ramblingsofpaul

[ramblingsofpaul]

On June 29, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 138 page opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo et. al. At issue was the constitutionality of Louisiana Act 620 which required abortion providers to hold active admitting privileges at a hospital (within 30 miles of their practice). For lawyers, this opinion is a great read.  For regular individuals interested in public health issues important to them, the opinion is tedious. There is far more discussion about complex legal issues, such as standing and standards of review, than there is about abortion generally. I will avoid the complex and try to provide my clients a simple summary of the various opinions.  

The majority opinion is a plurality opinion with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreeing with the winning result and Chief Judge Roberts writing separately to agree with the result.  The majority opinion goes on for 40 pages to eventually conclude that a decision issued just three years ago controls the result.  The prior case was Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt,  579 U.S. ____, (2016), and it addressed a nearly identical law out of Texas.  The Texas law was almost word for word identical to the Louisiana law.  Further, the plaintiff's in Whole Woman's Health were abortion providers, just like the plaintiffs in June Medical Services.  However, in Hellerstedt, the abortion providers claimed the Texas law injured them personally, which then placed undue burdens on women's right to a abortion (under Roe).  In June Medical Services, for a variety of reasons, the abortion providers tried to argue they had the ability to bring the suit based entirely on the injury to women generally.  In essence, they wanted the Court to consider them patients seeking an abortion, as opposed to doctors that actually performed the abortions.

This difference in the injury claimed is the explanation why this case needed an additional opinion when there was an opinion three years earlier.  Can abortion providers file suits against state laws they do not like with no injury other than an injury to others (not the plaintiffs). In the legal world, we call this issue standing.  How important is it?  Dred Scott lost his suit for freedom from slavery because he did not have standing to sue.   How in the world could an African American slave not have standing to sue?  Well, the US supreme Court actually held that people of African ancestry were not US Citizens and thus lacked standing.  

Justices Breyer Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan agreed that the abortion providers could have third-party standing, or, stated another way, they could stand in the shoes of women generally.  To be safe, they also argued that the State of Louisiana waived the issue of standing in the lower court.  Chief Justice Roberts barely touched the issue of standing, primarily because he argued "I am stuck with the prior decision".  (explained later).  Justice Clarence Thomas unleashed on the majority opinion when it came to standing.  He argued, there is no case law to support the abortion providers having standing, there are no facts to support their standing argument, and the State can't waive an issue that is historically a constitutional issue (standing).  

Justice Alito found the standing issue to be so important that he wanted to send the case back to the trial court to start over and add women who are actually injured by the law.  Justice Gorsuch wrote an opinion to complain that rules must be followed, and too many rules were being ignored in this case.  Perhaps surprising to some, Justice Gorsuch said Roe v. Wade was not truly at issue in June Medical Services.  Justice Kavanaugh wrote a short dissenting opinion merely to note 1) 5 Justices actually agreed that the Woman's Health cost-benefits standard is wrong and should be overruled, and 2) he wanted the case sent back to the trial court because he found the factual records to be incomplete.

The next central issue in the case was the standard of review for the trial court's findings.  For the non-lawyers, the standard or review determines whether the court of appeals has to accept the trial court's factual findings or whether the appellate court has some discretion.  Given the fact that the trial court in June Medical held a six day trial, and had rather extensive factual findings suggesting a burden on a woman's right to abortion, this was an important issue.  The majority opinion spent multiple pages on these facts, and determined that those facts must be accepted unless the facts are clearly erroneous.  This is a high standard.  As you might guess, the dissenters found the factual findings to be clearly erroneous and/or incomplete.  

As a final issue, I want to address Chief Justice Robert's concurring opinion.  He actually dissented in Whole Women's Health, so I expected him to dissent in this case.  Depending on your point of view what Chief Justice Robert's did was either honorable or deplorable.  I will leave those opinions to others.  Chief Justice Robert's essentially said, "I am a member of this Court and that is more important than my role as an individual.  I must follow the established law, even if I disagree."  (This is not a quote. I am summarizing what I believe the Chief Justice was trying to say).  He filed his own opinion because he did not like certain aspects of the majority opinion, in particular the cost-benefit analysis.  However, he agreed that the Louisiana Law had to be found unconstitutional based on the doctrine of stare decisis and the Whole Women's Health decision just three years earlier.

In the end, the Louisiana law was found unconstitutional by five Justices and those in favor of abortion have another victory.  

[ramblingsofpaul]

Democrats,

In 2020, you didn’t need the next Obama. You didn’t need the person that was most progressive. You didn’t need the smartest woman who had a policy for everything. You needed this guy, Uncle Joe Biden, who is palatable. Trump can’t beat a guy that is palatable. He can only beat someone like Hilary Clinton who causes people in the middle to start regurgitating. 

This is simple. Trump has a base that will support him no matter what he does.  Let’s say that base is 40% of people that vote. There is an additional 2% to 4% who are Republicans voters, but who will vote for Trump because they like certain policies such as abortion/federal judges, lower taxes, and/or pro-economy policies. You, the democrats, can’t win this group because you don’t offer pro-life candidates, you don’t offer conservative judges, and you never/ever focus on the economy. However, this group may stay home if the democratic candidate is palatable, and Trump is scarring them with his tweets, actions, and rallies.

There is an additional 2% to 4% of Republican votes, for example white educated suburban women, who find Trump non-palatable, but they will vote for Uncle Joe because he is palatable. 

We also have independents in the US. Outside of the libertarian leaning voters, Trump can’t win the independents. 

This leaves the approximate 47% of democratic voters. The biggest problem for democrats in every election is getting their full 47% to the polls to actually place a vote.  Yes, it would be great to have an Obama who motivates your democratic base, but Obama is rare.  You have Uncle Joe. He will not motivate, but Trump is doing that for you. Trump’s inept handling of COVID19, and his decision to go back to divisive/racist rhetoric will motivate your base.  

Uncle Joe is literally taking a minimalist approach to running his campaign, and his lead is growing to historic levels.  Uncle Joe may not be what you wanted, but Uncle Joe is what you needed to beat Trump.  Thank you.  

P.S. Once he names a VP, you will no longer need to worry about the fact that you are voting for a guy who is in the beginning stages of dementia. If Joe steps down on day 1 due to dementia, then his VP gets in.  All is good. 

[ramblingsofpaul]

Systemic Issues?

Have you heard complaints about systemic problems?  I admit that I do not fully understand the scope of systemic issues, but three examples of systemic issues are helping me.

1.  Derek Chauvin was the "training officer" for Lane and Kueng.  The "training officer" had 17 complaints against him in his 20 years.  This type of training leads to systemic problems.  See issue 3 below.

2.  Anyone remember Amadou Diallo?  He was the 23 year old Guinean immigrant that was shot 19 times back in 1999 by 4 plain clothes "police officers" who were part of the Street Crimes Unit.  41 shots were fired at him.  All four officers were found not guilty, but the City paid $3,000,000 and disbanded the Street Crimes Unit.  Kenneth Boss was one of of the 4 officers.  He killed someone in 1997 also.  He was reassigned to desk duty, but then got his badge back and was promoted to Sergeant in 2015.  Yes, he was promoted.

3.  The 75 year old white guy in Buffalo tripped, according to the initial police reports.  It is on video.  He was pushed, and then left bleeding on the sidewalk.  Anyone heard of any other issue of potential lying by police officers recently?  The FBI is investigating an alleged pattern of lying by the officer in #BreonnaTaylor

Does this mean that every single police officer in the United States is a lying racist thug.  Hell no.  A Systemic issue, by definition, means the system is creating problems.  I am a lawyer.  People talk negatively about my profession every day.  I understand why.  As a white male living in Town & Country, I respect the police.  I thank them for their service.  However, this doesn't mean we can't all talk about issues in America which are particularly clear in our police force.  

A good discussion of difficult issues can lead to understanding.  Understanding can lead to agreement, at least on some issues.  Agreement can lead to resolution.

[ramblingsofpaul]

The argument from 2nd Amendment Advocates is that an AR-15 and AR-15 styled rifles are not assault weapons.  They also argue it is a hunting rifle just like any other .223 caliber rifle.  Finally, they argue that if we outlawed AR-15 style rifle, people could still use handguns.  Let’s address that.   

First, one reason the AR-15 is so popular is the rate of fire.  It is semi-automatic and can literally fire as fast as a human can pull he trigger.  As we learned from Vegas, with a bump stock, it can actually fire faster.  

Second, it can fire as fast as a human can fire until its magazine is empty.  Most AR-15 style rifles come with 15 round to 20 round standard magazines.  Getting a 30 round magazine is not difficult.

Third, it has an effective firing range of 550 meters.  So imagine what damage it can do at close range.

In case, you can’t imagine it, watch this video and imagine the car is just a 14 year old kid.  Imagine the hole on the exit side (and there will be an exit) of wounded victim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10hrP6MQ1MY

In the hands of the wrong person, this weapon is far more dangerous than any hand gun and certainly can kill more quickly than your standard bolt action rifle.  When they tell you the gun is not the issue, watch the video again.

[ramblingsofpaul]

My caption for the picture above is “It is so obvious why Carter Page was spied on, how can I argue it was illegal?”

If you are a conservative, you like law enforcement.  You want them to protect us from criminals.  You want them to keep us safe.  Many conservatives like stop and frisk because they believe keeping us safe is more important than individual civil liberty.  Think about this for a second.   Conservatives like cops stopping and frisking people based on the way they look, but those same people don’t think Carter Page could be spied on after a Judge approves the spying.  Let’s look at the Carter Page situation.  

In the late 1990′s Carter Page worked in Russia for the Eurasia group.  His employment with them lasted only three months because he was very pro-Kremlin and not a good fit.   His next connection to Russia occurred from 2004 to 2007 when he worked in Moscow for Merrill Lynch.  In 2013 a Russian spy tried to recruit Page which led to him become a target of a US Counterintelligence Investigation.  He was interviewed by the FBI and he was surveyed. 

Fast forward to 2016.  Presidential Candidate Trump announces in March 2016 that Carter Page is one of his advisers on foreign policy.  If you are a good agent with the FBI, this should cause you “grave concern”.  To make matters worse, freshly after becoming an adviser to a presidential candidate, he travels to ... wait for it ... Russia in July 2016.  While in Russia Page gave a speech that was very critical of US foreign policy.  This is Trump’s adviser?

They should have asked for warrant to spy on Page at that time.  He needed to be spied on to protect Trump, to protect the US, to protect anyone.  If Trump won, we couldn’t have questions whether one of his people was a Russian spy.  They didn’t ask for a warrant yet.  Why?  My answer is he was with the Trump campaign and they thought it would look bad.  

The next fact may or may not have been known by the FBI in 2016, but this fact is critical as we read Nunez’s memo and think about what Nunez knew.  We now know that Carter Page sent a email to the Trump Campaign about his trip to Russia.  In the email, Carter Page said he had incredible insight and outreach from Russian legislators and and senior members of the Presidential Administration.  Are you kidding me?  We are now in the territory of a 24 episode.  Can anyone tell me that US national security interests were not raised by a Presidential Candidate Adviser with strong pro-Kremlin thoughts traveling to Russia and meeting with legislators and senior member of Putin’s administration.  Don’t forget, the FBI already knew that Russia tried to recruit Page in 2013.  Still no warrant.

In September 2016, the news comes out about the dossier and Carter Page freaks out.  He sends a letter to James Comey about it.  I have not read this letter, but I have read 240 pages of Page’s testimony.  From that I can guess that Carter Page’s letter to Comey must have been a fabulous read.  Then a few days after sending the letter to Comey, Page sends a letter to Eric Trump.  To be clear, Page never met or talked to Eric Trump before.  Nevertheless, he addresses the letter to Eric Trump  He officially withdraws from the Trump campaign.  

Finally, there is no reason not to spy on Page.  The FBI puts together its info and in October 2016 they seek a FISA warrant to spy on Page, who is no longer a part of the Trump campaign.  The Judge approves the warrant.

The FBI begins spying on him and guess what Mr. Page does. He travels to Russia again in December 2016.   Gee, I wonder why 90 days after the October 2016 warrant was granted another Judge granted another warrant to spy on Page.

Ladies and gents, Nunez knew everything I stated above when he wrote the memo.  How do I now this?  I got it from Carter Page’s testimony to Nunez and from other publicly available sources.  With this knowledge, Nunez tried to make an argument that Carter Page was illegally spied on.  Come on.  This defies logic.

[ramblingsofpaul]

#ReleaseTheMemo - What a Fraud

Let’s make one thing very clear up front.  The Intelligence Committee has 13 Republican members and 9 democratic members.  If the Intelligence Committee wants to release something that is sensitive, they need to give notice and then vote.  With 13 Republicans, does anyone truly believe that the #ReleaseTheMemo Memo will not be released.  One might ask, why all the fuss?  

With that said, let’s talk about the memo itself.  News Report suggest it is a four page memo written by a Devin Nunez staffer.  The memo was sent to the FBI/Justice Department and then Nunez subpoenaed it.  Now it is in his hands and marked classified.  Thus, he is creating all this fuss to get people prepared to read something they think is significant, but actually is nothing more than a summary of Nunez’s thoughts.  

While my view of this is admittedly skeptical, it could even be worse.  How?  This may be nothing more than a repeat of the Nunez letter to Dan Coates.  See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/07/27/letter-from-nunes-to-coats-on-unmasking.html

If you’re a Republican, you may say: “Repeating something is necessary when it hasn’t been addressed”.  Problem is HR McMaster already looked into all of the issues raised by Nunez in his letter and found nothing inappropriate.  How do I know this?  Here is a quote from Eli Lake, who was initially on Nunez’s side when the concerns were first raised:  

“Adviser H.R. McMaster has concluded that Rice did nothing wrong, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. That might explain why Trump has yet to declassify more information on the prior administration's unmasking requests.”

Here is a link to the article:  https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-03/you-can-thank-leakers-for-new-russia-sanctions

Nunez Gate was a huge fraud.  Devin became Devin the Spy and tried to make it appear that he uncovered something on his own.  In reality, he was simply the vessel for the White House to leak classified information.  Here we are again.  #ReleaseTheMemo will also turn out to be huge fraud.

[ramblingsofpaul]

The Worst News Article Ever?

I was in a debate with some MAGA supporters, who were calling President Obama the worst President ever.  I am quite clever, so I thought about googling President Obama’s biggest accomplishments.  This is what appeared first:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/

Holy crap!.  This is the worst list of accomplishments I have ever seen.  Look at the first and allegedly greatest accomplishments.  He passed Health Care Reform.  Passing any bill is not an accomplishment.  The bill working is the accomplishment.  This is like Trump taking credit for passing the tax cut bill. Passing the bill is not an accomplishment if it doesn’t do what it is supposed to do.  If the bill works, that is the accomplishment.  Arguably, the ACA was working, but now appears doomed with Trump as President.  Trump is bound and determined to end it.  If he does, is it Trump’s greatest accomplishment?

If you look at the rest of the list, it actually makes a case for Trump’s tremendous accomplishments in his first year, if you accept that the items on the list were Obama’s great accomplishments.  Wall Street Reform?  Trump removed it as a barrier to economic growth.  Negotiated a deal to block a Nuclear Iran?  Trump put it on hold because the Iran is already violated the deal (see Haley’s comments at the UN).  Secured a commitment on global warming?  Trump got rid of that in April.  Protected two liberal seats on the Supreme Court?  Enacted Net Neutrality? 

In the end, I am highlighting this article because it proves that playing politics never works.  Putting together a list of accomplishments which is highly partisan is stupid.  If your accomplishments only please one side, are they truly accomplishments?  If yes, than Trump has in fact had the greatest first year ever.

[ramblingsofpaul]

Here is my take on the Trump v. Wilson spat.  It is all BS.  Both sides are wrong. Period.  Wilson never should have said a thing about the phone call.  Above is an example of phone call from Trump to another black widow.  Listen and you can see Trump’s intent was to be polite and say he was sorry.  If he said something different in the phone call to Myeisha Johnson that was upsetting, fine.  Let it end.  There was no reason for Wilson to politicize it.  She was wrong Trump f’ed up because the only proper response to Wilson complaint was I made the call because I cared.  If I said anything that upset the Myeisha I apologize.  

All the other stuff surrounding this phone call is complete BS.  Why does the right have to attack Wilson who appears to be impressive person?  Why does the left have to attack General Kelly who is objectively an impressive person?  Why are we even dissecting what was said?  We know the intent.  If Trump said something incorrectly, it wouldn’t be the first time.  This whole issue is why politics sucks sometimes. 

[ramblingsofpaul]

Yesterday, I got rebuked by my black lives matters friends and by my comfortable West County friends.  I got it from both sides.  Some would ask “Paul, why do you bother, no one ever changes their mind”.  Here is my answer, which I have given many many times before.  I believe discussion is the first step to understanding.  Even heated discussion can lead to something positive if you take a second to listen.  We the people make up this country, and we the people have the power.  There is no power if the people can’t find a way to understand each other and become We The People.

I fully understand that I will not change people’s general view.  In other words, I will not cause a racist to join BLM.  I am not so arrogant that I believe I have the power to cause a liberal to vote Republican.  Instead, I try to focus on single elements where I think I have some ability to make someone understand the other side.  I rarely get someone to say, “you know what; your were right.” Instead, I often get to a place where we can agree to disagree, but we understand each other.  Sometimes, I recognize that my original thought was wrong or at least not well stated.  I admit that and we find understanding.  That is all I want.  With that said, here is my split personality look at what is going on in St. Louis.

A POSITION I SAW YESTERDAY:  Don’t tell the oppressed how to respond to oppression, tell the oppressor to stop oppressing.

I get the thought, but the whole idea is wrong.  Why protest  in the first place?  The general answer is you want to effectuate change.  If your methodology to effectuate change is ineffective, then you are wasting your time.  More importantly, if there is something you can do to make it more effective shouldn’t you listen to constructive criticism?   During Ferguson I hated seeing the 100% peaceful people keep using the phrase “peaceful protesting” and then complaining about the police action against them.  The actual reality was the protest were not 100% peaceful.  The peaceful people wanted everyone else to consider their actions and their actions only, but ignore the burning buildings.  That is not persuasive.  If you don’t want the violence to be associate with your peacefulness, you need to do something.

For example, Trump claimed there were good people on the Friday night in Virginia who wanted to protect the statute.  Liberals saw the actual video, saw white supremacist yelling “Jews will not replace us” and responded no good person would stick around in that crowd.  Now, let’s switch that to St. Louis.  Is it not obvious that somewhere between 9 and 11 p.m. violence begins to brew?  If you don’t want to be associated with that violence, then pack up and go home.  This is not only smart, (because peaceful protesters will avoid getting pepper sprayed), it also helps the police who can better get control of the criminals trying to agitate and incite violence.   Last night I watched live feeds and most of the peaceful protesters began to leave around 10.  Guess what?  The news feeds caught it.   Today’s story is that the peaceful protests became violent at night.  That is far more accurate.  THIS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.   White people need to understand that whole protest movement is not summarized by the burning buildings in Ferguson.  Thus, if you are a peaceful protester you have to ensure that your peace is not overshadowed by their violence.  If you can’t understand this, you are doomed.  

A DIFFERENT POSITION I SAW YESTERDAY - Why do these protesters have to come to West County Mall, they are just hurting working people who are trying to earn a living.  

I could not disagree with this position more.  As stated before, the goal of protesting should be to effectuate change.  One of the most basics things African Americans need to do is get white people to understand their position.  If we white people in West County can go on living our lives by simply avoiding going to the area of the protest, then we never learn anything.  Here is what could be learned from the West County Mall protests.  No one was hurt.  No glass was broken.  Nothing was stolen.  The mall was shut down briefly and all of the working class people continued to get paid their hourly wage.  If you watched the protests live or were physically there, you learned that there is nothing to fear during the day at these protests.  Your life is not in danger.

Most importantly, my white west county friends need to understand that these protests are not limited to the single case.  We love to sit back and say, “Hey, quit protesting because Smith was a drug dealing, cop car ramming, danger to society”.  While true, these protests are not about him individually.  There is a history here that can’t be ignored.  Do you remember DWB in Ladue  That stood for driving while black in Ladue.  When I was a kid, that was enough to get you pulled over and your car searched.   Why was Philando Castile shot?  What about Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley, Walter Scott ...?   To what extent did the color of skin affect the perception of danger by the police officer?

As a white person, our moral obligation is to listen to the cries.  I am not saying you have to agree, I am saying you have to listen.  I am sorry if it bothers you, makes you uncomfortable, or inconveniences you.  The people protesting fear one thing more than anything else.  They fear that no one in power is listening or cares.  We have to listen.  When you listen, ask yourself if there is anything you can agree with.  It might lead to understanding.  If 75% of the African American Community believes there is a problem (it might be higher), there has to be some validation by the white community.  If there is nothing to validate, fine.  However, I don’t believe any objective person can look at this issue and say  “nothing is wrong here.”

[ramblingsofpaul]

My Problem With The Resistance

One of the reasons I am no longer a Republican is the party became the party of opposition and not the party of ideas.  To be clear, I had even bigger issues with the Republicans in my state, but for now I am talking about a national issue.  For seven years, Republicans voted to repeal and/or defund Obamacare and offered no alternative. Yes, Ryan had an alternative, but it never got voted on until Trump got in office.  For seven years, the Republicans voted to oppose and offered nothing.  On other issues, Republicans obstructed and played games.  

Staunch Republicans supporters were so upset with President Obama that they demanded he be stopped.  They stopped asking what is best for our country.  I am sure they will say what is best for our country is opposing President Obama, but that is not true.  A President of the US can’t be so bad that every idea he has is bad.  In particular, Republicans hated Obamacare.  Let’s ask why.  Yes, Obamacare represented the federal government getting involved in healthcare.  Yes, Republicans hate any expansion of federal government power.  Yes, Republicans hate running up the debt (if it is caused by democrats).  Yes, there was talk of death panels.  Yes, President Obama outright lied about keeping your doctor and your plan.  One more, yes the CBO in 2010 said the ACA would cover an additional 30 million.  That was revised down multiple times because the CBO was wrong (imagine that).  In the end, they predicted 22 million. Maybe there are more Republican objections to discuss, but I want to address the point ignored by Republicans.

Obamacare did expand health insurance coverage in the US.  Whether it is 20 million or somewhat less, it did a good thing.  Even if most of it was by Medicaid expansion, Republicans with a heart such as John Kasich want to continue the Medicaid expansion.  Republicans senators currently in office want to keep the medicaid expansion.  For those Republicans against the Medicaid expansion, I ask how in the hell do poor people purchase health insurance when the lower class working people and middle class working people can’t afford it.  This isn’t rocket science. 

This all leads to what is currently going on.  The democrats have become the Republicans.  They proudly call themselves the resistance and plan to oppose everything until the next election.  If they get power they will then do something.  If they don’t get power they will oppose.  How do I know this?  The democrats in the house did zero zilch to protect the people they represent when the AHCA was being addressed in the house.  Why no alternative plan?  Obama has admitted the ACA needs repair.  Where are the democrats?  The democrats are no longer representatives of the people, they are merely the opposition offering nothing positive to anyone.  They are what the Republicans were for seven years.

Ladies and gentleman of the resistance, this is the problem with our system.  You all know it, but you are so angry you can’t see the truth.  When the Republicans were the party of opposition, the democrats complained incessantly.  Now the resistance is OK ... because ... well because Trump is so bad.  This is how it started when Obama got in office.  What is wrong is wrong.  Will we ever learn?  I don’t know, but our system will not work until we do.  

[ramblingsofpaul]

A Simple Truth

I am watching the big short.  It confirms once of the few truths that I know.  Success is dangerous.  When you have success in life, it leads to confidence.  Confidence leads to more success.  It is at this point, that you need to sit back and reflect on what you stand for, what are the fundamentals upon which your success was based.  Why?  Because too much success can lead to actions based upon confidence, which leads to actions not based on your fundamentals. Much like Star Wars and the path to the dark side, once you start on that path it pulls you deeper and deeper in.  At some point, it becomes nearly impossible to remember the fundamentals upon which your success was based.  Failure will follow and it will be tremendous failure.  

[ramblingsofpaul]

So You Think Trump Is Terrible?

I am watching people freak out that we just elected a misogynistic, homophobic, racist and several other negatives as President.  I will not agree that Trump is all of the things that people say, but I will agree that he is a terrible person.  His narcissism is extreme.  His prior acts, words, and three marriages suggest he needs to work on his interpersonal communications with or about women.  I could go on, but that is not the point.  Trump is not the only bad person ever elected to office, and he may not even be the worst.  Let’s go through just some of scoundrels who have served before:

Sen. Robert Byrd was not supported by KKK leaders, he was a member.  He opposed the civil rights bill and was a segregationist.  Democrats made him one of the longest term senators of all time.

Sen. Strom Thurmond was a noted segragtionist who had a child with 15 year old African American who was employed by his family.

Rep. Anthony Weiner - sexting king.  He would sext with anyone including under age girls.

Rep.Mark Foley - resigned after being caught sending sexually explicit emails to teenage males.  His replacement, Tim Mahoney placed his mistress on his staff and then fired her saying “You work at my pleasure”

Rep. Mel Reynolds - convicted for statutory rape, 12 count of sexual assault, and child pornography.

Sen. Robert Packwood - 29 women accused him of sexual harassment.

Sen. Brock Adams - resigned after 8 women accused him of sexual harassment and rape.

Sen. Edward Kennedy is still in office and loved by democrats even though he has two incidents of public sex, accusations of multiple affairs, and then you have the unproven Chappaquiddick incident.

Rep. Wayne Hays - He essentially paid a staffer for sexual favors for years. 

There is so much more, but I think you get the point.  Politicians are not known for being great people.  Yes, many of the above were kicked out of office, but some were not.  President Obama and Hilary Clinton are asking people to have an open mind.  I agree.  We need to give Trump a fair shot to prove he is more than he showed during the campaign.  

[ramblingsofpaul]

History - Learn From It Don’t Run From It

I have been meaning to put my thoughts in writing on police and Black Lives Matter for some time, but it generally just comes out in bits and pieces.  I have criticized the police for their behavior and I have criticized BLM for their false narratives and/or immediate conclusions before any facts are known.  With Colin Kaepernick forcing people to address the issue once again, I am going to take a run at addressing this issue

I know this is hard, but please clear your mind of all love for police, hate for police, love for civil rights, and/or hate for BLM.  The biggest problem in this situation is we all bring our own baggage (our own emotions) which cause us to draw a line in the sand, especially on this issue.  We all need to cross that line and cross it often because this issue demands it.

First, let’s define the issue. To me this is one of the biggest problems in this debate.  People define the issue in ways that evoke emotional responses.  To some the issue is black teens dying in the streets at the hands of police without ramification.  To others, it is an attack on the police and a call to violence against the police.  I define the issue as follows:

A society cannot respond to an individuals’ perception, but when a large part of society has the same perception, it must be recognized and addressed.   We have a perception of unfairness in the exercise of police power, and that perception demands a response.

We are at a point in U.S. where we have to address our history.  Have the police historically treated African Americans unfairly or at a minimum do African American’s have a basis for concluding that police have treated them unfairly. I don’t believe you can objectively suggest the answer is no to both questions.   For anyone to see the rise of the black lives matter movement and then suggest that the entire movement is a fraud is ignorant.  The fact that so many are moved to actions shows there is an issue.  Even if you argue the issue is only a a perceptions on the part of African Americans, you can’t simply tell all African American to ignore the perception.  They feel it.  They can’t ignore it.  We can’t tell them to ignore it.  Their feeling or perception creates an issue that must be addressed.

Police currently take offense to BLM and those that support them because they want to look at themselves now.  They want to talk about the small number of bad apples now.  They want to erase history.  I would hope everyone could agree that police are needed and in a perfect world police are objectively good.  They are our servants who protect us from that which is bad.  Unfortunately, history shows us that power corrupts.  I suggest that our societal and historical belief that police were good and anyone fighting with them was necessarily a criminal corrupted them in the 20th century.  Their power was almost absolute because we loved them, believed them, and they protected their own.  This came to a head, when multiple police officer beat Rodney King to a pulp on tape and then were found not guilty at a criminal trial.   

How in the world could that be defended?  How in the world could those officers get off in a trial (later convicted of civil rights violations)?  The answer is they were the police and we gave them the benefit of the doubt in all situations.  That is over now.  I suggest we are better for it.  I know it hurts current police officers to feel the burden of scrutiny, but what is the other option?  We can’t go back.  Power corrupts.  Some would say the ability to shoot someone without criminal punishment is absolute power, and it corrupts absolutely.  

Police must have the ability to shoot to kill.  They are there to protect us, and we don’t want to die at the hands of armed criminal because some police officer was worried about treating the criminal with respect.  For them to have this power, they also must realize that they have responsibility.  They must use it judiciously.  Some might say it must be a last resort.  I am not there yet.  I believe that police officers are humans and many have their own families.  They have the right to give themselves the benefit of the doubt to ensure they go home.  Nevertheless, the debate begins there.  

Based on our history in this country, every police shooting deserves scrutiny.  Every instance of alleged brutality deserves the same scrutiny.  Why?  Because those that exercise power need scrutiny.  At the same time, scrutiny does not mean immediate condemnation and/or conclusions at every instance of possible wrong doing.  We need to discuss the standard for the exercise of police power and find a new standard.  The subjective standard of did you fear for your own safety is no longer acceptable.    

[ramblingsofpaul]

The Creed of Allegiance

I am sure you have heard of the Pledge of Allegiance and the Apostle’s Creed. The following is in a combination of both, and it meant to express my beliefs and support for my African American brothers and sisters.  

I believe that slavery is still relevant in 2016.  It should not be forgotten, and it can not be minimized.  Making a human being property that is treated worse than many animals today, can never be forgotten or ignored.

I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just a beginning.  It did not solve the problem of racism, nor create sudden equality.

I believe affirmative action and attempts to diversify populations are inherently good.  Allowing the separation by race (whether intentional or unintentional) is fundamentally against unity.

I believe that there is a white privilege.  In most situations where I find myself, I am not the minority.  Rarely do I look around and not see a majority of white faces.  I have never walked into a interview where the people making the decisions were not completely or mostly white. I rarely feel different from the power class, and that feeling alone is a great privilege.

I fully acknowledge the long history of unequal treatment of African Americans by our police force.  I grew up during a time where you could not drive through Ladue and be black, without being pulled over.  I believe that being African American  and (add a fact such as wearing a hoodie, legally carrying a gun, having dreads, etc) brings about negative feelings from police officers and white people with that (add fact) would not experience the same issue.

I believe that locking your car door when an African American walks by, or switching sides of the street when you see an African American approaching is wrong because I would not want to experience that myself.  

I believe that black lives matter.  My feeling about the leadership of the group BLM does not mean I do not understand the cause.  To whatever extent my opinions on BLM differ from yours, confront me on it.  I am willing to discuss.  I truly believe we will find many points of agreement.

I believe that we must allow discussions of race from people of all colors.  How can we ever understand each other on issues of race if we never talk about it.  To whatever extent my whiteness minimizes what I say, please do not tell me to be quiet.  Instead, tell me why you think that because we will never understand each other if we do not discuss it.  

I hereby pledge my allegiance to my African American brothers and sisters.  I will discuss all of the above issues with my children, family and friends, to do my part to ensure white people hear this message from white people.  I will do my part to fight for diversity in my largely white surroundings.  I will openly oppose racial jokes and negative generalization of African Americans.  Finally, I I will be vigilant with my own thoughts to be mindful of negative stereotypes.  

[ramblingsofpaul]

Liberals - The U.S.S. Jonathan Butler Is Sinking

To my liberal friends,

There is no cause that is so great that it justifies all means.  On my end, we believe Abortion is the killing of a innocent human baby.  However, I renounce those that kill abortion providers believing they are helping the cause which is the “greater good”.  On your end, when you attack the abortion opponents, don’t you often bring up the doctor killers?  The doctor killers are hurting the cause.  

Jonathan Butler is about to become a symbol of fake racism complaints.  He will be equal to or maybe greater than the Duke LaCrosse Rape, the Hands Up Don’t Shoot Narrative, and the UVA rape case.  Cases like these hurt the overall cause of fighting racism.  They do not help the cause.  Liberals need to accept the truth about Jonathan Butler and get off the ship via lifeboat or just jumping overboard.  The ship is sinking because there is a massive hole in it.  The movement is based largely on a false narrative.  Any liberal who stays on board by supporting Mr. Butler or trying to help his cause is actually hurting the fight against racism.  Unfortunately for Mr. Butler, the truth is the foundation of all that is good.  When you ignore the truth or try to manipulate it, it will eventually be discovered.  At that point, any good or truth that there was is destroyed, and the cause is injured. 

I will begin with the following acknowledgement.  I believe there is blatant incidents of racism in Columbia Missouri.  I also believe there are less obvious but still actual incidents of racism in Columbia, Missouri.  I have heard from too many black friends that are former students to reject this.  I can accept that Mr. Butler may have started with good intentions, but the following is my proof that he ended in a place of fraud with the intent to create fear and anger.

First, it is important to note that Mr. Butler’s cause was not related to individual incidents, but instead it was related to the administration’s failure to adequately address the incidents.  With that in mind, let’s address the poop swastika.  As of a few days ago, there was a story suggesting the entire poop swastika was a fraud because there were no pictures or objective evidence of it.  Today, the police issued their report on it, which provided some objective evidence that the poop swastika existed.  My liberal friends were jumping for joy after days of silence.  However, they are missing the point.  What in the world could the administration have done about the poop swastika before today.  They had no evidence whatsoever that it existed until the police report.  They had no evidence to determine who to punish.  They had nothing.  None of that mattered to Mr. Butler.  He had a cause to purse.  He had an incident and he certainly had an argument that nothing was done about it.  He ignored the fact that nothing could be done about it until the investigation was completed by the police.  

This leads to the second act of fraud.  I raise this second because it goes to Mr. Butler’s state of mind and intent.  On Tuesday night, Mr. Butler intentionally created a state of fear in the minds of many African American students at Mizzou.  As soon as he heard about random death threats to blacks on some random internet site, he set out to spread fear.  How do I know this?  I tracked his tweets.  Please see https://storify.com/therebirth/jonathan-butler-tweets

As you will see, not only was he telling students that death threats were being made to such an extent that classes needed to be cancelled, he was also telling students that the administration was doing nothing and did not care.  Forget for one second that Mr. Butler could not possibly know everything the administration was doing.  We now know that the administration was acting.  In fact, two people were arrested the very next day based on the Mizzou police being active and showing they cared.  Mr. Butler was objectively wrong, but have you heard an apology from him?  More importantly, why would Mr. Butler tell students that the administration was doing nothing on the night the threats were made?  Furthermore, what evidence did he have that the threats were made by a Mizzou student, or that the threats related to Mizzou students.  He had none.  Mr. Butler needed to spread fear, and he did.  He certainly made it appear that black Mizzou students were in danger.  He needed to continue the state of upheaval that he created so he can continue to be his self-described “liberation activist”.   Even after he knew that everything he said about the administration was false, he still claimed that Mizzou did not care.  

Another incident of alleged racism comes from Payton Head, the black ELECTED President of the Mizzou Student Association.  Prior to Monday, Mr. Head claims that he was called the N word by someone in a passing truck.  Unfortunately, for Mr. Head, we now have substantial reason to doubt his claims.  On Tuesday night, he posted this on his facebook account: 

His has since admitted that this was an outright lie.  He was not working the MUPD, the state trooper or the National Guard.  He had no evidence that the KKK was on campus.  If you want to believe that Mr. Head’s actions were completely independent of Mr. Butler’s attempt to spread fear, fine.  However, you are hiding you head in the sand.

Can we address the allegation that Tim Wolfe had his driver hit one of Butler’s supporters with a car?  Well let’s just watch the video: 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIiovJ77vsg

Butler runs up to the car as it is moving.  You can go back to his twitter feed and you will see he kept suggesting that he was hit by the car.  In his demands, he demanded an apology for being hit.  This is objectively a lie.

Finally, we need to address the drunk white frat boy who stumbled into a meeting of the legion of black collegians.  He allegedly fell off a stage and accused the “N”words of pushing him off.  This incident is true.  Remember though that the argument is the administrations does nothing about it.  We know the student was identified and removed from campus.  http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/mu-student-moved-from-campus-after-racist-incident/article_b75c8089-27c9-584a-a729-ba528fd7de28.html  I have also heard from two current students and one alum that the student was expelled.  If true, what else could be done to the kid.  Did we need to draw and quarter him to satisfy Mr. Butler?

By the way, in case anyone cares about facts.  7% of the Mizzou students are black.  Mr. Butler actually admits this thinking it helps his case.   African Americans make up 13.2 % of the population of the U.S.  However, only 20% of African Americans actually go to the college. see: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/  Thus, at most 3% of Mizzou students should be black.  Mizzou has doubled that.  

Mizzou has an non-discrimination policy.  http://missouri.edu/statements/eeo-aa.php

Mizzou has the Chancellor’s Diversity Initiative:  http://cdi.missouri.edu/

Mizzou has a faculty council on race relations:  https://transparency.missouri.edu/

Mizzou is so racist that half or more of the Executive Cabinet of the MSA is black.  http://msa.missouri.edu/branches/executive/

There is so much more, but I think you get the point.  Calling Mizzou a place of systemic oppression against African Americans makes as much sense as saying slavery is irrelevant today.  (History is never irrelevant). 

Now for the customary statement of a white guy, which is required in today’s society.  I am not a racist.  I have black friends.  I listen to black music.  I watch black movies.  I read literature written by black authors.  I have and I will continue to debate my white friends when I hear comments that are even partially racist.  With all of that said, I denounce Mr. Butler because his actions are hurting the cause.  The truth must always be the starting point for any movement that will have legs.  

[ramblingsofpaul]

Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace

The time has come Rams Fans.  If you want a team in St. Louis, you must act.  The St. Louis City Board of Alderman are setting up a public hearing for comment on the bill to fund the stadium.  We, the fans, must attend this hearing in large numbers.  We cannot let the opponents of the stadium dominate this hearing.  The date has not been set, but this is your call to action.  Be prepared.  As a reminder, here are the objective reasons we should all support the stadium:

1.  Without it, we will not have a NFL team.

2.  There is a non-economic value to having a NFL team, just like there is a non-economic value to having a zoo, an art museum, a history museum, all of which are supported by tax dollars.

3.  The City spends $150,000,000 and get a 1 billion dollar project with 3,000 new jobs, that restores a horribly blighted area.

4. With the new stadium the old dome becomes more available for conventions, we have a new venue for concerts and events, we have the potential for a soccer team.  All of this brings in more money for the City.

[ramblingsofpaul]

My last blog showed that $20,000,000 annually goes to the St. Louis Zoo.  From the same funding source (property tax), another $20,000,000 goes the St. Louis Art Museum.  Are we a better City because we have a Zoo and Art Museum?  However, can we also agree that crime and school funding are more important?  Where are the activist objecting to 40,000,000 of their money going to a zoo and a art museum.  Why are these activist instead focusing all of their attention on 6 million, largely funded by a hotel tax? #hypocrisy