It’s who we are.

But on this day, this day of terrible memories, on which many say they are inspired to new hope, we should be reminded of the intersection of inconsistent ideas and what that can mean. Men claiming to be men of faith who believed we were evil incarnate decided to teach us a lesson. They used their “faith” to justify killing almost 3,000 people and had hoped to kill many more.

In truth, the actions they took on 9/11 led to many, many more deaths and much, much more suffering. The words of the prince in Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet come to mind:

See what a scourge is laid upon your hate,

That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love!

And I, for winking at your discords, too

Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished.

Evolution produced the cerebral cortex in the human brain. Over millennia, homo sapiens became the Earth’s dominant species. With that came the capacity to change everything. We could do much more than just kill another animal or eat another plant to survive. We were way smarter than that. We learned agriculture, invented tools and machines, built enormous cities, how to fly in machines, how to write and share knowledge.

But there were hard times too. Times when food was scarce. Times when another “group” had access to resources other “groups” wanted. Dominance rather than sharing was apparently critical to survival and thus the prime instinct, to live on, led to competition, fighting, killing. More for me, less for you. I win, you lose. Too bad. At least for today.

Mankind evolved to be the smartest and dumbest creature on the planet. Able to perform miracles of learning and healing and loving, mankind also learned to hate, to fight even when the fight was self-defeating. To change the planet in ways that now make it likely to become uninhabitable. Yet, we continue. The same mistakes. The same hates.

Compartmentalizing.

Love your fellow man. Love nature. Then kill them both if you think it’s necessary to survive … or maybe just to have more. Acquisitiveness – another human trait. Get more stuff because more stuff is better than less stuff, and it shows other humans your superiority. Your dominance in the hierarchy. Humans are very invested in hierarchies. Animals, too, are invested in hierarchies and one might conclude that hierarchies are essential elements of life. But, of course, animals generally don’t just go invade their neighboring animals’ territory.

Is there another way? I don’t know. As a species, humans have the capacity to do the right thing. We’ve created countries, nation-states, wrapped ourselves in “national identity,” “ethnic identity,” “cultural identity,” “sexual identity,” take your pick. So many identities.

Identities help us know who is in our group and it doesn’t take much thought to see how this can be important in the world we have made. But identities are, by their nature, separating. Categorizing. If you’re X and I’m M, we’re in different groups and never the twain ….

So, here we are. Smart and stupid at the same time. Victims of our own intelligence. Suffering now from an unseen enemy, the coronavirus. Most of us are grateful for the science and scientists who brought us a life-saving vaccine. We are grateful for the healthcare workers who put themselves at risk when we are most desperate for their help and comfort. And some of us, a remarkably large number, believe in conspiracies, in dark images of evil people doing insane and immoral things. This group turns away from vaccines and other established public health measures and consumes instead known poisons and unknown other substances, placing their faith in politicians rather than scientists.

Those people walk among us. Many are our friends and neighbors. Many are dying. Yet they persist in believing the unbelievable. Compartmentalizing to prevent being told what to do or to have their “rights” diminished. These people don’t care much about the rest of us, though many often attend religious services and say many prayers. When there is a mass shooting, they send “thoughts and prayers,” but they resist meaningful measures to control violence, and the poverty and desperation that often precedes it, because … they have “rights.”

I am rambling so I will stop soon. I am distraught, I confess, at the idea that years of my inevitably shrinking future life are being stolen by ignorance and deceit. I’ll never get those years back. Neither will the victims of 9/11, the dead and the families and friends of the dead. Never get them back. The permanent silence that awaits us all draws closer by the day, and I wonder why it is that the smartest creatures on the planet continue to be the dumbest. I wonder why we can’t see and correct the self-destructive paths down which our evolutionary history has driven us. We can look back and see history. Other animals can’t. We can look ahead and predict the future. Other animals can’t. We don’t have to wait until the planetary water hole has completely dried up before figuring out a way to stop the loss. What is holding us back from using our intelligence to do what intelligence demands?

Maybe we’re just not intelligent enough. I don’t know.

Reaching Deeper Into the Bottom of the GOP Barrel

Leave a reply

The latest nominee for Speaker of the (barely) Republican-controlled House of Representatives is James Michael (Mike) Johnson, “representing” the 4th District of Louisiana. His official website touts the “7 Core Principles of Conservatism,” the customary blather about the “rule of law,” “free markets,” “limited government,” etc.

Last on the list is “Human Dignity:”

Because all men are created equal and in the image of God, every human life has inestimable dignity and value, and every person should be measured only by the content of their character. A just government protects life, honors marriage and family as the primary institutions of a healthy society, and embraces the vital cultural influences of religion and morality. Public policy should always encourage education and emphasize the virtue of hard work as a pathway out of poverty, while public assistance programs should be reserved only for those who are truly in need. In American, everyone who plays by the rules should get a fair shot. By preserving these ideals, we will maintain the goodness of America that has been the secret to our greatness.

Let’s unpack some of that.

For starters, note that Johnson conveniently picks up the “all men are created equal” from the Declaration of Independence but then, in a classic Republican head-fake, translates “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” into “in the image of God.” You will see below why this slight-of-hand is central to who Johnson is.

Here’s what Mike Johnson really stands for:

  • Opposed to abortion access.
  • Opposed to medical marijuana.
  • Opposed to same-sex marriage.
  • Falsely claimed Trump had fully cooperated with the Mueller investigation.
  • Opposed to certification of the 2020 election.
  • Voted to overturn 2020 election result in Pennsylvania.
  • Voted against establishing the national commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
  • Supported Trump’s 2017 Muslim ban.
  • Supports ending military aid to Ukraine so it can be absorbed by Russia.

[Wikipedia: https://tinyurl.com/3m38bmsx]

So much for the “rule of law” and the “inalienable right” to the “pursuit of happiness.”

Johnson is a religious zealot who appears to lack a basic understanding of the principle of separation of church and state while claiming devotion to the rule of law and the Constitution.

This is the man the GOP now has focused its attention on to elect as Speaker of the House, next in line behind the Vice President to succeed to the powers of the presidency.

 

Ode to the Republican House of Representatives

Leave a reply

Isn’t it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground
You in mid-air
Where are the clowns?

Isn’t it bliss?
Don’t you approve?
One who keeps tearing around
One who can’t move
Where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns

Just when I’d stopped opening doors
Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours
Making my entrance again with my usual flair
Sure of my lines
No one is there

Don’t you love farce?
My fault, I fear
I thought that you’d want what I want
Sorry, my dear
But where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here

Send in the Clowns (Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim)

House Speaker Election– Everything You Need to Know About GOP

2 Replies

There are reportedly nine candidates now that madman Jim Jordan has been defeated for the third time. Whatever their actual or presumed credentials are for the job, the single telling distinction between them is absolutely clear:

Only two putative GOP Speakers voted to certify the election of Joe Biden

They are:

Tom Emmer (Minn.)

               Austin Scott (Ga.)

The other seven – well, they are pretty much Trumpers.

Interestingly though, all nine voted for Jim Jordan on all three of his failed attempts to get the Speaker spot. https://tinyurl.com/yf255a4n And,

Emmer … offered his support for a lawsuit that would have even more broadly upended the election results. Scott was included on The Washington Post’s list of election deniers running in 2022.

Finally, not to belabor this, do not forget that the Speaker of the House is much more than the default manager of the House-in-Session. The Speaker is next in line to occupy the office of the President following the Vice President.

Thus, if the Republican clowns in the House had elected Jim Jordan as Speaker, he could have succeeded to the presidency if both the then president and vice president died or were incapacitated. Jordan, who has been elected in Ohio’s 4th Congressional District nine times, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jordan, brought to Congress credentials as a wrestling coach. As reported in Wikipedia,

Jordan is a close ally of former president Donald Trump. During Trump’s presidency, Jordan sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and staged a sit-in to prevent a Trump impeachment inquiry hearing over the Trump–Zelenskyy telephone controversy. After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Trump tried to overturn the election, Jordan supported lawsuits to challenge the election results and voted not to certify the Electoral College results. He refused to cooperate with the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, which subpoenaed him on May 12, 2022….

 Jordan earned a master’s degree in education from Ohio State University and received a Juris Doctor degree from the Capital University Law School in 2001. In a 2018 interview, Jordan said he never took the bar examination.

Note 1: Jordan’s law school entering class in 2022 had a median LSAT score of 151. The range of LSAT scores is 120 to 180. Jordan’s LSAT score has apparently not been reported.

Note 2: Researchers at the Center for Effective Lawmaking – a joint project between academics at the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University – rated Jordan as the 202nd most effective Republican in the House of Representatives out of 205 it examined. https://tinyurl.com/3vuf4e26

No wrestlers have accused Jordan himself of sexual misconduct, but four former wrestlers named him as a defendant in a lawsuit against the university. Jordan has denied any wrongdoing, has refused to cooperate with investigations into Strauss and has described his accusers as “pawns in a political plot.”

 As of 2023, Jordan, who has served in the House of Representatives for over 16 years, has never sponsored a bill that later became law.

Jordan is now, apparently, out of the Speaker picture. I laid out some salient facts about him to add gravitas to the situation facing the country as the GOP continues its long journey to find a replacement for the disgraced Kevin McCarthy.

There appears to be a better than 50-50 chance that the Republicans will elect a Speaker who supports the idea that the 2020 election was stolen, that Donald Trump is innocent of the astonishing list of felonious crimes with which he has been charged in four jurisdictions and for which the known evidence of guilt is overwhelming. That person then stands just below the Vice President as a successor to the vast powers of the presidency of the United States.

That is where we are because that is where the Republican Party has brought us.

 

 

When Will We Learn?

Leave a reply

Two cases in point.

Case One:

The Yale School of Public Health reports that

Some “non-menthol” cigarettes that are being marketed as a “fresh” alternative in states where traditional menthol cigarettes are banned use synthetic chemicals to mimic menthol’s distinct cooling sensations, researchers at Yale and Duke University have found.

The synthetic additives could undermine existing policies and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration ban on menthol cigarettes expected later this year that is intended to discourage new smokers and address the harmful health effects of tobacco use.

https://tinyurl.com/35r7t7wz

….

Hundreds of municipalities across the United States and some states – Massachusetts and California – have already restricted the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes.

In a study published Oct. 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers from the Yale School of Public Health, the Center for Green Chemistry & Green Engineering at Yale, and Duke School of Medicine identified a synthetic flavoring agent known as WS-3 in the newly introduced “non-menthol” cigarettes that delivers similar, or stronger, cooling sensations as menthol but without the minty aroma or taste.

….

Flavored tobacco products such as menthol cigarettes tend to reduce tobacco’s harsh effects making them particularly popular among young people and those just starting to smoke. Historically, menthol cigarettes have also been aggressively marketed towards African Americans, with up to 90% of African Americans who smoke using menthol cigarettes.

It seems likely that this “gap” in the regulatory regime for death-dealing cigarettes results from the regulations being based on specific chemicals rather than on the effects of flavor-enhancing chemicals regardless of type. The lesson to be learned from this, yet again, is that industries looking to make money regardless of impacts on public health will always look for an escape route and finding such routes is always easier when the “thing to avoid” is named rather than relying on the effects of the danger factor or the way it influences behavior.

The historical conduct of the tobacco industry, among others, should be a lesson for governments at all levels that you have to think very deeply about what you’re trying to prevent and how such prevention may be avoided. This doesn’t seem that hard.

Case Two:

The Virginia Highway Use Fee (the “HUF”).

I only recently learned about this assessment even though we bought a highly fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle in late 2020. The fee is not a lot of money, but the purpose of the fee is offensive and counter to other goals, or what should be other goals, as we try to offset some of the worst environmental effects of our dependency on automobiles.

The fee is $25 a year. The Virginia law provides a way of saving, maybe, $5 of the fee but is very complicated and, in my judgment, not worth the effort that involves obtaining another “reader” for your windshield, taking and reporting readings, etc. No thanks. Not to save $5.

More troubling is the motivation for this fee.

According to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles,

     You pay the HUF if you register a:

    • Fuel-efficient vehicle, which is a vehicle that has a combined fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon (MPG) or greater
    • Vehicle made in a year in which the average combined MPG rating for all vehicles produced in that year is 25 MPG or greater
    • Low Speed Vehicles, pay an annual $25 HUF

The highway use fee (HUF) helps make up for the fuel taxes that drivers with fuel-efficient and electric vehicles spend less on, because they’re not using as much fuel.

Among the vehicles exempted from the HUF are:

  • Vehicles with a combined MPG rating less than 25 MPG
  • Autocycles
  • Motorcycles
  • Mopeds

The HUF was started in 2020 but in July 2022,

the state launched an alternative program to let drivers pay the fee at a per-mile rate — a cost savings for those who drive less than the average amount, which officials peg at 11,600 miles annually. For drivers of battery-powered cars, that fee works out to a penny per mile. [https://tinyurl.com/yh4kt6tx]

In plain English, Virginia wants to penalize you for using a fuel-efficient vehicle (like a hybrid or fully electric, that, by the way, costs more than a regular gas-using vehicle) by forcing you to pay taxes based on gasoline consumption you don’t use, BUT you can potentially reduce the penalty slightly by signing up for the complex pay-per-mile program.

Or you can have what’s behind Curtain No. 1.

Seriously, this crazy scheme is a product of multiple conflicting forces, including Congress’s failure to increase gas taxes since 1993, the attraction of fuel-efficient vehicles and the inability of states to see the clear alternative of just taxing vehicles sufficiently to provide the revenue they need for road maintenance without depending on gasoline consumption. The current system must be beloved in the hallowed halls of the oil companies as it disincentivizes the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles.

The more one looks at these systems of regulation, the more our government looks like something created by the Keystone Kops. If you don’t know what they are, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Cops

 

Guns In Schools – American Shame

4 Replies

If you haven’t seen it recently, or ever, you should watch the YouTube video of Jeff Daniels’ answer to a college sophomore’s question: why is America the greatest country in the world? It’s here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2HKbygLjJs, from a great TV show called The Newsroom, well worth watching in its entirety.

I don’t know whether the data Daniels cites in the excerpt is accurate today but in general terms it likely is. That’s a hard pill for many Americans to swallow. Fear and loathing are rampant throughout the country, especially in the so-called “red states,” where Republicans promote the decline of the United States for political gain but have no solutions to offer except blaming others for what are distinctly American failures.

No better example exists than the data on guns in schools. Guns are seized in U.S. schools each day. The numbers are soaring. https://tinyurl.com/55hxzkm5

More than 1,150 guns were seized in K-12 schools last year

Nationwide, 1 in 47 school-aged children attended a school where at least one gun was found and reported on by the media in the 2022-2023 school year.

One high school student described his school as a “war zone” following the discovery of two guns at school in the first five days of his junior year. Both pistols were loaded.

That student’s experience was typical of “students of every age in every state throughout the school year, a bleak reflection of a society awash in firearms.”

Last school year, more than six guns were seized each day, on average. Nationally, 1.1 million students attended a school where at least one gun was found and reported by the media. Data collection limitations, including the fact that many school districts don’t bother to track the information, make it clear that those figures grossly understate the true magnitude of the danger.

A Washington Post survey of 51 of the country’s largest school systems showed that 58 percent of seizures in those districts last academic year were never publicly reported by news organizations. Those same districts said the number of guns recovered on campus rose sharply in recent years, mirroring the growing prevalence of firearms in many other public places.

In some cases, quick action by other students and school administrators almost certainly prevented mass murders of students and teachers. But reports indicate that some school districts are more concerned about avoiding scrutiny and causing alarm than they are interested in protecting students and school staff.

Police in Golden Valley, Minn., complained in March that middle school officials waited five days to notify them of two boys who appeared to be posing for social media pictures while holding a gun in the school bathroom; a spokesperson for the Robbinsdale Area Public Schools district said officials have worked since then to improve the school-police partnership.

That sounds like, “we take our peoples’ security very seriously. Their safety is our top priority.” Those are probably the most common, and meaningless, clichés in modern American language.

In 51 of the 100 largest school districts, representing 6.3 million students, 515 guns were found during the last school year. Only 42 percent of those seizures were reported publicly. In DeKalb County, Ga., (includes Atlanta) with a 2020 population of 764,382, only two of the 24 guns were reported.

The 47 districts for which The Post was able to obtain five full school years of data saw a 79 percent increase in guns found on campuses over that time frame [past five years]. In many communities, the number of guns found has more than doubled, a trend that mirrors a precipitous rise in school shootings.

While many instances of guns in schools are the result of gross parental negligence, or worse, that is far from the whole story.

The gun brought to Rome High on the fourth day of school was stolen in Alabama. According to media reports, a gun stolen in Las Vegas found its way into the hands of a 16-year-old at a Lawrence, Mass., high school; another 16-year-old brought a gun stolen in Georgia to his Manchester, Conn., high school; in Columbus, Ohio, a high-schooler showed up with a gun stolen in Martin County, Fla.; and in Nashville, a 17-year-old came to school with two loaded pistols in his backpack, one of them stolen out of Madison, Ala. An 18-year-old was arrested at a high school in Ames, Iowa., for possession of a 9mm semiautomatic pistol that was stolen from the center console of a pickup truck in Cape Girardeau, Mo., according to a police report. The teen said he bought the gun from a stranger at a gas station in Missouri, seeking protection, the report said.

While it is tempting to blame the problem in large part on teenage “craziness,” the data indicates that many younger students are involved:

… authorities found guns on at least 31 students age 10 or younger during the 2022-2023 academic year …. As is the case in most school shootings, the majority of those guns were brought to campus by children who could not legally purchase a firearm on their own.

Common Threads

Several common themes leap out from the Washington Post and other reports about kids bringing guns to schools:

  • School administrators are often slow to act and slow to inform parents about incidents.
  • Administrators are sometimes more interested in protecting the school’s “image” than in protecting students and staff.
  • Administrators sometimes refuse to respond to legitimate questions about these incidents, despite their role as public officials with responsibility to protect students and staff.
  • Parents whose carelessness/indifference and/or active support for gun culture are usually not held accountable for the conduct of their children.
  • Kids who bring guns to schools are often sheltered from consequences because they are minors.

That last point raises a bigger question. American society generally is based on the view that minors are not fully accountable for their behavior. This policy is based on the science of brain development and a concern that “immature” behavior” attributed to individuals will haunt them later in life and that this is unfair.

Why, exactly, such accountability is unfair is unclear. Also unclear is why it is more appropriate to be concerned about the perpetrators than about their actual or potential victims, many of whom will be traumatized, possibly forever, by their encounter with a fellow student armed and prepared to kill.

There are other consequences too. Teacher shortages because teachers feel disrespected, unsupported, and endangered. Budget issues arising from lawsuits against school systems that failed to do the right, and difficult, thing when confronted with a gun situation. Distracted students wondering when the next threat will walk into their classroom when they should be paying attention to the lesson. And more.

I urge you to read the full Washington Post story that inspired these thoughts. https://tinyurl.com/55hxzkm5 Every American should be concerned that our submission to the prevailing gun culture has led us to a dark place where young school children must undergo training in case their school is the scene of a shooter. And to a place where school administrators are free to simply refuse to communicate about their failures and their self-interested conduct at the expense of students’ safety.

Teachers in dozens of communities raised similar concerns about school safety after gun incidents last school year. In Harper Woods, Mich., in June, the teachers union accused school officials of trying to cover up an incident in which a student with a gun escaped the school staff and evaded metal detectors; in April, the Massachusetts Teachers Association accused a superintendent of “total disregard for the safety of students and school personnel” after a student posted videos of himself on social media that showed him wielding a gun on campus. The Southbridge, Mass., school system disputed the union’s account and said it was working with police on lockdown drills and other safety procedures.

The WAPO story recounts how students evade security systems and why students are often wary of reporting what they see. Once it becomes clear that the school is more interested in its reputation than in preventing gun violence, most kids are not going to risk being called a “rat” when they report someone who is handled with kid gloves and often back in the school soon after.

The graph below tells the story as well as anything. It does not, of course, measure the trauma experienced by students and staff who managed, by luck or whatever, not to be killed or wounded. This is the price we pay for the American obsession with guns.

One of the comments submitted to the WAPO story argued that the data prove that the “fraction of criminal violators in school populations” is so low, we should stop “propagandizing” about the problem. One response posted said: “Gosh, when you put it that way the blood stains almost fade away…” But, of course, they don’t. Ever.

Trump Confesses

Leave a reply

When you hire a lawyer to represent you, it is presumed that when the lawyer speaks or files pleadings in court on your behalf, he is speaking and/or presenting positions with which you concur. He is, after all and in fact and in law, your representative.

Sometimes, lawyers are forced to make arguments that seem preposterous on their face and are in fact preposterous. They normally do this when they are “out of ammunition” in the form of well-reasoned and at least plausible arguments. They do this when the client is desperate to present a defense when none exists. Those lawyers feel duty-bound to not only the zealous representation that legal ethics required of them, but, one might say, to throw something at the judicial wall and just hope against hope that it sticks.

It is thus with the latest Trump effort to escape responsibility for his treasonous insurrection against the government of the United States. Reports state that Trump’s attorneys have thrown such stuff at the wall in the Colorado case brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) seeking to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/

Recall that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone who has “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve. I quote the Rawstory article:

Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to “support” the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,” said the filing by Trump’s attorneys. “Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.”

My guess is that Trump’s lawyers don’t expect the trial judge to buy this nonsense. They are instead laying the foundation for an appeal, eventually, to the U.S. Supreme Court where, they hope, the “originalist” thinkers led by Clarence Thomas will “strictly construe” the Constitutional language and hold that “support” is not the same as “preserve, protect and defend” such that the Framers left a gaping hole for people like Trump to walk through while toppling the very structure the Framers worked so hard to establish.

But, you ask, why is this argument nonsense? Here’s why.

We could go on with this for hours, but I think it suffices that Oxford Languages (the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages) has solved the puzzle for us.

“Preserve” is defined as “maintain (something) in its original or existing state.” Synonyms include: conserve, protect, maintain, care for, take care of, look after, save, safeguard, and keep. Antonyms include: damage and neglect.

“Protect” is defined as “keep safe from harm or injury.” Synonyms include: keep safe, keep from harm, save, safeguard, shield, preserve, defend, cushion, shelter, screen, secure, fortify, guard, mount/stand guard on, watch over, look after, take care of, care for, tend, keep, mind, afford protection to, harbor, house, hedge, inoculate, insulate. Antonyms: expose, neglect, attack, harm.

Finally, “defend” means “resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger.” Synonyms: protect, guard, safeguard, keep from harm, preserve, secure, shield, shelter, screen, fortify, garrison, barricade, fight for, uphold, support, be on the side of, take up cudgels for, watch over, be the defender of.”  The antonym: attack.

Being my discerning readers, I know you saw “support” in the third list as a synonym of “defend.”

Even if “support” were not listed there, it is defined as “enable to function or act” and is a synonym of: help, aid, assist, contribute to, back, succor, champion, give help to, be on the side of, side with, favor, abet, aid and abet, encourage, ally oneself with, stand behind, stand up for, defend, promote (among others).

One “rule” I always tried to follow in advocacy when I was practicing law was: don’t be stupid. Trump’s lawyers must be utterly desperate to put forward the argument that the President of the United States is not obligated by his oath of office to “support” the Constitution of the United States. Of all the implausible positions advanced for him and his  many co-indicted co-conspirators, this one take the cake.

The word legerdemain leaps to mind: deception; trickery, chicanery, skulduggery, deceit, deception, artifice, cheating, dissimulation. All seem to apply nicely to Trump’s argument. I particularly like “skulduggery” but that’s just me.