PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

Elena Kagan, Solicitor-General of the United States and former Dean of the Harvard University Law School, has been nominated by President Obama to the US Supreme Court to take the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. 

I am uncertain of Kagan's commitment to personal liberty, which is the most important quality a Supreme Court justice should have, in my opinion. Among other matters, she has been credited with fashioning the legislative compromise on "partial-birth abortion" when she worked for the Clinton Administration. My problem with the whole "partial-birth" abortion thing is that it was dishonestly presented as a procedure whereby perfectly healthy babies were being wantonly killed off in late-term pregnancy. "Partial-birth" abortion is not even a recognized medical procedure. 

The correct medical term is "dilation and extraction"--"D&X"--and it is performed whenever a fetus is "anencephalic," which is a fetus that forms without a brain, and the skull is filled with fluid and thus too large to SAFELY pass thru the birth canal. The D&X procedure allows the attending to drain the fluid by puncturing the skull and deliver the poor brainless fetus normally without having to perform a somewhat dangerous Caesarian, which will now be required in the case of an anencephalic fetus in all cases because the D&X is now outlawed. Had perfectly healthy babies been killed off as alleged, I think we would have heard about it from horrified healthcare personnel long before now. I have never heard of such an provable instance.  

I fault the healthcare professions for not speaking out against the political "tsunami" when these matters were pending in the Congress and state legislatures. Most tucked their tails between their legs and scurried for cover, there being a shocking lack of courage and intellectual honesty on their part. 

Much of what has stirred the "booboisee" up on this issue is the Big Lie writ large, once again.

ACCOMMODATING TYRANNY?

In 1964, as a graduating high-school senior, I was opposed to the public-accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist and candidate for the US Senate from Kentucky, has made some recent comments about that which have stirred up a very unpleasant memory. I cringe to admit what my thinking was back then. 

 As a product of very conservative instruction on American government in my senior high-school year, I was focused solely on the consideration of the owners of “public” businesses being controlled by the federal government in deciding whom they would serve in their eating or lodging establishments. I was indifferent to the very real suffering of those who were denied such service solely because of their skin color. I was obsessed with whether or not the “Commerce Clause” legally authorized the federal government to intrude into local commerce. The Commerce Clause in the US Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate “interstate” commerce, and the US Supreme Court confirmed that includes most public accommodations as regulated under the Act. 

Fast-forward about eight or nine years, and my thinking had undergone some considerable revision, probably due to some very timely and welcome legal education. No longer was I willing to make legal excuses for bigots. Ironically, my recent thinking has been hardened even further by the dust-up over the federal mandate to purchase health insurance from private vendors in the recently adopted healthcare law, which I think is unconstitutional because I do not believe it is a proper exercise of the powers set forth in the “Commerce Clause.” 

These seeming contradictions can be best explained (from my point of view) by noting that “commerce” is, by definition, a “public” activity. It seems clear to me that the Congress can require that anyone who CHOOSES to enter the marketplace (as a seller or buyer) must play by the rules of fairness. Given his obvious stale obsessions with the well-settled 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul should have already analyzed this situation to provide him with a firm position on the matter. Instead, he hemmed and hawed and dissembled about the validity of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and he winds up looking like the buffoon he obviously is. 

Watching the crowd on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” the other day, several were excuse-mongering about Paul’s status as a “mere” ophthalmologist who might well have a poor understanding of the law. But Senate candidate Paul willingly chose to take and express an extreme position on the law based upon a thoroughly discredited line of thinking, in which case, as an obviously well-educated, intelligent Board-certified ophthalmologist, he should have been prepared to defend his point of view. That he flip-flopped on the matter demonstrates that he is not ready for prime time. Any Kentucky voter who votes for Paul hereafter is a fool. 

As for the healthcare law, while Congress obviously has the power to demand fairness from those who choose to enter the marketplace, to my memory it has never exercised power to force private individuals to enter the marketplace and have business dealings with other private entities. This will be banged out in the courts, and properly so, but I reject the analogy of auto liability (not collision nor comprehensive) insurance because those who choose to avoid use of the roads are not required to buy such insurance, and those programs are established under state law, not federal law. The 10th Amendment draws a significant distinction between state and federal authority, not that very many voters, journalists, politicians or judges seem to care these days. 

I am deeply sorry for failing to recognize the pain and suffering that my stingy analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act disregarded so long ago. I am grateful I finally saw the light. There is a big legal difference between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the healthcare law.

PLEASE, DADDY!

This is going to be a tough essay to write. I have lived for almost 64 years, and I am just now getting around to putting down on "paper" what has become probably the most terrifying memory that I have, listening to my drunken father threatening to come upstairs and kill my 11-year-old self as I lay in my bed, presumably sleeping, but actually eavesdropping in abject horror on his drunken rantings.

I STILL, to this day, have in my bedside table drawer (the same table I had by my bed as a child) the cast-iron swag-lamp counterweight that I kept handy after the swag-lamp fell apart. I was determined to whack my Old Man in the head as hard as I could if he dared show his drunken mug in my bedroom. I truly believed he would make good on his threats, and I was as prepared as I could be. If I faked being asleep, perhaps I could take him by surprise and beat his fucking brains out before he was able to do something to me. I was as serious as a heart attack. I had resolved to beat his head as many times as I could with the counterweight. I knew I had to kill him first before he killed me.

I spent about 5 years coping with this, from about Age 11 to Age 16, in rural North Carolina. I entered boarding school right after my 16th birthday, so all I had to fear then were my schoolmates! My father's drunken threats were not happening every night, but it was random enough to keep me on my toes all the time.

My father was a pretty nice person if he was not drunk, but if he WAS drunk, then he was like Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll. My mother was worthless; he would beat the shit out of her if she got in his way. I used to surreptitiously watch him do that. I should have killed him anyway, like the mad dog he was! She was a horrible enabler in any event, wishing to keep surface appearances smooth, but that was typical of the times.

As the oldest, with his name and same birth-date, I think I reminded him of himself, and as he was obviously into self-loathing, it manifested as a death wish on me. He was really fucked up. If I look back on it, I think his father probably ignored him unless he was being punished. I think his father was a royal prick. But, those are after-the-fact speculations. I was not given to that much in-depth analysis when I was a child.

My father was a raging "juice-freak," an alcoholic, and I am sorry for that burden he had to carry. He quit drinking about two years before dying right after his 60th birthday in 1977 (about 8 days after Elvis!), but he was an overweight, heavy smoker, and it got him. I am fat now, but I don't smoke, thankfully. I like my beer, but I don't get drunk anymore, though I have done so in the past. I don't want to walk in his shoes.

As for forgiveness, I readily accept the necessity of doing that to free myself from the grip of this terror that still rages in my memory, but I am not there yet. Some years thereafter he tried to assault me while drunk, and I beat his ass horribly. I beat him until he stayed away from me. I was about 22 years old at the time. He never threatened or fucked with me thereafter. Served him right.

I won't forgive him. Not yet. Maybe never. If you think I should well, fuck you, too!

MY LOVELY AFTERNOON

(From personal experience, (c) April 29, 2010, all rights reserved.)

I was cutting grass one beautiful, cool April afternoon down in a field behind my garage, mowing the path that runs through that field to my barn. There is a "wet spot" there that is usually soft and muddy, and I tried to "power" through it but got stuck about 6:00 PM. My mower, a huge, heavy zero-turn-radius Diesel mower with a 72" cutting deck, has turf tires and gets stuck very easily. I was royally pissed off.

Sulking and feeling sorry for myself, I trudged all the way up to the house and lay down in my recliner to drink a beer and nurture a righteous pity party, then I suddenly realized I could not just leave the mower where it was, BECAUSE the left rear tire was leaking and consistently going flat, and I was going to have one hell of a mess if I left it there overnight, thereby allowing the tire to go flat in the mudhole, as it most probably would do. I HAD to get it unstuck before dark and bring it up to my workshop where my air compressor reposes. That way, I could pump up the tire AGAIN the next day, as I must about every 2 days or so. I would not be able to get it repaired until the following Monday, having to jack up the mower, chock the wheels and remove the rear wheel over the weekend, then take it to the tire shop about 40 miles away, PROVIDED I got the yard mowed first, which normally takes about 3-1/2 hours.

NOTHING IS SIMPLE.

That very morning I had dropped off my truck (with towing chain in the toolbox) at a dealership to be worked on, so I did not have the towing chain. So, cursing and muttering at the unfairness of it all, I reluctantly went back outside, climbed up on my tractor and drove it down into the field with a web-nylon strap and a spare hitch ball stuck in the drag bar on the tractor. I did not even have a big nut to hold the hitch ball on the drag bar. There was nowhere else on the tractor on which to hook the web-strap!

After backing the tractor up to the mower, I got down, looped the strap around the front axle and the other end looped onto the hitch ball on the drag bar, then I heaved my body back up onto the tractor and dragged the mower sort of sideways out of the mudhole. I backed up the tractor slightly to relieve the tension on the strap, got down off the tractor again, locked the brake on the mower and removed the nylon strap from the hitch-ball, which strap was now CONVENIENTLY pinched in a vertical caster shaft on the front axle! (The front mower wheels are like big casters.) Eventually freeing the strap, I then climbed back onto the tractor, moved it about 50 ft. away, climbed down, got on the mower, started it and finished mowing the grass in the immediate vicinity. (I kept the tractor handy in case I got the mower stuck again.) I then got off the FUCKING mower, climbed back onto the tractor and drove it up into the yard and parked it, where it still sits. Then I walked back down to the mower, finished cutting the area, and then drove it up to the shop and parked it by the compressor. WHEW!

It was getting cold and dark by then (I had found ice in the truck bed that morning), so I got all that drudgery done in the nick of time. I really had not wanted to go back out there and do all that after going into the house the first time, but I knew it would be a royal mess the next day if I did not. I had argued with myself internally for about 30 minutes! The self-pity was almost crippling! I was truly surprised at myself for actually going back out there and getting it done, considering how much I had NOT wanted to do it!

I had been hoping it would fix itself, but unfortunately, those things rarely happen. I still had most of the yard left to mow, including taking a hard run at the mint patch which is always soft and muddy. I have gotten stuck therein several times. Unfortunately, when one hits a mudhole, the momentum of that mower dies like a miner in a Massey coal mine. It is like smacking a brick wall!

If one must purchase a riding lawn mower, do NOT trust turf tires. They are worthless. They were obviously designed by someone who has NEVER had to cut his own grass. Get the great big knobby tractor-style tires instead.

MY ALTRUISM IS BIGGER THAN YOUR ALTRUISM

(c) 4/28/10
All rights reserved.

Altruism. It is a wonderful quality we hope to find in others that is usually so sorely lacking in ourselves, despite the contrary self-images we carefully nurture. It is frequently manifested in our disgust at professional athlete and entertainer compensation, union-worker benefits and business behaviors. Altruism is the Holy Grail of self-denial. We expect--NO! We DEMAND that the aforementioned groups forego their filthy lucre so that the imaginary society we envision will be better off. That is about as realistic as the likelihood we will refuse an offered raise at the workplace.

The most frequent complaint heard these days is about the predatory behavior in the marketplace of businesses gobbling profits and paying out huge salaries and bonuses. The public outrage against such notables as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and others is stunning. The perennial complaint against union workers is also frequently aired, with their presumed featherbedding, shoddy workmanship and excessive retirement and healthcare benefits which are ruining otherwise-profitable businesses and contributing to the inflation that is surely eating us alive.

What nonsense!

FIRST of all, it is patently absurd to demand of others a self-denial that we would never employ for ourselves. It is ludicrous to expect athletes, entertainers, union workers and businesses to piously refuse the money and benefits spread before them. I know of no one who would be so stupid as to do such a thing.

The answer is GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Businesses are SUPPOSED to be profit-seeking. That is their sole reason for existence. Any business that operates otherwise is doomed to fail. Therefore, the only remedy for any overreaching is to REGULATE the marketplace in which those businesses operate. That is why antitrust laws were enacted. That is why Glass-Steagall (revoked in the late 1990's with the connivance of Pres. Bill Clinton) was originally adopted. An unregulated marketplace is NOT going to address the problems of overreaching if all players are allowed to overreach. It is patently stupid to think otherwise.

As for union benefits, it is well to remember that unions did not gain a thing not agreed to by management. If union benefits are excessive, then it is up to management to refuse. The threat of a strike does not provide an excuse to abandon shrewd negotiations, as self-pitying management types would have us believe. It reminds me of the slogan of a used-car dealer that used to operate in Richmond, Virginia: "I would GIVE 'em away, but my wife won't let me!" Or, perhaps more apt, the late comedian Flip Wilson's Geraldine Defense: "The DEVIL made me do it!"

We must abandon the expectation that others should manifest altruism "for the good of society" and start regulating excessive conduct. Corporate management must re-learn the meaning of "no." Businesses should be wrest from the control of MBA's and IT-types who are inflicted with tunnel vision, so that the big picture of how businesses truly operate can again become the dominant philosophy.

LEES vs. JACKSONS

{The following was published by the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch on April 16, 2010 in response to an earlier letter from L. H. Ginn, III criticizing the decision of his alma mater, St. Christopher's School of Richmond, Virginia, to change the names of the two school debating societies from "Lees" and "Jacksons" to "Reds" and "Grays," relating to the school's colors.) 

L. H. Ginn, III, of the St. Christopher's School Class of 1951, expressed his indignation on April 7 that the School had dropped the names of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson for its Literary Societies, changing them to the "Reds" and "Grays," of which I approve. There is simply no point any longer in attempting to commemorate loser Confederate generals these days and times. It is past time to "get over it." 

 Now, as one who thinks the Arthur Ashe statue is out of place on Monument Avenue (placed there as a cheap sop to "racial balance" and an offense to the memory of Arthur Ashe), I must also acknowledge that the decisions of Lee and Jackson to resign their US Army officer commissions are understandable, as neither wanted to take up arms against their native state, Virginia. BUT--their actions did not stop with mere resignation. 

Both men, as US Army officers and graduates of West Point, apparently had sworn oaths numerous times to oppose all enemies of the United States, "foreign and domestic," but they each affirmatively chose to violate the last part of that oath by foolishly becoming Confederate combat generals.  I simply do not understand how an honorable person can do such a thing, and I have not found in the writings of either an explanation of this seeming contradiction. Their respective questionable Civil-War records are irrelevant to this point, as are the "Vietnam [undeclared] War" and the "Gulf [undeclared] War" and so forth. Much ado about nothing. 

I am well aware of the various local controversies about the Flood Wall images and Monument Avenue, but none of that should allow any assumption that the opinions of Mr. Ginn are shared by all graduates of St. Christopher's School. 

 **************************** 

The writer is a 1964 graduate of St. Christopher's School in Richmond and a 1973 graduate of the School of Law at Washington & Lee University.

HIDE THE MONEY

© 2/28/10
All rights reserved.

[This was originally submitted to the Goochland (County, Va.) Gazette, which chose to ignore it.]

FOUR MILLION DOLLARS!

That's right: almost $4 Million is what was NOT collected in 2008 in Goochland County land taxes because of the Land-Use Tax deferral program that has been in place for about 30 years. The "nick" for 2009 is probably a bit higher.

BUT--those monies are not being forfeited into thin air by the County. The County gets its "pound of flesh" from other taxpayers: homeowners and business owners, for example. Because, what is NOT collected from one place MUST be collected from some other place, regardless of what the County is spending, because the County cannot print its own money. There is no "free lunch" in Goochland County.

Here are some interesting recent facts about the land-use tax "deferrals" in Goochland County:

The aggregate "deferred" land values are over $749 Million.
Almost $4 Million were the tax revenues not collected on those deferrals at 53¢/$100 assessed value.
The total "look-back" time for deferred recapture is limited to 5 prior years.

Any recapture of deferred tax revenues for lands discounted as "use valuation" assessments, is LIMITED to the amount of "deferred" tax revenues plus 10% simple (not compounded) interest per year, ONLY for the 5 prior years. Any deferral beyond 5 years is permanently lost.

As of December 31, 2009, there were at least 1977 parcels of varying sizes qualified for land-use tax deferrals. By those, there were 34,942 acres in the “Agricultural” deferral system, assessed at the lesser value of $220/acre, 67,677 acres in the "Forest" deferral system, assessed at the lesser value of $613/acre, and 67 acres in the "Horticultural" (e.g., vinyard) deferral system assessed at the lesser value of $400/acre. "Agricultural" and "Horticultural" uses must aggregate 5 acres minimum per application, and "Forest" use must aggregate 20 acres minimum. A single application can incorporate multiple adjacent otherwise-qualifying parcels owned by the same applicant.

Medians are much more statistically valid than "averages," and they are defined as the "midpoint" (half above and half below). The MEDIAN "Agricultural" acreage approved per application is 12.4 acres, the MEDIAN "Agricultural" value deferred was $140,380, and the MEDIAN deferred "Agricultural" tax revenues forgiven were $744. The MEDIAN "Forest" acreage per application is 20.74 acres, the MEDIAN "Forest" value deferred was $120,837, and the MEDIAN deferred "Agricultural" tax revenues forgiven were $640. The single "Horticultural" acreage approved in 2009 was 57 acres (added to 10 acres approved earlier), and its deferred value was $206,776, yielding deferred tax revenues forgiven of $1,096.

In all, there are currently in Goochland County 969 new and renewed deferral "accounts" each valued at or below $200,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $101,934,200. There are 338 accounts each valued between $200,001 and $300,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $82,742,300. There are 185 accounts each valued between $300,001 and $400,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $63,822,100. There are 103 accounts each valued between $400,001 and $500,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $46,392,100; and there are only 379 accounts each valued over $500,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $454,444,700. The midpoint of the total deferred values is $374,667,700, which means that more than half of the aggregate deferred valuation is the upper 82% of the accounts exceeding the $500,000 valuation each. The midpoint of the total number of separate accounts is 987, which includes all the accounts of the lowest-valued parcels (under $200,000) plus just 18 more accounts in the next-higher category of $201,000 to $300,000. This seems to establish that the primary tax-deferral benefit under the current program disproportionately favors the higher-valued accounts.

All of us other Goochland County taxpayers presumably paid the 53¢/$100 tax rate based upon the full fair-market assessed values of their properties, including those whose lands are used for conservation but not otherwise qualifying as "Agricultural," "Horticultural" or "Forest."

(FULL DISCLOSURE: this writer owns approximately 45 acres currently in conservation use and, therefore, not qualifying for any land-tax subsidies.)

Virginia law limits localities primarily to levying or collecting land taxes, personal-property taxes, business licenses and sales taxes. A local income tax would arguably make more sense these days instead of the land tax, but it is not allowed under the "Dillon Rule" and state law. The total land tax ($24.9 Million in FY 2009-10) accounts for almost 40% of Goochland County's total budget ($62.5 Million for FY 2009-10), approximately half of which is allocated to education, the real estate tax thus amounting to almost 80% of education expenses. To the extent that some large landowners are excused from paying land taxes on full valuations, it MUST be made up by nonqualifying taxpayers (such as homeowners, business owners and conservationists) whose land taxes are assessed on full values.

The primary arguments heard by this writer in defense of the land-use tax deferrals are that "corn" and "cows" and "trees" don't send children to the public schools, that the reduced tax burden facilitates otherwise unprofitable farming, and that the potential recapture of the deferrals inhibits development of desirable open spaces arguably enjoyed by all.

Although some modest-income folks will surely be harshly squeezed by a moratorium on or repeal of the land-use-tax deferrals, and the few legitimate farmers will be forced to pay taxes on full land values thereby, this writer is mostly unimpressed by those arguments. Most developers will not be inhibited from paying the 5-year recapture costs as they are a "drop in the bucket" compared to development costs overall. They are simply not an effective deterrent to development if a parcel be otherwise desirable. Developers will seek to develop whatever acreage suits their purposes and those recapture costs are passed through to the lot purchasers.

This writer also believes that relatively little of the deferred acreage in Goochland is being operated at a profit anyway. Instead, most Goochland and central Virginia farms seem to be "hobby farms," defined here as farms and lands INTENTIONALLY operated at a loss to offset taxable income from other sources, such as dividends and capital gains. The US Internal Revenue Code requires farms to show a profit only any 2 out of every 7 years. According to Va. Employment Commission statistics, only 81 out of almost 11,000 workers in Goochland County are employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting combined. Though there are a lot of tax-subsidized Goochland acres in farming or woodlands, that is a miniscule portion of the total Goochland County workforce. Can it, therefore, be said that Goochland is REALLY an "agricultural" community?

While true that "corn," "cows" and "trees" do not, per se, burden the public schools, neither do business properties send kids to the public schools, yet they pay taxes on the full fair-market value of those properties. The imposition of a relatively higher tax burden on homeowners and business owners (many of whom do not have kids in the schools) nevertheless amounts to an unseemly "use fee" imposed on such taxpayers for their non-use of the public schools. A tax break or reduction for some is ALWAYS an additional tax burden for others.

No taxpayer should fail to take advantage of any tax break or reduction legally allowed; however, given the very difficult budgetary choices now being faced by Goochland County departments and officials (like police, fire and rescue services, currently cut to the bone), the question is begged as to whether it makes good economic sense AT THIS TIME to allow such arbitrary tax subsidies to relatively few, mostly well-off landowners in this current atmosphere of severe budget belt-tightening.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: this writer serves, without compensation, an organization that receives the benefit of County tax revenues for services rendered.)

The Board of Supervisors should immediately move to recapture the $4 Million+ "deferral" in the upcoming budget by revoking or suspending the land-use-tax deferrals and instead use those revenues to fully fund needed County services in FY 2010-11. Any taxpayer not eligible for the substantial subsidies of land-use-tax deferrals should demand it. Any Supervisor currently taking advantage of the land-use-tax deferrals should abstain from debating or voting thereon due to an obvious conflict of interest.

SOURCES: The Goochland Co. Commissioner of Revenue, the Va. Dept. of Taxation, the Goochland County Website, the Weldon Cooper Center Website, and the Va. Employment Commission Website.

The writer, a resident of Goochland County, Virginia since 1998, has been in the general practice of law for over 36 years and was a brief, skeptical member of the original land-use tax deferral "committee" in Orange County, Virginia many years ago. He is also a diplomate of the Va. Tech Planning Commission Certification Program and also the Va. Tech Board of Zoning Appeals Certification Program.

IMPOLITELY INCORRECT

Lately there has been a lot of news about a favored saying, "I am not a racist, but...." Whenever the "but" follows such a declaration, one may fairly conclude that rock-solid evidence of obvious racism is about to be delivered. I am always stunned by the utter cluelessness of such declarants. 

Most of us are racists. I certainly am. So are many, if not most black people. I am always bemused by those white people who respond to accusations of their own racism with a declaration that black people are racists, too, as if the two "wrongs" just might make a "right" in such a case. One surely must offset the other in such addled minds. 

Now, the thing about racism is that it is not always intentional or malicious. Many of us are perhaps "accidental" racists. We don't intend to be racists nor malicious, but our backgrounds and personal history just make it so. Just as importantly, merely because one does not burn crosses in other people's yards nor have ancestors who owned slaves, that person is not absolved from the curse of racism. Racism is pervasive and subtle. It can corrupt our thinking without us realizing it. 

I find that I have to confront my own racism almost every day, and I must admit its existence if I have any hope of overcoming its pervasive effects. Denial is not the river in Egypt. Like people in prison who deny their guilt, or people in asylums who deny their insanity, we must also so regard our denials of racism. We cannot begin to fix the problem if we deny its existence. 

For example, one of the most insidious instances of racism on my part is the effort that I consciously make to avoid referencing someone's racial characteristics if it is not relevant to whatever we may be discussing. I am conscious of avoiding racial references or description specifically for black people, as opposed to just ignoring it. The FACT that I actually think about doing that is racist, in and of itself. It may not be harmful nor malicious, but it is racist. I am also leery of groups of young black males on sidewalks at night. That may be wise self-preservation, but it is also racist. 

I once told a race relations group with which I was meeting that I was a "recovering bigot." That produced some amusement among those who heard it, but it is indicative of what I believe I must do every day, which is to confront my own presumptions and stereotyping and try to avoid them. One might even observe that effort is also racist. But, it is what I have to do. 

Another clarifying example of "innocent" racism involved one of the founders of the above-mentioned race relations group. Now dead, he was a retired government economist, very intelligent, soundly liberal and committed as no one else I ever knew to "normalizing" relations between blacks and whites. He was also rather elderly, and as far as he was concerned, most people being much younger might well qualify as mere "boys" and "girls" to him. 

Well, one day he was discussing some sort of earlier conversation he'd had with an adult black female, to whom he referred as "girl." He was innocently considering only the age differential. A black woman co-founder of the group, also now dead, attempted to gently correct his untoward use of "girl" with reference to the adult black woman. She readily understood his naive lack of malice. Again, "Bill" referred to her as a "girl," witlessly failing to "get" the point that so many blacks understandably resent being addressed as "girl" or "boy." After a second unsuccessful attempt at correction, she and I just looked at each other and laughed out loud! It was very funny! Thankfully, I got the point, even if poor "Bill" never did. 

Some would resent any objection to "Bill's" malapropism, sneeringly labeling such objection as "political correctness." Perhaps so, but in my view, it was simply to bring about some insight for "Bill" and to interdict possible future impolite utterance. It costs nothing to be kind and considerate, and the accusation of "political correctness" is often used to justify willful racism. Some jerks go out of their way to be offensive, then declare they are merely unwilling to be "politically correct." 

I was born and reared in the rural South, and I am definitely a product of my origins. I attended all-white schools in the South until my junior year in college. I don't feel any particular guilt or shame for any of that, but I recognize how those limitations may have deprived me of valuable experiences. I try to keep both my eyes and my mind open. Some days ARE better than others. 

I am also unwilling to cut any minority person an undue amount of "slack" merely because of his or her minority status. To do so would also be racist. A black person or a Hispanic person can be a jerk, too. (Fortunately, I never suffer from such shortcomings!) To the extent any of us can just ignore the racial characteristics of others, regardless of whatever group they are in, the better off each of us is. I believe we should be free to make whatever judgments and conclusions we might so long as we can do so without reference to racial or ethnic identity. 

Each of us, regardless of origin, can liberate himself or herself from the worst effects of racism if we try every day. We are likely never really "cured," but that is only in fairy tales anyway. Just doing better is worthy of our efforts.

GOODBYE, OBAMA?

(The following is a compilation of 5 e-mails sent in November of 2009 expressing my severe reservations about Pres. Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress, and my intention to step away from supporting them further. It is now January of 2010, and my views have become more hardened, unfortunately.)

I hesitate to levy any criticism of Barack Obama these days because I do not want to get lumped in with the know-nothing knuckle-draggers who are complaining about Obama's attempts to clean up the many horrible messes left behind by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and the gang of near-criminal thugs they led for 8 years. After only 9 months on the job, Obama does not deserve those kind of criticisms.

Many Obama supporters will also find fault with my criticisms of Obama because they will assert that I am impatient and unfairly unwilling to give Obama the time he needs to address all the many faults I have found. I would agree with those supporters, but the things that upset me (and probably don't bother the "tea-baggers," "birthers" and "deathers") are those matters which should have mostly been addressed in the very first days and are definitely not mutually exclusive from getting proper health-insurance reform adopted. I fear that Mr. Obama and I have fundamental philosophical differences that apparently amount to differences with the general direction of the Democratic Party as well.

After only 9 months of his presidency (now about a year), I have concluded that I will not likely vote for Obama in 2012, and I may well vigorously campaign against him, EVEN IF it means that a Republican will be elected. Of course, the passage of time could work to change my mind, but that is not likely if Mr. Obama's errors and omissions, policies and procedures do not also radically change. My fellow progressives and civil libertarians may well follow my lead. We ought not to be taken for granted by so-called "mainstream" Democrats, and we ought not to chow down on the "half-loaf" usually served up our way. Not anymore. To quote Damon Wayans: "Homey don' play dat [no mo']."

Let me be specific:

Since being elected President, Barack Obama has allowed, encouraged or supported the following abominable developments:

1. Renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act;
2. Continuation of the undeclared and open-ended pseudo-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (stupidly sending more volunteer service personnel to the latter);
3. Continuation of unconstitutional, taxpayer-funded "faith-based" programs;
4. Continuation of Blackwater/Xe Corp.-security for the State Dept. in Iraq and Afghanistan;
5. Continuing to post "occupying" troops in Germany and Japan;
6. Continuing to allow NASA to squander billions of taxpayer dollars researching the unattainable manned mission to Mars;
7. Refusing to investigate allegations of criminal conduct within the Bush Admin.
8. Allowing the unwarranted 2001 Bush tax SUBSIDIES of wealthy folks to continue;
9. Continuation of some semblance of the thoroughly discredited "War On Drugs";
10. Failing to provide unambiguous and focused leadership on health-insurance reform;
11. Overweening effort at "bipartisan" development of health insurance reform in the face of obvious bad faith of Republicans;
12. Acquiescence in compulsion of taxpayers to purchase health insurance from private vendors under penalty of criminal prosecution for tax evasion--utter disregard and mockery of constitutional questions;
13. Acquiescence in imposition of "revenue neutrality" on health ins. reform;
14. Failure to provide clear and firm leadership on healthcare changes, thus allowing both Houses of Congress to approve unconstitutional quagmires, in part due to the Conventional Wisdom of Rahm Emanuel;
15. Continued unconstitutional detention of criminal suspects at Guantanamo and Baghram AFB without DUE PROCESS: access to counsel, precise criminal charge, reasonable bond and speedy trial. Art. II of the Constitution does not allow what has been going on--not for Bush, not for Obama.
15. Promotion of Conventional Wisdom of trickle-down "free-market capitalism" in unconditionally shoveling out trillions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street while ignoring 10%-plus US unemployment, depressed consumer spending and the resultant illiquidity of small businesses;
16. Failure to establish aggressive, effective regulation of banking and business activities, especially in the area of antitrust enforcement; and
17. Maintenance of bean-counter economic mentality through continued association with Goldman Sachs alumnus Robert Rubin and his seemingly corrupted acolytes, Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner.

This is as comprehensive a list of my gripes as I can now fashion, but it may not be exhaustive. Obama is just too solicitous of the bad-faith Republicans in our midst, and he is not going to be well-served by such an approach, in my opinion. Bill Maher asked a few weeks ago, "What is it about the White House that turns [its occupants] into assholes?" Why is Obama breaking my heart like Bill Clinton did? I have overstayed my welcome in "Heartbreak Hotel"!

As I said earlier, I realize that MY list of concerns is not generally shared by the raving-idiot White Trash questioning Obama's birth certificate and drawing invidious, absurdly illogical comparisons to Hitler and Stalin, drawing Hitler" moustaches on his photos. I have been a general-practice lawyer for over 36 years, and I know something about what concerns me, while most of the others are just ignorant twits foaming at the mouth about what they DON'T know.

I daresay the Republicans have done a good job of controlling the debate and protecting their "brand" of reduced taxation (and a collapsed domestic federal state), while the Democrats desperately grope in vain for a brand to call their own. For many years I toiled as a county Democratic chair and supporter. I worked the polls on election days, often in the rain. I organized and hosted many fundraising events, many at my own expense. I donated a lot of money (for me) to candidates, often in vain. I shared joy in electoral successes and took most of the blame for local failures. I was a proud Democrat when it was VERY unpopular to be one. But, I have no regrets or shame.

Nevertheless, the state and federal leaders of the Democratic Party chose to mostly ignore my pleas to adopt the "brand" of aggressively promoting personal liberty and constitutional restraint. Silly me! I thought those objectives were fairly consistent with what I believed the Democratic Party mostly stood for, though at one time the Republican Party (despite Richard Nixon) had mostly stood for those principles, at least until Ronald Reagan predictably caved in to the "Religious Wrong." I came to realize that the important thing to most Democrats was not a philosophical consistency (like the Republicans) but merely winning elections--beating Republicans, then doing as we pleased thereafter.

I came to realize that I no longer belonged in the Democratic Party, so I left in 1995 to avoid supporting Bill Clinton for re-election. Nevertheless, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and I am proud that America elected him. John McCain and Sarah Palin were losers in such a profound sense, and we are, despite my complaints, better off without them. I daresay John McCain would have been even more disdainful of constitutional restraint than is Barack Obama. His predictable, slutty sellout to the "Religious Wrong" last year after his brave (and costly) exhibition of independence in 2000 was disheartening. No "maverick" there! Sadly, not anymore. I doubt Sarah Palin even knows what the Constitution is! She's been too busy pimping her pathetic, ghost-written book to bother to read it.

But, that was last year. In politics, the past really does not count. Despite her book-selling successes, Sarah Palin is a political nobody, and that will be demonstrated in due course. Barack Obama is now President, and the ongoing policies are his, despite the obvious messes inherited from Bush-Cheney. They are now gone, too. Enough of excuses, already. Obama has to show his own stuff now, and I believe he is failing the test.

Contrary to most Republicans who seek the ruination of the Obama Administration and the destruction of the civil side of the federal government, as well as the further enrichment of rich folks and the abolition of reasonable, lawful restraints on monopoly, I want to see the Obama Administration succeed. I want to see policies promoted that restore the Rule of Law and prioritize the guarantees of personal liberty over the exercise of government power, both objectives being clearly established within the text of the US Constitution. I honestly believe that "success" for the Obama Administration lies in trusting the Constitution, which has been abandoned by most Republicans. Leaders in both parties now cherry-pick the thing horribly. Enough, already! None of us gets to disregard what we don't like therein.

Harry Truman famously said that if you run a pretend-Republican against a real Republican, the people will vote for the real Republican every time! It's time for Obama to lead his fellow Democrats in order to find their spine and their voice, to support true and meaningful government reform and restraint, and to promote individual liberty.

FORGET, HELL YEAH!

Lately we have been treated to various threats and statements from several sources, many from Texas and other parts south, who are again enamored of the idea of seceding from the United States. The presidency of Barack Obama seems to be fueling some of this nonsense. There was also a group of white, land- and slave-owning males back in the mid-1800’s in the American South who thought secession from the United States was a good idea. The latter-day secessionist saints also seem to be mostly white, mostly male and fairly encumbered with property, if not wealth. Unfortunately for some of them, slave-owning is now illegal.

The shared circumstance in both instances seems to be much dissatisfaction with the Fearless Leaders of the federal government in Washington. Many in the Planter Class back in the mid-1800’s were ready to abandon their presumed allegiance to the United States if Abraham Lincoln became President. Many today are rather annoyed at Barack Obama, the first “black” President in the “White” House. Some recent hotheads have associated both the Swastika and the Hammer & Sickle with images of Obama sporting a Hitler-like “toothbrush” mustache. But, we have their assurances they are not racist. Whatever. Maybe they are just dingleberries.

As a Vietnam-Era draft-dodger and life-long Southerner, gratefully if not proudly descended from a long line of non-combatant Southerners who cleverly managed to avoid wartime dangers I have, nevertheless, come to some conclusions about secession and what is generally known hereabouts as the “War of Northern Aggression.” I did have a couple of ancestors who participated in that conflict on behalf of the Confederacy, and the Confederacy is generally thought of as the entity which the Southern states created and joined after “they” seceded from the Union. But, it is well to remember that it was not the people generally who voted to secede from the Union; it was merely the antebellum Southern legislatures that declared secession, and those bodies were selected by, and representative of white, male landowners EXCLUSIVELY! "Nigras," women and redneck sharecroppers need not apply.

I marvel at the way in which the “neo-Confederates" out there today swagger around, clutching their virtual cod-pieces and declaring in manly voices what they are gonna do if whatever does not happen! I think that most of them, though, have no more of a clue of what real deprivation and loss is about (or even war) than did the land- and slave-owning Planter Class of the mid-1800’s, standing around "harrumphing" in their drawing rooms, swilling French brandy and bragging about what THEY were gonna do when "Marse Robert" kicked some Yankee ass. Meanwhile, the poor redneck schmucks who did the actual fighting and dying in the Confederate Army were marching around in wool uniforms in summer and barefoot in winter, enjoying the very real deprivation produced for them by the Noble Cause. It is probably a good thing for the continuation of Confederate myth that THEY never had a vote!

Now, let’s consider the recent ravings of those who, perhaps like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, are thinking about having that state secede from the United States. We have been treated to much ado about the brief Texas history as an independent republic. Do modern-day Texas proto-secessionists really think they will get to retain all those Texas-based federal assets (like Ft. Hood & the Houston Space Center) for free? Just imagine the size of the tax load on Texans to pay for Ft. Hood! It is HUGE! They should have to pay for that stupid border fence, too, and all the post offices! Cash on the (oil) barrel-head! NOW!

What about Texas exports to the remaining US? They just might face heavy tariffs, That way, we in the US can tax their britches off and they'd have no representation in Congress whatsoever! Doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me. What if their oil just pooled around their proud Texas bodies like the waist-level water in Dilbert's Elbonia if they don't sell it to us? We'd also be rid of John Cornyn in the Senate, and no chance of Tom deLay coming back to the House, either. Elderly Texans might also be a bit dismayed to be summarily cut off from Social Security and Medicare. (SS and Medicare just might become solvent again!) So, instead, they can all pilgrimage out to the Alamo to sing "The Yellow Rose of Texas" in unison! Of course, they could always declare war on the US, then immediately surrender and get bailed out, like the Grand Duchy of Fenwick!

I think the "War of Northern Aggression" was about the stupidest thing the Southern legislatures ever foisted on the unrepresented masses. In the end, the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis & Robt. E. Lee were a cruel joke. Some less worshipful historians regard Lee as a liar, a traitor, and a mediocre commander who arrogantly and witlessly gave in to his unbridled ego, manifest in the fiascoes of Gettysburg & Antietam. After all the blood, sweat & tears shed by others, Lee got to slink off to Lexington to become president of Washington College (later Washington & Lee University), from which I graduated with a law degree back in the early 1970’s.

Robert E. Lee was a graduate of West Point and a US Army officer for a long time prior to the Civil War. A lot of my fellow Southerners and W&L Alumni will be very angry for my asking, but is not Lee a traitor for violating his solemn oath as a US military officer to support and defend the US against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC? Is not Lee very lucky he avoided prison and got to move to Lexington instead? Apparently, Lee never explained his rationale for taking up arms against the nation he was sworn to defend. I asked a book-writing historian about that once. The revisionist historical hagiography we have been subjected to over the years has effectively protected the legend of Robert E. Lee as a principled gentleman warrior who was merely out-gunned.

I am not anti-Lee; I think he was a very interesting person. But I am not a worshipful Southerner, either. If Lee is as great as most Southerners think, then he ought to be able to withstand some objective examination. For a change.

Secession may seem like a good idea if, as I frequently am, one is very annoyed with a government that often seems unresponsive to one’s concerns. But it is a really stupid idea, and it is an idea best not visited out loud lest one be mistaken for an idiot.