Reparations

The first thing that may come to mind when you hear the word “reparations,” “is this an idea whose time has come?”  “No” gets you back to your can of beer and your TV remote, while “Yes” is a much heavier lift.

The next thing that will likely pop into your mind is the obvious question, “should we pay reparations? Yes or No?”  Once again, a “No” is an easy way to dodge the hazards of this question.

This post is NOT about whether we should pay reparations; this post is about the difficulties involved in answering Yes to the question.  Be clear, the fact that a Yes demands thoughtful time and energy is NOT an argument against Reparations.

#2A

This essay concerns the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not mass shootings and not gun violence (for which, please see 2016  and 2015).

Here is the Second Amendment, in all her 27 words of naked splendor:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the whole thing.

Anti-War

Kurt Vonnegut swore to the widow of his best war-time buddy that his Dresden novel (Slaughterhouse-Five) would be an anti-war book before she welcomed him into her home.

Vonnegut enlisted into the U.S. Army in early 1943, at the height of our involvement in World War II.  Whether he enlisted rather than waiting to be drafted is not clear.  As a 4th generation German American (he makes this absolutely clear on the title page of Slaughterhouse-Five), he may very well have been conflicted fighting Germany.  Whether he could have opted for the Asian theater of war is also not clear.

He published his anti-war novel, Slaughterhouse-Five, in 1969, 24 years after the central event (the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden) of the book.  It is not unusual for writers to take years (or decades) before they can write about traumatic events in their own lives (and to fictionalize it, too).

But what IS unclear above all else is: the reader is left not really understanding what the phrase “anti-war” means to the guy writing an anti-war novel.

Surely, you are kidding; it is self-evident what “anti-war” means.  For example, the United States of America is an anti-war nation, our people are “anti-war,” Americans hate war.

A Wealth Tax

Imagine: you are in financial hot water; your credit card debt is out of control.  “I need to speak with a Financial Planner.”  If he is a Republican, his advice will be, “Buy less stuff.”  If she is a Democrat, her advice will be, “Don't hesitate to buy what you really need.”  Good advice, both.  And maybe two sides of the same coin.

In national politics, Democrats love buying things, like COVID-19 Relief; Republicans don’t like to pay for it (through taxation).  The result: Budget Deficits that keep climbing year after year, a National Debt that keeps climbing year after year.

Reflections on COVID-19

The following words were written by several of my colleagues. Of course, I endorse what they say (I wouldn't publish them on my blog otherwise). 

COVID Relief Bills

I am a senior and I live on Social Security Retirement Income.  I received a COVID Relief check for $1200 in March of 2020.  I received a COVID Relief check for $600 in the first week of 2021.  And I look forward to receiving a further Relief check for $2000 moving forward, as it seems that Democrats and Republicans are happy to buy our future votes; they are not paying for it. 

But, … 

Unfit

Disclaimer: I was raised in the NYC area around the time that Donald Trump was growing up in Queens and later promoting himself in Manhattan.  No one (NO ONE!) had more press coverage than he did.  Mostly what club he partied at that evening, and who he left the party with.  I am NOT "prejudiced" against Donald Trump, but I am "biased" against him, a HUGE difference.  Why am I biased against him?  Read on for a taste of why.

The Value of Civic Literacy

In May and June of 1959, the Supreme Court heard and decided Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections. Louise Lassiter, a Black citizen of North Carolina, argued that the law that denied her the right to vote was unconstitutional.  That law required that the prospective voter "be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of North Carolina in the English language.”  The Court that heard her case was the Warren Court, arguably the most liberal Supreme Court in American history.  This Court had ruled 9-0, just a few years before, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, in favor of Brown.  One might have expected Lassiter to prevail.  But the Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional and not discriminatory, because it tested everyone regardless of race (laws that did discriminate, and were thereby unconstitutional, had grandfather clauses that exempted those <whites> who already had a voting history).  Justice William O. Douglas, arguably the most liberal justice ever to serve on the Court, wrote the majority opinion.  That majority was 9-0.  Congress subsequently prohibited literacy tests as part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Such civic literacy laws were constitutional – but they were rendered illegal by Congress.

All Riots are Caused by Police

Quite a title, huh?  Provocative, yes?  Hear me out, let me make my case. 

This piece was inspired by the movie The Trial of the Chicago 7.  It is a dramatization (partly fictional) of a real event, the trial of a bunch of "radicals" who came to Chicago to make a statement against the Vietnam War, and against the Democratic nominee for president Hubert Humphrey, who had not distanced himself from President Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic president who had aggressively expanded America’s participation in the war.   The year was 1968.

The Chicago 7 (Chicago 8 at the beginning) were charged with a “federal crime to use interstate or foreign commerce routes or facilities (such as by crossing state lines or through mail, use of the Internet, or phone calls) to incite a riot, organize, promote or participate in a riot or to extend activities of a riot" (Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1968).  Five were found guilty of this crime (by a jury), mostly because of the judge's partiality.  All of the convictions were reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the basis that the judge was biased in his refusal to permit defense attorneys to screen prospective jurors for cultural and racial bias, and the FBI surveillance of the defense lawyers' offices.  But it took 33 months to do so.

Drugs

The inspiration for this piece was an idealistic young man who was collecting donations for an organization called Law Enforcement Against Drugs, or L.E.A.D. for short.  (Let me say right now that the goals of L.E.A.D. are 1000% admirable, prevent youngsters and teens from being trapped by drugs).  Now, I admit I like to argue, and I am not above pontificating, so I approached this young man, and I began thus: laws against drugs are a cure that is worse than the disease.  We tried Prohibition and it didn’t work, so we repealed it.  Laws against drugs discriminates against minorities, because the drug of choice of middle- and upper-class white America is alcohol.

But here are a bunch of old arguments against the criminalization of drug use.

Showing Up

Democracy

Winston Churchill famously spoke: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”

What is a “democracy”?  Nothing more or less than “the people rule.”

For my part, any other form of government – monarchy or aristocracy – is a form of tyranny, no matter how well-meaning.  Which is not to say there is no good argument for them – they may have their place – but they are still tyranny.

"One person, one vote" democracy, a failure

However, democracy – our brand of democracy, our Constitutionally limited representative democratic republic – has utterly failed us.  If you don’t see this, don’t waste your time reading Ben Paine.  The self-evident reason behind its failure is democracy’s easy corruption by the influence of money.  I have written about this at great length.  The other problem is: the people in "We the People” are clearly not up to the task.