ARE CORPORATIONS "PEOPLE"?

Two Supreme Court cases fairly recently decided have raised the ire of many folks who deplore the apparent pro-conservative, pro-corporation bias on the Court.  CITIZENS UNITED vs. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ("CITIZENS UNITED") and BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al, vs. HOBBY LOBBY  STORES, INC., et al  ("HOBBY LOBBY") both seem to hold that corporations have such clear human characteristics that they should enjoy unlimited freedom of speech (CITIZENS UNITED) and also reflect the personal religious and moral principles of the majority stockholders (HOBBY LOBBY).  I think CITIZENS UNITED is a valid interpretation of the First Amendment's ban on suppression of speech.  I do not agree that shareholders may have the closely-held corporations they mostly own reflect their moral or religious doctrines, as seemingly provided under HOBBY LOBBY.

I did not find in either Opinion where the Supreme Court held that corporations are humans.  That is an obvious absurdity, yet it has become the shorthand complaint of those claiming "liberal" allegiances who oppose these outcomes.  That is a misleading representation of what the Court held in both cases, and only a careful reading of the Opinions can reveal the complex issues raised and decided.  Any attempt to simplify either Opinion is absurd.  There is no valid substitute for going to the source if one wishes to have an informed opinion about those cases.

CITIZENS UNITED:

Most opponents to recognition of First Amendment rights for corporations defiantly insist that "money is not speech."  They are understandably incensed that very wealthy and reactionary people can buy influence with their money via ads against arguably more "reasonable" liberal candidates.  However, I think this issue needs to be viewed for what it is: whether or not the First Amendment protects the toxic, deplorable, overwhelming "speech" and electioneering of the reactionary toads with too much money.  Regrettably, I think that is EXACTLY what the First Amendment protects.

This case arose when the "nonprofit" group, "Citizens United," wanted to produce a video highly critical of Hillary Clinton when she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.  They wanted to show the video "on demand" on cable TV.  They failed to get a declaratory ruling that the First Amendment prohibited enforcement of Section 441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) by the Federal Election Commission.  In oversimplification, that Section prohibited ads seeking a specific political outcome within 30 days of an election.  Citizens United, claiming that the First Amendment was intended precisely to protect political speech, first and foremost, appealed to the Supreme Court.

I said above "regrettably" because I agree with most critics of the CITIZENS UNITED decision that there is way too much evil money in politics.  I hate being out-spent, and I am certain that some legislators happily vote to please their well-heeled masters.  However, several issues arise: in Virginia, fewer that half of all registered voters have been showing up at the polls recently, so for me a much bigger issue is that the big money is simply not influencing nor corrupting their votes because they are not cast at all!  Those politicians who have eagerly gone after the big money are already predisposed to support and oppose the same issues as their wealthy benefactors, so I fail to see that any serious "corruption" is occurring.  No one can seriously assert that, "but for" those nasty contributions and videos, the outcomes would be any different; besides, if bribery is occurring, it should be prosecuted.  We already have laws outlawing bribery.  Political censorship is simply abhorrent to me.  I think the First Amendment was EXACTLY intended to protect ALL political "speech," including nasty videos.  Further, I think the First Amendment guarantees me the right to pool my money with others to get a bigger "speech" bang for my buck.  I think the First Amendment guarantees the right to be offended!

We cannot have one First Amendment for the "right" people of lesser means and a more restrictive First Amendment for the evil, wealthy reactionaries.  That is stupid.  And, I certainly don't want some unelected bureaucracy (the FEC) deciding what speech is permitted and what isn't, as the CITIZENS UNITED Opinion clearly addresses.  The answer to offensive "speech" is more "speech," not government censorship.  It is amazing, even frightening, that so many self-described "liberals" are so comfortable with the notion of censorship of people and organizations they don't like.  All they can focus on is the fact they are being outspent, but they want their politics for free, and the big money deprives them of that

Finally, they have also utterly failed to show any connection between the "evil money" and political outcomes.  It is ASSUMED that such money influences voting patterns, but no such evidence has been produced.  Consider all the nasty money thrown at Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, yet he handily won election both times.  To be sure, he had his own big money, but to use that as a justifier, it means that one must conclude that he corrupted more "for" votes than did the other side!

HOBBY LOBBY:

Justice Alito's opinion starts out making it clear that they are ruling only in the cases of closely held corporations, where the objecting owners own or control most if not all of the stock.  He says that Congress, in adopting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), did not intend to deprive business owners of protection of their moral principles if they choose to put their business into a corporate form of existence.

In the HOBBY LOBBY case, the objecting husband-&-wife owners owned all the stock.  They objected to being required by HHS to provide medical insurance inclusive of birth control benefits for corporate employees as a violation of their sincere religious beliefs that life begins at conception, so to be forced to provide such medical insurance would violate their protections under RFRA.

One of the core principles we learned in law school is that a corporation's provision of limited liability turns on maintaining the "separateness" of the corporation from the investor individuals, such that only the shareholder's investment is at risk, rather than the risk of unlimited personal liability.  We were further taught that this principle remains the same regardless of the size of the corporation, and that the owner shareholders should not treat the corporation as their "alter ego," subject to the risk that the corporate creditors might "pierce the corporate veil" and reach those shareholders personally, the very thing use of the corporate form of business was intended to prevent.  That "alter ego" risk is much greater with closely-held corporations than, say, large publicly-traded corporations.

Now comes along the US Supreme Court doing violation to the core principle of "separateness" of corporation and owner by imputing the owners' personal moral and religious beliefs upon the employment policies of the corporation.  I could not find any discussion of this issue in the HOBBY LOBBY opinion, if only to dismiss such concerns.  It appears that the entire United States Supreme Court has blundered into destruction of a core principle of corporate law in its zeal to assert religionist attitudes about healthcare.

I think this decision is absurd.  There should NEVER be any identification between a corporation and the owner shareholders thereof.  The US Supreme Court seems unconcerned.

That is my take on these two very complex decisions.

MONUMENTAL (Poem)

© 5/26/07, 4/15/15.

Black Granite Hole in the ground;

Bomber wing of shame, plunged to Earth, imbedded.

Etched names and hollow, piercing spirit eyes, searing lasers, following me.

Yet I return, time and again, to that wall of wasted lives.

Ceaseless weeping, yet naming not those names.

Anger boils inside me, laser-fired,

Undeclared war.  BULLSHIT!

Par for the course; our gutless Congress

Making the world ever safe for duh-mock-racy.

Déjà vu, all over again.

Wah!  We, the People, not fairly represented, 

Yet thus we choose as we mostly do not vote.

Elders, snugly cushioned in their upholstery, 

Sending innocent patriots to bloody slaughter.

Dulce et decorum est!

Par, indeed, for the course.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

Fight ‘em here or fight ‘em there!

If already here, kill ‘em anyway!

For Dog and Country.

I hate the smell of inevitable sorrow in the morning.

PLEASE! SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

There are three horrible "save-me-from-myself" measures always being promoted, and I don't like any of them:

TERM LIMITS:

I am opposed to "term limits"!  We already have "term limits" anyway!  They are called "elections," and one can do his or her part to enforce such "term limits" as he or she may wish!  I no longer vote any party line.  Instead, I am doing my best to vote every worthless incumbent out of office, REGARDLESS of party!  We don't need some law to deprive me of my desire to keep sending the same son-of-a-bitch back into office again and again if that is what I want to do.  "Term limits" are not about getting rid of MY asshole; I am perfectly fine with MY asshole; otherwise, I would not keep voting for him!  Instead they are about getting rid of YOUR asshole, whom I despise!  Dave Brat's Virginia voters like him a lot; otherwise they would not have elected him!  They despise California's Nancy Pelosi and want to get rid of her, but her voters like her just fine!  It's Dave Brat they want to get rid of!  Sheesh!

BALANCED-BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT:

The proposed "balanced-budget" amendment to the Constitution is utterly absurd.  I understand there is already a federal statute requiring a balanced budget, so why would the Congress likely obey the Constitution more than a statute?  Most of them don't care about the Constitution now!  What if the Congress were to not pass a "balanced budget"?  Would such a constitutional violation have to be remedied by the courts, as per usual?  Would we ultimately have as few as five justices on the US Supreme Court acting in the place of a recalcitrant Congress in order to balance the budget?  Anyway, the "budget" is not where the rubber meets the road!  Congress often APPROPRIATES more money than what is "budgeted" and certainly spends more!  Total crap!  Just DO IT!

CAMPAIGN FINANCE "REFORM":

I also don't like campaign finance "reform."  I don't trust anything using the words "children," "bipartisan" or "reform."  We will get the money out of prostitution quicker than out of politics!  I do not want the government prohibiting me or anyone else from spending as much money as I wish, or combining my money with others, to call whomever a "goddamned lying son-of-a-bitch" right before the election if I so choose.  Money may not BE "speech," but it buys a helluva megaphone!  I realize that there are too many politicians taking too much money from the "wrong" people, but that is considerably aggravated by most people not bothering to vote!  How can we rant and rave about the alleged corruption of the "system" when only 40% of Virginia registered voters bothered to get off their skanky butts and go vote in the 2014 federal elections, or the 43% who bothered to vote in 2013's Virginia "goober-natorial" election?  What were the worthless rest of the registered voters doing on Election Day?  We already have criminal laws prohibiting bribery, and that is what we are really talking about, so let the bribery laws be enforced--or not!  We don't need more laws creating more power for a government that is already drunk with power!  We certainly don't need to adopt laws that empower the unelected Federal Election Commission to decide what political "speech" is permissible!  We have had multiple campaign "reform" laws passed since Watergate, yet the do-gooders clamor for more because NONE of the nonsense already passed is working as they expected!  Every time some law is passed, we are told boastfully that things are gonna work right THIS time, then along come some smart lawyers, and they figure out a way around whatever was passed!  Again and again and again!  It's like General Motors' repeated promises to build cars right THIS time, or Lucy promising Charlie Brown to not yank the football away as he runs up to kick it!  EVERY FALL!  Duh! 

Meanwhile, the "po' widdle" nonvoters sulk and whine about having no voice and no choice while they munch on Chee-tos in front of the TV on Election Day.

COMMERCE IN ARMS

(The following was published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch December 27, 2014:)

Regarding Barton Hinkle's December 21 column about Governor McAuliffe's alleged "misinformation" about gun owners' rights, I would like to offer these observations.

I am not necessarily in favor of all of Governor McAuliffe's proposals, but most do not violate constitutional rights.  As a gun owner, I am a firm supporter of the 2d Amendment's recognition of an unqualified personal "right ... to "keep and bear Arms."  However, Hinkle's embrace of the National Rifle Association's warped expansion of gun "rights" is plainly wrong.  Hinkle enumerates proposals by Governor McAuliffe that, with one exception, deal ONLY with gun commerce and concealed-weapons permits.  The 2d Amendment does, indeed, protect one's right to "keep and bear Arms" already owned, but it does not protect any right to buy or sell arms nor to carry them concealed.  Concealed-carry is a conditional privilege that is controlled via government permits.  There is no "right" to concealed-carry stated in the 2d Amendment.  One may only "bear" arms, presumably openly.  

As far as I know, there is no intrastate commercial activity that is not subject to control by state governments.  Congress clearly has the power to "regulate [interstate] Commerce" in the Constitution, with no exception for arms.  Commerce has been a particular justification for governmental regulation down through the ages.  It is ludicrous to suggest that governments in the US may regulate most any aspect of commerce OTHER THAN in arms.

The one exception cited by Hinkle has to do with banning arms possession by those under protective orders.  That makes very good sense, I think, but I question the constitutionality of such a general ban.  I would agree that such a ban could be imposed by a court as a condition of release on bond or following a conviction for any violent crime, but that would be a case-by-case (literally) judicial application, not a blanket ban.

Governments are obliged to adopt and enforce their laws pursuant to the right of "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment, but other than that, they are free to regulate by law commerce and concealed-carry any way desired.  The 2d Amendment is silent as to commercial transactions.  The NRA has done a terrible disservice, threatening the rights of us gun owners, by willfully confusing the matter.

HIGH NOON?

Well, it looks like about 6-½ years after his first inauguration, Obama has finally found some testicles!  He's not ready to star in "High Noon" or anything like that, yet, but the move to put Cuban relations on a more sensible plane is laudatory.

Enough of the Cold War already!  Castro is a half-dead geezer, and his brother Raul is not far behind.  "Things" are going to be different in Cuba soon enough!  I would also argue that Castro would have been gone long ago had we not made him the "villain" and thereby ensured his adoration in Cuba despite all his absurd policies!  The idiotic US embargo of that country has been our national shame until the CIA torture stuff.  It is interesting to note that the CIA has been at the bottom (cesspool) of both policies.  Yet those twits could not protect us from "9/11" nor even from the Boston bombing!  What a worthless organization!

The move to liberate those "undocumented aliens" who were brought to the US as children (so-called "DREAMers") is another smart move.  What kind of idiot wants to deport those folks?  They are as "American" as I am, and most are paying taxes and doing well!  Wednesday, the US Supreme Court refused to review a Court of Appeals decision that blocked the attempt by Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, to deny those poor folks drivers licenses to ensure that they would have no way at all to commute to jobs and be productive citizens.  Those halfwits in Arizona government are a good example of just how stupid STATE governments can get, for those who think "states' rights" is a good idea!

Obama cannot lift the anti-Cuba embargo on his own.  He will need to persuade Congress to approve that, and I doubt that is in the cards.  The question is begged: why was Obama so aimless and tentative when he had a functional majority of Dems in the Congress his first 2 years?  Basically, Obama should go down in history as one of the most INEFFECTUAL presidents we've ever had because he squandered the opportunity (mostly with that pig of a law called "Obamacare") to arguably get progressive measures adopted by the Congress.  The Dems who lost control of the House in 2010 have no glory to share, either, although the House healthcare bill was a pretty good bill, and Nancy Pelosi deserves the credit.  It later got trashed in the Senate once Harry Reid put his filthy paws all over it.  The feckless Obama was almost totally AWOL during the House proceedings and basically did not get involved until the matter went to the Senate, where he and Harry Reid connived to turn the measure into an insurance-company relief act by preemptively gutting the House-passed "public option" without any debate whatsoever!  "Obamacare" is Obama's sole legacy of any significance.  Pathetic.

I have been complaining about Obama's tentativeness and lack of courage.  These recent moves are really the first I have ever seen to the contrary.  I fear it may be too little/too late, and if a Republican is elected in 2016, even "Obamacare" may get totally repealed.  I don't think there is any secret that most Republicans want NO publicly-funded healthcare at all.  I think most citizens do (not necessarily "Obamacare"), but they have mostly ignored those electoral risks.  It seems that Republicans would rather be surrounded by a bunch of untreated sick people and poor people who clog emergency rooms and wind up forcing paying patients' bills higher that get paid by insurance companies that raise premiums to pay for the care of those poor people ANYWAY!  DUH!  "Democracy" is not going to win the IQ contest for sure!

I think the 2014 election was more a repudiation of the tentativeness and timidity of Obama and the Democrats rather than an affirmation of Republican policies.  But the results do not lie.  Regardless of what motivated the absurdly low 40% of voters who showed up in Va. this year, or what motivated the 60% that sat on their worthless asses on Election Day and did not vote, the Republicans are in charge in Congress, and Obama will be lucky to get his paycheck from here on!

GEEZER BOOMERS

(The following was sent as a letter to the Editor of the Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch on December 6, 2014.)

Your editorial of December 5 purports to credit such things as "public-service messages" and "school ... strategies" for the reduction in juvenile violent crime.  I suppose those laudable things have had some positive influence, as you generally acknowledge.

However, the "tough-love" crowd routinely takes the credit for the unmistakeable overall drop in violent crime, as do the MADD mothers taking credit for the unmistakeable drop in alcohol-related accidents.  The latter are even talking about pushing the "BAC" (Blood Alcohol Content) drunk-driving "trigger" down to 0.05% BAC since the 0.08% "trigger" seems to have worked so well.  It was at 0.10% BAC some years ago until Bill Clinton and Congress coerced all states to embrace the 0.08% BAC DUI standard in the 1990's or lose federal highway funds.

Your editorial also points out that adult violent crime, though down, is now higher than juvenile violent crime.  That should be no surprise, if the "experts" would acknowledge the "elephant in the room."

The "elephant" is the aging of us Baby Boomers.  How is it that the single largest demographic variable in history (the coming of age and then the aging of us Boomers) is repeatedly ignored when considering these disparate events?  Not only with regard to crime and drunk driving, but also the current economic "malaise" that resists the idiot "supply-side" remedy of lower income taxes for the "job creators."  Fundamentally, we Boomers have gotten too old to party, too old to rumble, and too old to be in the marketplace buying up stuff left and right, spending money like drunk sailors and never saving a penny!

We Boomers were the greatest single "demand" influence the world marketplace has ever seen, and there is no succeeding generation able to equal our sheer numbers.  Consequently, we are all suffering a crisis in economic "demand," not "supply."  The real "job creators" (retailers and other small businesses) have fewer paying customers so must hire fewer employees.  (Retail sales for "Black Friday" were down nationwide over 11% last week.)

Distracted cops easily targeting "social drinkers" coming out of bars, festivals and athletic events are racking up the conviction numbers but are still missing most of the admittedly fewer "killer drunks" still on the road with BAC levels routinely exceeding 0.13%, relatively unchanged since the 0.10% standard.  (I have the Virginia DMV's own numbers to prove this statement.)  "Social drinkers" are probably "impaired" at 0.08%, but they are not very "dangerous."  Nevertheless, the MADD mothers and law enforcement pat themselves on the back for "doing something."  We Boomers are just too old to be out on the roads driving drunk like we used to, so of course accidents are down overall!

If the personal savings rate jumps up soon, you can "thank" us paranoid "geezer" Boomers for hoarding our dollars instead of spending them!

DIGITAL DELIGHTS

(Posted 12/5/14 on "The Daily Beast" as a comment to news that the reliably liberal New Republic magazine will be taken over and given a rigorous digital exam!)

Notwithstanding the "Wrong-Wing" glee that the New Republic is being arguably gutted by its new digitally-savvy owner, while mourners express horrified comparisons to the bloody "Red Wedding" in the HBO series, Game of Thrones, the political viewpoint of TNR is irrelevant.  We can't all subsist on a diet composed exclusively of the drivel published by Rupert Murdoch.  But what IS relevant is the fact that a lot of print magazines are dying or going digital.  This turn of events is as reminiscent of the current plot line on "The Newsroom" as it is the "Red Wedding," wherein a digital dynamo wants to take over the network and convert it to "infotainment."

Let's face it: "analog" news and opinion just don't cut it in the digital age, where industry moguls are mostly MBA bean-counter types, obsessed primarily with the financial bottom line.  It has brutally happened in American industry, too, where the bean-counters now get to dictate the design of domestic automobiles, for example, based not upon their performance and engineering but whether or not they will turn a profit.  (That is why I now drive Toyotas.  Even though many are now made in the US, the design process and managerial philosophy are still not dominated by "bean-think.")  In the digital world in which we now exist, the customer/reader/viewer/driver is not to be served but is to be exploited as a profit center, to be coerced into serving the interests of the businesses instead of the businesses serving them.

PLUS, we aging, mostly analog Baby Boomers are not the driving consuming force in the marketplace anymore.  We are now mostly paranoid geezers waiting to die.  We have been replaced by much more tech-savvy youngsters who seemingly prefer digital access, even as they are being manipulated and exploited by the bean-counters.

Oblah-di, oblah-dah.

KILLER COPS

December 4, 2014:

Once again, another unarmed black person has been killed by an armed white police officer.  Just as the mess in Ferguson, Missouri is being sorted out, there is yet another stupid killing by a cop on Staten Island, New York.  There was a cellphone video made of that latter incident by a bystander, and it CLEARLY shows the deceased in a compliant posture prior to being grabbed around the neck from behind by a police officer.  The officer put the decedent into a legally prohibited chokehold, yet he managed to gasp that he could not breathe.  Nevertheless, the officer, assisted by several other officers, continued to apply pressure to the deceased's neck, after he fell to the sidewalk, until he died.  As far as I am concerned, what I saw with my own eyes on TV last night was murder, but the Staten Island grand jury incomprehensibly refused to indict the officer.

The decedent on Staten Island was very obese, and it could be that the oxygen deprivation put such a strain on his heart that it went into arrest.  Most such chokeholds will cut off the blood supply to the brain and cause the recipient to pass out and go limp, which SHOULD serve as a signal for the officer to stop applying pressure.  I know this because I was trained to apply the chokehold during my lifeguard training years ago.  Regardless of what happened to the decedent physiologically, in my opinion he was murdered by the unwarranted and continued application of unnecessary deadly force.  I believe that the cop had reason to know that the force being applied COULD result in death.  I am of the opinion that he continued to unnecessarily apply the deadly chokehold with the apparent intent to maliciously kill the decedent.

A lot of additional information has come out about the events in Ferguson, Missouri.  The deceased may well have been a thug, but that is not why he was killed.  There has been no allegation that Officer Wilson knew anything about the decedent's criminal past at the time of death.  The decedent was repeatedly shot and killed after he ran away from, then turned toward the cop that shot him.  He refused to obey orders.  According to Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC's "Last Word", when the grand jury was empaneled in Ferguson, the assistant prosecutor introduced instructions to the jury that were a completely wrong statement of the applicable law prohibiting the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect.  She supplied the grand jury with a corrective statement of the applicable law on the last day of its meeting, but she reportedly failed to call their attention to her earlier error and to the change presented.  The grand jury was reportedly confused by the conflicting instructions.

Another occurrence in Ferguson that bothered me is one very similar to one I experienced as a criminal defense attorney years ago, when I sought to have my client testify in front of a grand jury that subsequently indicted him for theft.  He might have explained to them that the issue was not theft but a case of civil dispute over who owned the subject piano!  My client was so accused by a vindictive woman who had rented him a guesthouse on her farm in Orange County.  She alleged that my client had given the piano to her, but when she evicted him, he took what he thought was his piano.  My client was prohibited from testifying in front of the grand jury that was considering his indictment because of the prosecutor's concern, validated by the presiding judge, that it would induce the grand jury to "try" the actual case instead of limiting its consideration to whether or not the prosecutor had enough evidence ("probable cause") to go forward with trial.

In Ferguson, the prosecutor (who refused to recuse himself and his office on motion) allowed Officer Wilson to testify in front of the grand jury as to what happened.  This basically invited the grand jury to "try" the whole case as a petit jury would, so there was no indictment in the Ferguson case, and the riots there followed.  I have not heard whether or not the officer in the Staten Island case was also allowed to testify before the grand jury there, but it is an important principle.  It makes me suspect that the "fix" was in in Ferguson, that the prosecutors there made every effort to ensure that Officer Wilson would NOT be indicted.

Most white people with whom I have spoken are outraged about the riots in Ferguson, Missouri.  They are incredulous that the imaginary monolithic "black community" did not restrain the looters and burners from their misbehavior.  Larry Wilmore, the "Senior Black Correspondent" on Comedy Channel's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" suggested last night that the "black community" no more restrained the Ferguson rioters than the "white community" restrained the white cops who killed unarmed black suspects.  We may be our "brother's keeper," but none of us is our brother's "guarantor."  It is beyond absurd and blatantly racist to suggest that law-abiding blacks had ANY responsibility whatsoever to risk their lives to rein in the looters in Ferguson.

Cops are out there to enforce the law, INCLUDING the Constitution, as they are all sworn to do.  They are obliged to observe AND DEFEND the rights and interests of suspects as much as victims, whether they agree with that or not.  Cops have the authority to use deadly force to defend themselves or others from IMMEDIATE danger, but they are not executioners, and they are not allowed to shoot down nor choke compliant suspects.  The US Supreme Court said so years ago.  If anyone is to be punished, it is up to the courts, not the cops.

Most cops are honorable, decent, professionally behaved people.  I have known many cops; I consider them my friends, and some of them have been my legal clients in past years.  Their jobs are often dangerous.  They keep order which benefits all of us.  But every honest cop is unfairly tainted by the few rogue cops, the few bad cops, yet they are afraid to speak out because they will be punished for doing so.  Unlike the "black community," police commanders have it within their power to unequivocally and unambiguously fix these problems.  Elected officials have it in their power to raise the necessary revenues (taxes) to hire good cops.  That ANYONE does not attend to these duties is abominable.  The burden of going forward is on the police and the politicians, not some imaginary "black community."

I am very angry about these summary executions of suspects by cops.  That is totally unacceptable to me.  It should not be tolerated by anyone who considers him/herself a law-abiding person.  That same "law" does not allow summary executions by cops.

BESBOL BEEN BERY BERY BAD!

The following is an ugly story, repeated in a lot of urban communities:

The "6th Street Marketplace" in Richmond, Virginia was one of those "redevelopment" bright ideas that comes along every so often.  Thalhimer's and Miller & Rhoads department stores straddled 6th Street and were still vital retail centers when the suggestion was made in the 1980's by a redevelopment organization known as "Richmond Renaissance," and with the concurrence of City officials, to close off the whole street and create a sort of "mall," and an elevated "marketplace" (with various storefronts therein) built across Broad Street.  Rouse Development was put in charge of the project.  

Rouse had brought forth the very successful revival of Faneuil Hall in Boston and the "Inner Harbor" development in Baltimore, Maryland.  Richmond City officials at the time had delusions of grandeur in doing the 6th Street project.  City officials had previously commissioned the destruction of a major chunk of predominantly black Jackson Ward north of Broad Street in the 1960's to build the looming, frequently dark and foreboding Coliseum (now inadequately sized) in place of once-thriving retail businesses.  Most of those small businesses in Jackson Ward had been renting their spaces in short-term tenancies, so they got no money for condemnation when they were wiped out in the name of "redevelopment"!  Only the absentee (mostly white) landlords got paid anything.

After the 6th Street Marketplace got built, both Thalhimer's and Miller & Rhoads closed, as did other nearby businesses, and the entire area fell into desolation.  6th Street Marketplace was a mercantile disaster.

Dwight Jones, the current mayor of Richmond, now wants to build HIS "bright idea," another looming, frequently dark and foreboding baseball stadium smack in the middle of a very crowded, parking-starved, mostly retail Shockoe Bottom in one of the oldest parts of Richmond.  This will be for the use by and benefit of the sadly-named "Flying Squirrels" minor-league (AA) ball team now out in "The Diamond" (formerly "Parker Field") fronting on The Boulevard across from the bus station and just down the 4-lane street from interchanges with I-95.  Jones has been promoting this as a sure-fire way to "revive" Shockoe Bottom with a facility SURE to attract and energize more development and economic growth, as now supposedly happens around The Diamond and the bus station--NOT!  That Boulevard neighborhood is currently a cesspool of mostly economic failure.  

Jones has not bothered to explain how "enriching" the Shockoe ballpark can be during "away" games and the 8 or 9 "off-season" months when NOTHING is happening there!  He has nurtured visions of happy families and kids skipping gayly down the sidewalks of Shockoe Bottom, cotton-candy and hot dogs in hand, pennants flapping, eagerly traipsing to the home baseball games!  Jones has not bothered to address the thugs and other assorted miscreants who may well be lurking in the shadows when NOTHING is happening down there, NOR has he addressed how the pre-game and post-game vehicle traffic is supposed to get to and from I-95 through the narrow, already-crowded streets of Shockoe Bottom.  Jones may well facilitate that traffic flow by putting even more street parking in the Bottom off-limits.

The Richmond City Council has, at least, temporarily killed the stadium proposal but, of course, they have done nothing to address the seriously deficient parking situation, and nothing is being discussed.  The mayor is in a snit because his "bright idea" has been derailed (for the time being), so he's not proposing any alternatives!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

EQUAL PROTECTION?

On November 10, 2014, Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor temporarily blocked the issuance of a marriage license to a gay couple, presumably until the Supreme Court can consider the conflicting rulings of the various US Courts of Appeals below.

The ongoing argument about gay marriage has been stupidly misdirected: it is not about gay "rights"; it's about whether or not a state government has the inherent POWER to discriminate against certain classes of adults in denying access to CIVIL (not religious) marriage despite the strong injunction of the 14th Amendment that mandates EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.

Under the US Constitution, personal "rights" are presumed (9th Amendment); governmental "powers" must be proven (10th Amendment).  Why do so many judges and politicians keep getting this fundamental rule backward?  Can't they read the plain English of a document they are all sworn to support?

Up to now, the law on such matters has been undeniably clear: states may not discriminate against "equal protection" absent a showing of a COMPELLING state interest in maintaining such discrimination.  In other words, NO government (Federal, state, local) has a presumptive "blank check" of power derived from the people.  Governments have the continuing burden of proving the existence of a compelling governmental interest in depriving gays of the substantial legal benefits of marriage, and all judges (including Sonia Sotomayor) are obliged to require such a showing BEFORE such discriminatory laws may be validated.  Such laws are (or should be) presumptively INVALID!

Justice Sotomayor seems to have disregarded her sworn obligation to uphold ALL of the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment.  Like so many prevailing idiots, she has shifted the burden of proof off of the government and onto the complainants, forcing them to show why they dare deserve "equal protection"!  What nonsense!  The gutless wonders on the US Supreme Court should have nipped this hyper-religious chickenshit in the bud a long time ago!

The state has an obvious interest in protecting those who cannot consent (children, animals) from being forcibly married to someone, such as 14-year-old girls being forced into multiple marriage with Mormon elders like Joseph Smith!  The state also has an obvious interest in preventing genetic inbreeding by prohibiting close relatives from marrying each other.  What is the compelling NON-RELIGIOUS interest in prohibiting homosexuals from marrying each other?  Last time I checked, the US was not a pathetic Christian theocracy!

Unless and until there is such a showing by a state, it seems to me that unrelated adult human beings are PRESUMABLY entitled to marry whomever they damned well please, any time they wish!  Why is that so difficult for Sotomayor (or any judge) to understand?