Category Archives: ethics

The Dirtbag

Posted on by
Reply

The Eric Schmitt we saw a couple of days ago making a fool of himself in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing grilling former special counsel Jack Smith is not the Eric Schmitt I remember from my days covering the Missouri Senate.  That Eric Schmitt was intelligent, respectful of the rules and of other senators on both sides of the aisle and knew what he was talking about.

He was elected State Treasurer and when Attorney General Josh Hawley went to Washington, Schmitt was appointed to move across the street to replace him.  He caught whatever political virus Hawley left behind.  I’ve said before that he left the best part of himself in the Capitol.

He apparently now bathes in Trump Kool-Aid.  The day that a prominent Republican consulting firm tried to start a boomlet for him as J.D. Vance’s running mate in two years, Schmitt turned his inner attack dog loose and in a matter of minutes proved why we do not need to see him one breath away from the presidency, assuming fellow Kool-Air bather Vance is picked to head the ticket.

You’ve undoubtedly seen the video of his smug, misguided attack of Smith and his charge that Smith had gone to Atlanta to meet with Fulton County Prosecutor who had admitted she and one of her associates had been associating too closely, a relationship that eventually led to the dismissal of 13 co-conspiracy charges she had filed against Donald Trump.  He’d even gone to an Atlanta Hawks NBA game while he was there, said Schmitt.

Smith said he recalled going to a University of Maryland women’s basketball game to see Caitlin Clark and her Iowa Hawkeyes. And Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, whose staff rapidly learned there had, indeed, been a game in Maryland that night, quickly suggested that Schmitt didn’t know the difference between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes.  It was one of the greatest political takedowns in memory, a “My Cousin Vinnie” moment for real.

Republicans on the committee wanted to get Smith to admit he had behaved unethically and illegally by meeting with Fani Willis on the day her affair was revealed.

When Schmitt found himself waist deep in it, he refused to back down. He slogged ahead and accused Smith of perjury and showed an incredible lack of maturity for a U. S. Senator by calling Smith “a total dirtbag.”

At the end day, Trumpist GOPers had failed to ruffle Smith enough to get him to make him admit what they wanted him to admit—that he had meddled in Willis’ affairs, more legal than personal, and had weaponized the Justice Department. And if anybody should know about weaponizing the Justice Department, it’s Republicans.

The Republican witch hunters spent the day beating up on Smith but in the end none of the hunters disputed his findings.  Their efforts to undermine his professionalism in securing indictments against the president were an embarrassing failure. It might be said they never laid a glove on him.

“The didn’t even talk about the report,” observed California Congressman Ted Lieu.  “They didn’t dispute that Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy to try to get fake electors and fake documents to overturn this election.”  He called the stuff Republicans were saying, “idiotic.”

Did Schmitt, caught with his political pants entangling his ankles, apologize for his mistake.  Oh, no.  Later he told CNN he had not made a mistake. “Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan?” he blithely deferred.

When another interviewer told him there was television footage showing Smith at the game in Maryland, he retorted, “Great. Well, then, he was at the Hawkeyes game.” But he wouldn’t admit he was wrong in the hearing.

On the “Charlie Kirk Show” later, host Andrew Kolvet praised Schmitt, who responded, “Here’s the thing — my job is to ask the questions. He’s already — and if that’s what his answer is — then that’s what his answer is….The purpose of today is just to get him to answer a bunch of questions.”

Bee  Ess.  His job, the committee’s job, was to get facts.

Smith had them and spoke them and he made our junior senator a fool. Schmitt claimed Smith perjured himself. He didn’t. His description of Smith as “a total dirtbag,” a startling act of discourtesy and juvenile behavior.  He shouldn’t stay up so late at night taking name-calling lessons from our president.

He’s going to be a star on Saturday Night Live this week.

Some might think the dirtbag was not the one at the witness table.

Columbia Missourian editorial cartoonist John Darkow—-the best of his kind in Missouri and among the best in the whole country jumped on Facebook with his commemoration of the great inquisition.

Don’t expect any apologies from Senator Eric Schmitt. There are plenty of sycophants who will pat him on the back for becoming the class clown at that hearing. It takes some doing to make Josh Hawley look like the grownup in our senatorial delegation.  But for that one day, Schmitt rose, or sank, to the occasion.

Even when Klobuchar proved  Schmitt didn’t know what he was talking about, he snarled, “I stand by that statement.”

We should all hope the rest of the people in our country don’t judge Missourians on the basis of our Senators. Really, we should assure them, we normally are intelligent beings.

I want to know who kidnapped the Eric Schmitt that I knew and replaced him with someone that I don’t recognize.

(Picture Credit—some clever person on the internet. It’s not the only one mocking Schmitt; Darkow on Facebook.)

A Nation of Laws 

Posted on by
Reply

The spotlight on our court system has been glaring in the last few weeks as the dispute about our congressional districts has intensified and, as we write this, might be in its final throes. Nationally we have a President and his supporters who have launched strong personal attacks against judges at all levels who disagree with their aims.

Our legal system requires attorneys to represent even the worst of us as well as the best and judges who must find justice from within the passionate arguments on behalf of each.

The annual meeting of the Missouri Bar and Judicial Conference held in Kansas City last week featured a luncheon address by Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice W. Brent Powell. We think his remarks alluding to our times and the judiciary that is immersed in the issues of our times are appropriate to pass along. They are being passed along in hopes we might better understand the role our court system must play, particularly in divisive and threatening times—and how we as those lay people might be better served if we lived by those principles, too.

Powell began by readministering the oath of admission attorneys take upon joining the Missouri Bar, allowing them to legally practice law. One of those in the audience with his right hand upraised was his father. We have done some very light editing for context.

Taking our solemn oath places us in a distinct position of honor and responsibility. Honor, because of the prestige our profession holds in our society – and responsibility, because as attorneys, we are entrusted to tend to the vast legal needs of our fellow citizens and community.

I find it especially fitting to reaffirm our oaths now, 250 years after our nation declared its independence from England. Lawyers played a vital role in that monumental event. Nearly half the colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence were lawyers; many lawyers were elected to serve in the Continental Congress; and lawyers were instrumental in drafting our constitution and shaping our nation’s government. For this reason, our profession is a living bridge, linking us to a time when our founders transformed revolutionary ideals of self-governance and democracy into a new government for a new nation. 

Our oath…carries forward the same promises our founding lawyers drafted into our Declaration of Independence and constitution. One of those lawyers was John Adams, who famously proclaimed our nation would be a “government of laws, not of men.” This simple proclamation defined who we are as a people: bound together – not by a monarch or politician – but by the laws enacted through our own self-government. We, as a people, agree to be governed and abide by this law because the law emanates from ourselves. This is our social contract enshrined in our federal and state constitutions, ensuring the rule of law – not autocrats or tyrants – govern our way of life. 

But we all must recognize what Adams and our legal predecessors understood: for our government to survive and thrive, the rule of law – this foundation on which we all coexist – must be guarded continuously and preserved purposefully. Recognizing the importance of this civic virtue, Benjamin Franklin famously remarked we have a republic, if we can keep it. This responsibility – the responsibility to preserve our republic – falls to us and all our brothers and sisters in our profession… 

One of the first and paramount obligations our oath places upon us is to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Missouri. This dual allegiance protects the grand experiment of federalism and the balance of governmental power our founders envisioned. Together, those constitutions establish a system of governance balancing authority between federal and state sovereigns and among three branches of government. They also preserve for all citizens the right to self-governance and guarantee their individual rights. 

This balance of governmental authority rests on a precarious fulcrum. The power reserved for our citizens, and the rights guaranteed to them, can easily be overlooked and abused. The scales can also be tipped – improperly shifting power among government authorities. Our oath requires us to safeguard this delicate balance, ensuring neither the people’s rights nor the authority bestowed upon each of our three branches of government are trampled or ignored. This is our collective role in a constitutional republic built on checks and balances.

But today, we face threats – threats from those who seek to detract from the ideals of our republic and to undermine faith in our sacred institutions – including our legal profession and our courts. Unfortunately, some of these threats originate from within our own ranks. We must respond to these threats as our founders responded to the tyranny of an autocrat. It is incumbent on all of us as lawyers and judges to rise up and defend our constitutions and the rule of law. 

We must vigorously and emphatically advocate the values of our republic by educating our fellow citizens about how laws are passed, how courts work, how judges make decisions, and how we are bound by these laws and court decisions – even when we may legitimately disagree with them. We owe our allegiance to the constitution and the law, not to our personal or political preferences – even, and especially, when doing so conflicts with our own views and beliefs.

For this reason, the trust endowed in us is extraordinary. Individuals trust their doctors with their health and wellbeing. They trust their accountants and bankers with their money and financial security. And they trust architects and engineers with the soundness of the structures and products they design and build. But they trust lawyers and judges…with the systems and institutions to provide the just and fair society in which we all live. 

This trust is immense and carries with it an equally somber recognition – that we must continue to earn that trust every day, through every action we take and every word we speak, to prove to our fellow Missourians we lawyers can carry the weight of their trust.

How we prove we are worthy of this trust is demonstrated in the words of our oath. We promise to maintain the respect due to courts of justice, judicial officers and members of our profession. We promise to conduct ourselves with dignity. We promise never to mislead a judge or jury by any artifice of false statement of fact or law. And we promise to conduct ourselves in accordance with the rules of professional conduct.

Stated simply, our oath as lawyers instructs us to always act with the dignity and uprightness our profession demands. It applies not only inside conference rooms and courtrooms but in the community as well. Being a lawyer is not just a job; it must be who we are and what defines us as professionals. If we act dishonorably, we cannot expect anyone else to honor our legal institutions and the rule of law. If we act dishonestly, we cannot be surprised when others treat our laws and courtrooms with disrespect and disdain.

Never forget it was tyranny of a monarch an ocean away that led the colonists to declare our independence, but history is full of lessons of tyranny reemerging and thriving when citizens lose faith in justice and the rule of law. Citizens rely on us as lawyers and judges – as professionals sworn to uphold the law – to make justice happen every day in every community in our state. Every transaction and every trial conducted fairly and openly reinforces the foundation laid in 1776. In this way, our profession – and our professionalism – are critical to preserving public trust in government.

But professionalism does not require grandiose deeds or acts – and can be accomplished in quiet, effortless ways. We must seek to solve disputes, not create them. We must act with grace, honor, and a moral and just purpose. We cannot let zealous advocacy devolve into malice, acrimony, vitriol, meanness, or nastiness. And in a world in which it is increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction, and hyperbole from downright lies, it is essential we – as lawyers bound by a common oath – never, ever forget we are bound to tell the truth. Your reputation as an individual lawyer – and the reputation of our entire profession – depends on never letting advocacy get in the way of truth.

I don’t need to tell you that we live in a divided nation and state. This is not a new phenomenon, but technology provides new ways to divide us. Spurred by misinformation, disinformation, and the echo-chamber traps our social media algorithms build, the discord and viciousness in our society has invaded our schools, our churches, and even our family living rooms and dinner tables, where divisiveness was ordinarily absent…

We don’t have to sacrifice our beliefs and values. But we must listen to one another … including those with whom we vehemently disagree. We must show empathy … especially when doing so is uncomfortable. And we must care for others … particularly those we may find distasteful or disdain. These are important lessons I learned from my dad. And it’s what our oath requires of us.

Another lesson I learned from my father is a shared commitment to service. Our oath commits all of us, as a profession, to serve others. Our oath requires us to practice law with consideration for the defenseless and oppressed. This ending to our oath is deeply rooted in our history, as both lawyers and as Americans. Our Declaration of Independence boldly proclaims all people are created equal. Throughout history, it has fallen on lawyers – and judges – to bridge the gap between this founding ideal and the realities in which we live. Because for too many, this promise remains unfulfilled.

The promises secured for us in the Declaration of Independence and our constitution are only as strong as our profession’s ability to deliver them. But today, some of those promises are beginning to collapse around us. Half of Americans think our legal system offers two systems of justice: one for those with money or connections, and one for everyone else. We struggle to provide quality legal services to people in every corner of our state at rates people can actually afford. More than three-quarters of our fellow citizens don’t know where to turn for legal help and they believe they must go to court, draft contracts, probate estates, or get divorced without a lawyer – because they can’t afford one.

With the rise of AI, we must be concerned about pricing ourselves out of our own profession. Everyone in this room understands the value of an attorney in shepherding clients through their legal issues, both inside and outside the courtroom. But a short hop online illustrates the folly of this belief. The internet offers any number of AI “solutions” to address legal needs. But the world-wide web is also full of cautionary tales of what happens when a lawyer or self-represented litigant relies too heavily on AI to “help” them with a case. An AI solution may look like help, it may sound like help, but the whole thing might just be a hallucination. And the types of legal issues people face in their everyday lives – contract disputes, family law issues, probate matters, and other civil disputes – are far too important to be left to hallucinations. People deserve human lawyers like you to assist them with their legal needs.

Make no mistake: AI is here to stay. Every year, every month, every day, and every second, AI continues to revolutionize how things are done, in ways we struggle to comprehend. But we cannot just stand idly by, because others will fill any gap we choose to ignore. Our rules of professional conduct require us to remain vigilant and do our homework – including learning about new technology that may scare us at times. 

We also need to do some soul-searching, as a profession. More than ever, the rise of technology requires us all to remember our oath to serve others for the benefit of those in need of affordable legal services. We owe it to our fellow Missourians to demonstrate our value; embrace technology tools appropriately to enhance the services we provide the public; and keep the crucial role of human lawyers intrinsically involved in providing legal services to those who need it…

Our duty is to our clients and the public at large, not our individual concerns. None of us should let personal success make us apathetic toward the needs of our fellow citizens. Instead, we should use our education and privilege to serve others. But giving of oneself – abiding by our oath as lawyers – is not easy. It means devoting our lives to others, overcoming our inherent desire to improve our own condition. I confess, I struggle with this. It’s hard to live up to such a high standard, and far easier to find comfort in serving my own needs and desires. 

Fortunately, I have been so very blessed to see my father modeling what being a lawyer is truly all about – diligent, ethical, and honorable service … to his clients, to his profession, and to his community. Throughout his decades of practice, he was a strong advocate, but he also knew how to disagree without being disagreeable, and how to build bridges through compassion and kindness rather than sowing seeds of dissention. In a nutshell, he fulfilled our solemn oath every single day. Let’s all strive to be a lawyer like my father.

If I can ask one thing of all of you – just one thing – endeavor every single day to fulfill the oath you reaffirmed this afternoon. By fulfilling our solemn oath, we can build upon the blueprint of the Declaration of Independence and our constitutions, ensuring the rule of law and our way of life endure for the next 250 years. If we do this one thing, then I have faith and hope the stability of our republic and civil society will be sustained. And you, I, and those who come after us will all be better off because of it.

We appreciate Chief Justice Powell’s remarks, not just in reference to what lawyers and judges should be and should do, but in the kind of citizens all of us should strive to be.

(Photo credit: The Missouri Bar and Google Images)

Heather

Posted on by
Reply

It is not uncommon in our household for one of us (usually Nancy), to ask the other, “Have you read Heather’s column today?—Heather Cox Richardson, a Boston University history professor who gives us great understanding of the historical roots of contemporary events, calls her column, “Letters from an American.”  It’s one of the top columns on Substack.

Her column a day after President Trump’s fact-free speech Thursday night lifts the veil to expose his handlers (string-pullers?) and the frightening future they are planning for our country. It is a lesson we better learn from our past. As any good academic person would do, she footnotes her comments.

0-0-0-0-0-0

Yesterday President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller all threw the weight of the U.S. government behind a far-right conspiracy theory that says Trump and his loyalists are defending the United States of America against a communist takeover.

As Gil Duran of The Nerd Reich recalled today, two years ago, far-right influencer Jack Posobiec and co-author Joshua Lisec wrote a bestselling book called Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them). Trump ally and media guru Stephen Bannon wrote the introduction. Donald Trump Jr. blurbed the book, saying that it provided a playbook to deploy “immediately to save the West.” Then–Ohio senator J.D. Vance also blurbed the book, saying: “In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

Posobiec is a loyalist who worked to keep Trump in office after voters elected Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. He is known for courting controversy by promoting what Maya Oppenheim of the The Independent in 2018 called “wholly erroneous and debunked conspiracy theories,” including the infamous 2016 “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory that Democrats were operating a child sex ring in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant.

In Unhumans, Posobiec and Lisec argue that the United States is under siege by “the left,” which in their view means anyone from communists to “progressives.” “For the purposes of this book, we will call them the unhumans,” the authors write, because they “oppose everything that makes up humanity. As they are opposed to humanity itself, they place themselves outside of the category completely, in an entirely new misery-driven subdivision, the unhuman.”

Lisec explained to Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs that the reason they called the book “Unhumans” “is because it’s a verb, to unhuman someone…. To ‘unhuman’ someone means to deprive someone of their rights to life, liberty and property.” The authors insisted that “communists” were trying to “unhuman” those they consider good Americans, and that “we can’t tolerate an ideology like that” and so must do it to them first.

Ignoring the fascist revolutions that gave rise to World War II, the authors tie together left-wing revolutions from the late Roman Republic to the French Revolution of 1789 to the Russian and Chinese revolutions to the present and claim that all political positions designed to regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, promote infrastructure, or protect civil rights reflect that same left-wing radicalism. In their telling, Spain’s fascist dictator Francisco Franco, who said, “Wherever I am, there will be no communism,” is a hero.

Franco ordered illegal detentions, torture, and mass killings in the name of social cleansing. As Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times noted in 2024, the right wing has often championed Franco, but “it’s extremely unusual for a candidate for vice president of the United States to openly align himself with autocratic terror.”

The embrace of authoritarianism in Unhumans reflects the modern version of an ideology shaped after World War II by those determined to get rid of the modern state. Although the great majority of both Republicans and Democrats embraced such a government, right-wing reactionaries insisted it was a slippery slope to socialism. Defending business regulation, social welfare, infrastructure investment, and civil rights cost tax dollars and so, they said, redistributed wealth.

Over the years, reactionaries insisted that Americans who believed in such a system were un-American takers sucking dry the country’s makers. Increasingly, they demonized Black Americans or people of color and women as lazy and looking for government handouts, breaking laws with impunity, corrupting the country with their godless ways, and winning elections only by cheating.

And yet voters continued to elect lawmakers who supported the modern government. This infuriated the far right, but even establishment Republicans recognized that voters liked Social Security and cancer research, clean air and reproductive rights. While they turned out voters by railing against the “Liberals” who supported regulations and the welfare state, they made sure not to cut into those programs deeply enough to cause a backlash.

Trump has unmasked that facade. He has put the far right in power, where they are destroying the modern American state. Right-wing officials have undermined the world trade system that underpins American prosperity, empowered economic monopolists by slashing regulations and public lands, decimated reproductive rights and healthcare, cut social safety programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid, slashed medical and scientific research, and dismantled the post–World War II rules-based international order that has maintained global stability for seventy-five years.

But the right-wing push to get rid of the modern state is deeply unpopular. And so Trump and his loyalists are embracing the idea that his opponents are in league with a historic throughline of left-wing revolutionaries.

Trump’s speech last night began with a completely fantastical vision of current conditions in the U.S. that has been widely debunked, point by point, by fact-checkers. But his portrait of a nation “doing really well” was a setup for his warning that the prosperity and success he touts are under direct threat by “leftists” both abroad and at home.

Trump claimed to present evidence that beginning with the 2020 election cycle, China “carried out what was believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history.” He referred to “China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files” and called this an “unprecedented election security nightmare.” In fact, as Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman of PolitiFact report, documents the White House itself posted show that such information is publicly available for purchase, and such purchases are common.

Trump also said documents showed that “members of the deep state” worked “to actively suppress and downplay information about the extent of China’s sinister election meddling.” But, in fact, the intelligence community told Trump about foreign interference in 2021, and Biden released its report when he took office. The report said China did not make an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election.

Actually, one of the documents Trump released yesterday shows that Russia tried to influence the 2020 election to defeat Biden. Its operatives worked “with US officials and other prominent persons” to “spread claims about former Vice President Biden as well as Ukrainian politicians and alleged Ukrainian influence in the 2016 US elections.” Trump has denied Russian interference in U.S. elections.

Trump tied American journalists to this alleged plot, claiming the Chinese government was paying journalists to write negatively about him. He then attacked the media for being “part of a plot…to continue this [election] fraud for whatever reason. They want to keep it going. They want to protect the radical left.” He called for the government to revoke their broadcast licenses.

“The findings are stunning,” Trump said, and indeed if they were true, we should expect dramatic diplomatic rifts and lawsuits. But does Trump actually believe any of this? The White House today said plans for a lavish state visit of Chinese leader Xi Jinping to Washington, D.C., in two months have not changed.

Trump’s warning of a communist threat against U.S. elections was a setup for his insistence that future elections could be rigged and that the country must do as he says to stop that danger.

He said he had ordered the Department of Homeland Security “to notify every state about noncitizens on their rolls and direct them to be deemed ineligible.” And he demanded Congress pass the SAVE America voter suppression act, saying “the only reason you wouldn’t do it is you want to cheat because your policies are so bad and your candidates are so pathetic that you can’t get elected in any other way.”

“These reforms are urgently needed to stop the vulnerabilities that I have mentioned,” he said, and he told Americans to call lawmakers to demand they pass the SAVE America act.

Today Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin demanded states run voter rolls through a federal digital tool designed to identify noncitizens who are ineligible for certain government programs. Federal judges have blocked federal demands for those rolls sixteen times and prohibited the use of the federal tool, noting it was not designed to scan citizens’ information and often flags recently naturalized citizens as noncitizens. Blocked by the courts, Mullin threatened state officials with criminal prosecution if they don’t comply with Trump’s demands.

Yesterday Secretary of State Rubio expounded on the administration’s opposition to “Radical Left terrorism.” A meeting at the State Department was billed as an examination of the “transnational” nature of far-left terrorism, but Shannon K. Kingston of ABC News noted that Rubio and other officials from the Trump administration spoke primarily about what they call “antifa” and conditions in the United States, including the assassination attempts against Trump.

Kingston noted that a 2025 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) showed that left-wing political violence in the U.S. “remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers.”

Nonetheless, the White House said, “Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, far-left extremism will be treated with the same seriousness and ferocity the world has long reserved for jihadist terrorism.”

There is a point to all this. Bannon argued in Tuesday’s War Room podcast that the idea of “communists” threatening to take over the United States through corrupt elections is “a predicate for immediate action.” That immediate action, he said, would be for Trump to declare “a national security emergency executive order…that took all of SAVE America plus plus plus plus.” And then, we can be sure, the Republicans will win the 2026 elections and, as Trump keeps saying, all the elections for the next 100 years. They would do so by default as the administration purged so-called communists from public life.

The parallels between Unhumans and the administration’s current rhetoric showed yesterday in Miller’s speech at the State Department. Bannon’s introduction to Unhumans begins with an epigram that reads: “Communism is when ugly deformed freaks make it illegal to be normal then rob and/or kill all successful people out of petty resentment and cruelty. The ideology is all just window dressing.”

Miller told the State Department attendees: “It’s not a coincidence that when you look at these violent antifa demonstrations, you see any photograph of those who are assembled, to be blunt, not one of the people that is demonstrating looks like a normal person, not one looks normal. They’re all deformed in some way, in their appearance, in their dress, in their mannerism. Why is that?… You look at two photographs, and you see, you know, a normal American street, you see an antifa protest. Why did the people that are violently demonstrating, why is there not one normal looking person among them? Every one of them, through the course of their life and their decisions, has scarred their body and their appearance in many different ways, to the point in which their outer appearance becomes a manifestation of their inner hatred.”

In response to Trump’s address last night, the chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, Cisco Aguilar of Nevada, released a statement saying: “That was some bullsh*t.”

—

Notes:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-jack-posobiec-pizzagate-rape-melania-sign-twitter-conspiracy-theory-far-right-a8159661.html

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/trumpworlds-favorite-writer-says-the-right-must-emulate-dictators-in-battling-leftist-unhumans

https://www.thenerdreich.com/why-trump-keeps-talking-about-communism-the-unhumans-playbook/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/07/trump-administration-unleashes-global-campaign-to-crush-radical-left-terrorism/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/opinion/jd-vance-fascism-unhumans.html

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/17/politics/china-election-trump-xi-state-visit

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/homeland-security-secretary-markwayne-mullin-threatens-states-election-rcna588002

https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-urges-international-counterterrorism-crackdown-left/story?id=134820036

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jd-vance-jack-posobiec_n_66a2755fe4b04c3a302465e7

https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/steve-bannon-says-trumps-thursday-night-speech-must-be-predicate

usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2026-07-17/trump-says-these-documents-prove-his-false-claims-of-election-fraud-heres-what-they-really-say

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-address-on-china-the-2020-election-and-what-documents-show

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/that-was-some-bull-state-election-chiefs-condemn-trumps-long-debunked-election-lies/

Facebook:

lasvegassun/posts/cisco-aguilar-who-also-chairs-the-democratic-association-of-secretaries-of-state/1471435425029177/

YouTube:

watch?v=NoyiHAMTk3g

X:

atrupar/status/2078136910694715775

i/status/2078225308503671116

rcohen/status/2077528414852984883

Bluesky:

mcopelov.bsky.social/post/3mquj46i4hk2r

muellershewrote.com/post/3mqspe3ohnk2r

marcelias.bsky.social/post/3mquxehtpf22t

Instagram:

p/C712zy5Nk-X/?hl=en

The Stolen Celebration 

Posted on by
Reply

You might have gathered if you read Wednesday’s entry that I was a little peeved that our President torpedoed the national celebration of our country’s 250th birthday.

A few days ago, Sabrina Haake, a federal trial attorney from Gary, Indiana specializing in First and Fourteenth Amendment defenses, wrote this piece that appeared on Altnet. She also has The Haake Take on Substack. It explains and amplifies my resentment at President Trump’s hijacking the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.  Here she reports on an investigation into those events.

Trump just robbed America of a sacred reckoning that may never come again | Opinion

House Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee have released a report describing how the  White House cheated the American public on its 250th birthday. It outlines interim findings that the Trump organization put together a shell company to supplant the Congressionally-created commission, America 250, with a partisan one, Freedom 250, defrauding donors and pilfering donations along the way.

In 2016, ten years in advance of the country’s 250th birthday, Congress created a nonpartisan commission called America 250 to plan and orchestrate the largest commemoration in U.S. history. Its mandated purpose was to encourage all Americans to ‘remember the nation’s past, celebrate the present, and look forward to building a promising future.’

America250 spent ten years organizing events, volunteer campaigns, and educational initiatives across all 50 states to celebrate our Semi-quincentennial. America250’s slogan, “350 for 250- Engaging all 350 million Americans in celebrating our nation’s 250th anniversary,” stresses civic inclusivity devoid of politics.

But last year, after his attempts to pack America250 with loyalists were unsuccessful, Trump created a competing commission, Freedom 250,  via executive order. Falsely describing Freedom 250 as the “national, non-partisan organization leading the celebration of our Nation’s 250th birthday,” Freedom 250 was incorporated as an LLC in October 2025. Under the National Park Foundation, governed by a board of Trump loyalists, Freedom 250 solicited pay-to-play from companies with major federal contracts pending— including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Oracle —to financially support Freedom 250 instead of America250.

Defrauding the nation on its 250th birthday

The report describes how Trump demanded that his name and name-branded politics should dominate the historic celebrations. When America250 pushed back on Trump’s plan as too partisan, he supplanted the commission by creating his own.

After Freedom 250 hijacked federal planning activities, most scheduled performers withdrew from the celebration. They had agreed to perform at a national, nonpartisan concert, but cancelled when they found out it was overtly partisan. Other activities planned by Trump’s Freedom 250 included the very on-brand Military Parade for Trump’s birthday and this year’s White House UFC cage fight, along with the controversial Great American State Fair.  The latter featured partisan exhibits complete with a confederate flag; the 16-day event caused extensive damage to the lawns and the National Mall. Meanwhile, Freedom 250 continues the Trump-centric assault, planning construction on his  250-foot-tall “triumphal arch.”.”

Trump illegally billed his July 4 culminating speech on the National Mall as a “TRUMP RALLY,” making himself—not the nation, not our history— the central figure of America’s only 250th birthday celebration. Trump’s rally, replete with partisan rhetoric and fearmongering about Democrats, concluded with “the largest fireworks display ever,” costing taxpayers an estimated $45 million..

Millions for Trump’s cronies

A separate report from Public Citizen describes how a “Trumpified series of events at the public’s expense” awarded over $100 million in no-bid contracts to celebrate our 250th birthday to a network of Trump-affiliated political allies. One of those contracts awarded tens of millions of dollars to Event Strategies, Inc., the same firm behind the J6 attack on the U.S. Capital.

Out of $120 million in public funds Congressionally earmarked for America250 planned celebrations, over $100 million was funneled directly to entities with political ties to Trump, essentially turning it into Trump’s slush fund with little or no transparency, accounting, or public reporting. Overall, Trump’s Freedom 250 received between $65 and $80 million of the funding Congress allocated to America250.

Alas, the fraud and self-dealing didn’t stop there. Aside from the deceptive rebrand, awarding hundreds of millions in no-bid contracts to Trump cronies, inviting pay to play federal contractor donations, and diverting Congressional funds to Trump’s partisan commission, public donations intended for America250 were purposely diverted to Trump’s organization.

Wire fraud and deception are not Presidential activities entitling Trump to criminal immunity

According to interim findings, donors who tried to send money to America250 were misled and given Freedom 250’s banking information, meaning contributions solicited in the name of the Congressionally mandated commission were routed instead to the President’s substitute entity. As yet unverified, the facts suggests that America250 donors were defrauded through wire transfer instructions, bank account numbers, and routing numbers that funneled their donations to Trump’s Freedom 250 commission.

Trump converted America’s once-in-250-years celebration into a parade of self-regard and personal enrichment, embodying our founders’ warning about men like him. Assuming the evidence matches the allegations, his tactics constitute criminal fraud, and the evidence won’t be hard to track down. Electronic records of online donations and routing can’t be erased; metadata will prove what was sent, by whom and when, and how it was diverted to Freedom 250. Such deception also likely constitutes wire fraud as well as charitable solicitation fraud.

Democratic lawmakers are now demanding a full accounting of diverted donor records and contracts, while Republican leadership has largely blocked information, shielded people involved, and refused to hold hearings on the matter. Democrats, in the minority, have diminished subpoena power, but that is likely to change in November.

Trump’s criminal immunity will be challenged after the midterms; even now, it only applies to “presidential acts” arising from core constitutional duties. Establishing an entity to compete with the Congressionally mandated America250 commission was illicit, extra-judicial, and purely partisan, and very likely exceeds any official, constitutional, or statutory authority. Trump billing our 250th July 4 celebration on the national mall as a TRUMP RALLY sealed the deal.

Trump robbed Americans of a sacred commemoration that won’t come again for many generations, if ever. He wanted to make our nation’s 250th birthday all about him. History books will likely oblige.

The Seven Deadly (Social) Sins 

Posted on by
Reply

I love discussion groups.  Sitting around and exploring issues, thoughts, events.  I recently came across something that could make for an interesting evening.

Or interesting any time, really.

Although usually credited to Mahatma Ghandi, this list apparently began with English Anglican Priest Frederick Lewis Donaldson (1860-1953).  He made his list public when he was the Canon, or Administrator, of Westminster Abbey and delivered them as part a speech on April 1, 1925.

We find his list of the Seven Deadly (social) Sins useful as we discuss political leadership at all levels in our country today:

  1. Wealth without work
  2. Pleasure without conscience
  3. Knowledge without character
  4. Commerce without morality
  5. Science without humanity
  6. Religion without sacrifice
  7.  Politics without principle.

He sent them to India to Mahatma Ghandi, who put them in his weekly newspaper, Young India, six months later.

Several books have been written that use these statements as their basis. The internet also is full of interpretations of them.  We like the summary at exploringyourmind.com.

(I gave the list to my minister who wrote about them in our weekly church newsletter.  He added an eighth one: unity without humility, commenting, “Too often people demand unity when what they really want is conformity. They want silence instead of conversation. Agreement instead of relationship. Control instead of community…Unity honors the dignity and humanity of others even when we disagree. It listens before speaking. It seeks understanding before judgment. It makes room at the table.”)

In his article a century ago, Ghandi wrote:

A Fair friend sends me “Crisp Sayings” by Dan Griffiths on crime and wants me to find room for them in these pages. Here are some extracts which a Satyagraphi  (a person who practices nonviolent resistance) can readily subscribe to:

“State law is not necessarily moral. Crime is not necessarily immoral.”

“There is a world of difference between illegality and immorality.”

“Not all illegalities are immoral and not all immoralities are illegal.”

Who can say that whilst not to crawl on one’s belly at the dictation of an officer might be an illegality it is also an immorality? Rather is it not true that refusal to crawl on one’s belly may be illegal but it would be in the highest degree moral? Another illuminating passage is the following; “Modern society is in itself a crime factory. The militarist is a relative of the murderer and the burglar is the complement of the stock jobber.” The third excerpt runs as follows;

“The thief in law is merely the person who satisfied his acquisitive in ways not sanctioned by the community. The real thief is the person who takes more out of society than he puts into it.” But “Society punishes those who annoy it,—the retail and not the wholesale offenders.”

Ghandi published the “Seven Deadly Sins” after that with the comment, “Naturally, the friend does not want the reader to know these things merely through the intellect but to know them through the heart to avoid them.”

The entire issue of Young India  can be found at: Full page photo.  The last page, under the title “Practical Vendata” offers an interesting view of Hindu philosophy (Vendata) compared to the teachings of Jesus.

We have wandered a bit because, as usual, one thing has led to another. Getting back to the beginning: Where are we as a people and as a nation on this list of deadly social sins—-and how do we move closer to becoming repentant sinners?

AI Sees Itself

Posted on by
Reply

A few days ago, Jake Tapper on CNN asked whether AI was a threat or a blessing. He talked to a couple of folks about how AI is revolutionizing the discovery of Cancers, for example.

I began to wonder if AI rivals the biggest ethical concerns since the development of atomic energy—-the development of it for peaceful purposes vs. the use of it for war.  Have there been other social/scientific/political issues between the atomic bomb Then and the AI Now that presented greater opportunities for both peace and disaster?  Let us know in the comments box below.

To move the discussion along, I decided to consult with my techno/philosophical café table companion, Steve Mays.

I had coffee (well he had an Expresso and I had a Diet Coke) with Steve last Saturday morning.  We enjoy discussing philosophical issues and I mentioned to him that in my next “Notes from a Quiet Hill” entry I was going to ask if Artificial Intelligence presented the greatest ethical issue for humanity since the creation of the Atomic Bomb.

On one hand it can identify cancer before it’s cancer. On the other hand, it can replace humans in an uncomfortable number of ways.

We quickly agreed it might be the great ethical issue of our present time. And then Steve—who many years ago bludgeoned me into acknowledging that this internet thing might be useful—decided to ask one of his I-phone AI sites to answer the question. (Steve is an Applelarian, an early adopter who at times stood in line before sunrise for the latest iteration is his cell phone and I an Androidian who last week was happy to stroll into Best Buy and go back to the future by buying a flip phone.)

Yes, after 20 or more years carrying around what seemed to be increasingly larger cell phones, I have sought a smaller pocket load.

I chose this color because it’s harder to forget where I put it.

This is the response from AI:

Is AI Humanity’s Greatest Ethical Issue Since the Atomic Bomb?

The question of whether AI is humanity’s greatest ethical issue since the atomic bomb is not a settled one — experts are deeply divided, and the answer depends on how one defines “greatest” and “since the atomic bomb.”

Historical context
The atomic bomb’s ethical weight came from its unprecedented destructive power, the existential threat it posed, and the moral responsibility of its creators and deployers. AI, by contrast, is a general-purpose technology with dual-use potential — it can be deployed for immense good (e.g., medical diagnostics, climate modeling) or for profound harm (e.g., autonomous weapons, deepfakes, mass surveillance) Yale University Press.

Why AI is ethically urgent

  • Scale and pervasiveness: Unlike nuclear weapons, AI systems are now embedded in nearly every sector — healthcare, finance, law, education, and governance — making them a constant presence in human life Yale University Press+1.
  • Autonomy and decision-making: AI can make decisions without human oversight, raising questions about accountability, consent, and the erosion of human agency pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
  • Bias and fairness: AI systems can perpetuate or amplify societal biases, affecting everything from hiring to criminal justice Springer.
  • Truth and authority: Generative AI challenges traditional notions of authorship, truth, and expertise, potentially undermining trust in information MDPI.
  • Existential risk: Some experts warn of long-term risks such as job displacement on a scale unseen since industrialization, or AI systems that could act against human interests Psychology Today+1.

Why it may not yet be “greatest”
While AI’s ethical stakes are high, the atomic bomb’s moral gravity was tied to its immediate, catastrophic consequences and the nuclear arms race. AI’s risks are more diffuse, long-term, and systemic, but they are also more preventable through regulation, transparency, and ethical design Yale University Press+1. Many scholars argue that AI’s ethical challenges are significant but not yet on the same existential scale as nuclear weapons.

Conclusion
AI is arguably humanity’s most pressing ongoing ethical challenge since the atomic bomb — not because it matches the bomb’s immediate destructiveness, but because it is a pervasive, evolving technology with the potential to reshape society, values, and human relationships in ways that demand urgent, global ethical governance. Whether it is “the greatest” depends on one’s priorities: immediate existential threat, long-term societal transformation, or the erosion of human control.

In short, it is—as was the case with atomic energy and any other revolutionary technology such as moveable type, mass production of cotton gins, internal combustion engines, broadcasting, satellite communication and imaging—up to humans to decide how a significant new technology will be used.

We have only ourselves to trust.  Or, sometime in the future, to blame.

-0-

Blasphemy:

Posted on by
Reply

—The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or to something sacred.

(Warning: This entry begins with an intemperate phrase not normally uttered by the author but circumstances have driven him to do so because there appears no better way to state the case).

If there are any people in the world that Donald Trump hasn’t pissed off yet, do not despair. The rest surely will be included soon. (Messrs Putin,  Un, and Xi excepted).

Even his evangelical Christian friends have been taken aback by his attack on the pope coupled with the totally indefensible image of him apparently raising a modern Lazarus from the dead.  

He could have said the image was a symbolic representation of his claim that he inherited a dead country but raised it up to be the hottest country in the world, a claim that would be only slightly less ridiculous than what he told reporters it was: “I thought it was me as a doctor, and had to do with Red Cross, as a Red Cross worker, which we support.” Why he thought anybody with an IQ above five would buy the explanation that he thought he was portraying a doctor will forever be a mystery.

“Had to do with the Red Cross?” We’re not sure if the woman in the lower right corner is a nurse or an airline cabin attendant.  Had she been a nurse, she might have had a red cross on her blouse. But there is nothing in the image that would lead any sentient being to think “Red Cross” when they looked at it.

And “doctor?” Nobody from Doctor Kildare to The Pitt has ever worn that kind of outfit. And his claim only shows him to be more of a fool.

The image is full of nationalistic symbols—the Statue of Liberty, the fighter jets roaring overhead, the flag.  We’re not sure what the figures above his head are (one has wings). Perhaps they are the spirits of his battlefield casualties rising to a place he has said he’s not sure he’ll go.

Not Jesus?  The piece is reminiscent of this image we discovered on the internet. I have not discovered the artist so he or she could be properly credited, but the attire and the general mood of the work can easily lead one to think Trump-as-Jesus or Donald the Christ if you will, seems pretty derivative.

Jesus undoubtedly never looked like this WASP.  It is an image any White Christian Nationalist would enjoy hanging in living room, though.

Vice President J.D. Vance rushed to his boss’s defense with the absurd suggestion that Trump was only joking and, “He took it down because he recognized that a lot of people weren’t understanding his humor in that case.”

The Knights Templar, which began as a Catholic military order supporting the first Crusade a thousand years ago, called the image “offensive and blasphemous,” and said it was “deeply offended by this and have no other choice but to condemn it wholeheartedly and ask for a public apology to the Christian brethren who have been deeply upset by this depiction. We respectfully remind President Trump of the Bible Scripture found in Galatians 6:7 ‘God will not be mocked.'”

Continue reading →

The Boodle Scandal, Part One

Posted on by
Reply

I want to take you back to the early Twentieth Century when muckraking reporters such as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Ray Stannard Baker, Upton Sinclair, and Jacob Riis—to name a few—were writing powerful newspaper and magazine articles exposing the ugly underside of government and business and the partnerships between the two that sometimes amounted to a betrayal of our country or our state for their personal or corporate benefit.

Today we call them investigative reporters, people who burrow into the inner workings of business/government relationships that corruptly enrich a few and harm the many—not unlike too many things we are seeing today at the national and even the state levels wherever you might live.

In our entries today and on Wednesday we are going to bring you Lincoln Steffens’ “Enemies of the Republic” from the October, 1904 issue of McClures magazine.  But first, we need to set the stage.

“Boodle” in those days referred to bribery.  A boodler was one who gave or who accepted bribes to influence public policy.

The story of the great boodle scandal in Missouri came to me many years ago in researching the stories of the ministers of my church in Jefferson City and the brief career here of Crayton S. Brooks, a fiery temperance preacher who came to what was then a pretty wide open town particularly when the legislature was in session every other year.

On Sunday evening, March 1, 1903 Rev. Crayton S. Brooks—whose preaching earlier had led to the closing of pool halls and gambling houses—asserted from his pulpit at the First Christian Church four blocks from the Capitol that “there were $1,000 bills being exchanged in Jefferson City by men not in the habit of handling such amounts of money,” the implication being that they were buying votes in the legislature.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Joseph J. McAuliffe happened to be in one of the pews that night and wrote about the sermon. There is a lot I wish we knew about their relationship  and why a St. Louis reporter “happened” to be at the church that night, but we do know that Brooks admired St. Louis prosecutor Joe Folk for his earlier work to bring down Ed Butler, the St. Louis political boss and had made a trip to St. Louis earlier in the year, although the accounts do not say why, leaving the door open to some speculation.

Representative Edward Eversole of St. Louis was named to lead a committee investigation and started summoning witnesses from among the lobbying corps. He said, “We saw men we wanted standing about the corridors and lobby of the Capitol four deep, but as soon as one or two were served there was a wild stampede and the greatest time you ever heard of getting out of town.”

He investigation eventually led to the indictments of four Senators who were accused of taking bribes for their votes on a bill concerning the ingredients of baking powder. Steffans will explain that in  his article.  Lieutenant Governor John Adams Lee, who planned to run for governor in 1904, was exposed as the middle man who delivered the bribes from the Royal Baking Powder Trust to the four legislators, resigned and fled to Chicago.

Steffens’ article said, “There is nothing partisan about graft. Only the people are loyal to party. The ” hated” trusts, all big grafters, go with the majority. In Democratic Missouri, the Democracy is the party of “capital.” The Democratic political leaders, crying down the trusts, corner the voters like wheat, form a political trust, and sell out the sovereignty of the people to the corporation lobby. And the lobby runs the State, not only in the interest of its principals, but against the interest of the people.”

In 1992, Missourians adopted term limits, an amendment that missed the target it should have hit and as we have seen in the years since opened the door to loss of legislative independence and replaced it with—too often—outside influence.  As it was put in 1992, adoption of term limits will end corporate memory in the legislature and the power to set public policy will pass from the legislative chambers to the hallways.

I watched it happen. Only after term limits went into effect did I hear the sponsor of a bill ask someone with an amendment, “Have you run this by so-and-so in the hall?” The question became unnecessary as cell phones proliferated and lawmakers could get messages while debating bills.  House and Senate rules ban lobbyists from the legislative floors.  But the cell phone’s texting app puts them there electronically.

Ineffective campaign spending limits and a U. S. Supreme Court ruling that corporations are, for political speech purposes, to be considered “people,” have had a profound effect on who gets access, how much of it they get and how they become manipulative of the process.

Understand that this is not saying all of our elected officials are crooked or can be bought. We have to trust the people we elect but we also must be aware of the awful pressures they endure to serve and the all-consuming world they live in for four intense months every year. Political courage sometimes is weakened in that climate because they are human and we sometimes are disappointed when the podium we put them on is not as high as we think it is.

We voters have a responsibility to pay attention to the issues they are dealing with so that our lawmakers are regularly reminded who they really work for.

Citizen cynicism is easy to come by and is a reflection on the citizen who refuses to maintain at least a modicum of awareness and is therefore less likely to be “cornered like wheat.”

That is where the reporter has a place—to expose as well as report. A good reporter has to have a bit of the spirit of Lincoln Steffens inside and our media must recognize the responsibility they have to be unafraid to rake muck when necessary.

Good reporters do not want to be liked by the people they report about. Nor do they want to be hated. They do hope to be respected as a necessary element of a free society. And they should be conscious of their responsibilities to citizens on both sides the aisle. They also must be unafraid, and expect those who employ them to be unafraid, too.

On Wednesday, you will read Lincoln Steffens’ Enemies of the Republic. It, unfortunately, has elements of truth that you will recognize in our present times.

(Picture Credit: Brooks—St. Louis Republic

Obituary for a Politician

Posted on by
Reply

In 1968, Nancy and I were in Sacramento, California where our friend from college, Tracy Wood, was a United Press Reporter in the Capitol.  We went with her to a news conference with Governor Ronald Reagan.  No credentials. No security checks. We just walked with her into the room.

She took us on a tour of the Capitol which, though big with a genuine gold dome, was not nearly as impressive as ours. We went into the House of Representatives that recently had been redecorated and told us House Speaker Jesse Unruh’s first impression if it was, “It looks like a French whorehouse.”

Jesse Unruh already was something of a political legend in California, the kind of political figure I wish we had today here and in Washington. Compared to Unruh, we live in a political world where genuine almost-larger-than-life figures are replaced by bland, small and often self-important individuals who tell us they will fight for us but instead are just throwers of sand in the political sandbox.

I was looking up Unruh’s most famous quotation about lobbyists a few days ago and I came across the Washington Post’s obituary for Unruh that made us wish for an era we are old enough to remember—when politics was properly passionate in the proper places, where it seems heavyweights fought over issues in the chambers and laughed over dinner at a restaurant.

It is discourteous, it is said, to speak ill of the dead but in this era there are a number of candidates for whom we might not speak well. His is the kind of obituary for a politician we are not likely to see when the final gavel falls for too many of this generation:

Washington Post

JESSE UNRUH A ‘BIG DADDY’ WHO GAVE POLITICS AND POWER A BEAR HUG

By Lou Cannon, Washington Post  August 5, 1987

When Jesse Unruh arrived in Sacramento 32 years ago as an overweight, underpaid state assemblyman, he became part of a legislature that was largely of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists and for the lobbyists.

The history books will say that Unruh, who died of cancer Tuesday in his California home at the age of 64, took money from these lobbyists and used it to elect legislators who made him, as speaker of the Assembly, the most powerful politician in California. The historians will also say that Unruh used this power to transform a supine and dependent legislative body into one that had a decent respect for the people and sufficient resources to represent them. They will say that the Unruh era was a time when the legislature initiated action to help the needy, protect consumers, advance civil rights and save some of California’s magnificent parklands before developers could destroy them.

During the Unruh years, these achievements were overshadowed by the forceful personality and gargantuan appetites of “Big Daddy,” a nickname given him by his friends and hurled back in his face by his enemies.

He was called “Big Daddy” because of his supposed resemblance to the domineering southern father played by Burl Ives in the film version of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” But Unruh really was more Broderick Crawford than Ives, the Crawford who portrays a thinly disguised Huey Long in “All the King’s Men” and rallies the rural dispossessed to his banner by calling them “hicks” and promising them a taste of the power they have never had.

When Unruh went to the legislature, he was a real hick from the cotton fields of Swenson, Tex., by way of the Navy and a GI Bill of Rights education at the University of Southern California. He had been dirt poor, and he once said that he never wore socks before he was 12 but that no one could tell because his feet were so dirty.

” . . . They live in a steady shame and insult of discomforts, insecurities and, inferiorities, piecing these together into whatever semblance of comfortable living they can,” James Agee wrote of similar sharecroppers. This is what Unruh’s life was like as a boy and, in some inner recess, what it must always have been like. After he became, at 39, the youngest speaker of the Assembly in California’s history, he told a friend, “I’m still not sure I’m not going to wake up some day and be on a small farm out there in Texas.”

Perhaps because he knew what it was like to be truly powerless, Unruh had a keener appreciation of power than more sheltered politicians. “He was the premier politician in the state because he knew the issues and understood the uses of power,” said Stuart K. Spencer, a longtime Republican adversary and friend. “He used power to advance the causes he believed in. He was very honest and didn’t go sneaking around when he wanted money like some politicians do. But the key was that he was willing to use the power once he acquired it.”

Unruh’s Democratic candidates and Spencer’s Republican candidates competed for the legislature in campaigns of brutal intensity and misrepresentation. Afterward, they would drink together and tell stories about what they had done to each other. Unruh did not avoid his adversaries, and he valued most those who shared his understanding that politics was both a noble calling and a dirty business.

Unruh was not afraid to get his hands dirty. He despised those who disdained political detail or soared above the petty and sometimes ugly struggles by which he remade the State Assembly. Unruh boasted too much and ate too much and, for a long time, drank too much. But he did not shrink from the reality of his faults or his virtues.

Instructing freshman assemblymen on how legislators were supposed to behave in lobby-ridden Sacramento, Unruh would say, “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here.” This doctrine formed the core of Unruh’s political theology. He knew that the lobbyists were an eternal fact of life. He believed that the way to deal with them was to accept this fact and use their resources to advance his own agenda.

He did not deal as successfully with Ronald Reagan as he had with the lobbyists. Unruh was too proud of his political skills to appreciate the contempt which many Americans hold for politicians as a class. Gov. Reagan, who did not know the contents of his own legislative program, understood and shared this prejudice and exploited it at Unruh’s expense.

But it is also true that Unruh, who was at bottom an unrelenting, populist Democrat with a personal understanding of poverty, gave Reagan a tougher political race than any other Democrat has before or since. You can look it up, as Casey Stengel would have said. Without money or organization or an attractive television personality, Unruh nonetheless came much closer to defeating Reagan at the polls than did Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, President Jimmy Carter or Vice President Walter F. Mondale.

After Unruh lost to Reagan in 1970, his political life went downhill. He was strong enough to accept defeat, but he was unable to deal with powerlessness and being out of the legislature. As an elder statesman, he was a bust.

Unruh subsequently was elected state treasurer, a job whose requirements he mastered within minutes and which gave him time and freedom. But his home was no longer in the future, and he spent the rest of his life recalling the glory days when he had been “Big Daddy,” the powerful speaker of the Assembly.

He had a right to do that, a right to feel pride in his accomplishments. He did something that no else has ever done. He went to California as a Texas hick and remade its corrupt and backward-looking legislature into a modern instrument of democracy. This is not a small thing.

Oh, how I would like to see those words about eating, drinking, etc., and voting against them on the wall of every legislative office in our Capitol.  I’ll bet a craftsman in Jefferson City could sell of lot of ‘em.  Maybe they would provoke some cultural change.

 

Traditional?

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump, who often has accused his accusers of engaging in witch hunts, appears to be off on a witch hunt of his own, a witch being anyone who does not advocate “traditional views.”  HIS “traditional views.”

We hope somebody asks him for a comprehensive definition of “traditional views” so that I know whether I am involved in “domestic terrorism,” another subject that it would be entertaining to hear him define.

During the weekend a memo written by loyalist Pam Bondi, whom Trump has designated to supervise the Justice (rather loosely defined these day) Department, was leaked. It tells the DOJ to put together a list of “domestic terrorism” groups.

What constitutes such a group?

It is what the Trump/Bondi DOJ chooses to consider “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”

In other words, it’s those who disagree with President Trump who, in our observation, is never going to rival Noah Webster in defining words and terms.

Reporter Ken Klippenstein revealed the memo.  And who is he?

An interesting character. Young, used to work for The Intercept, a nonprofit news organization considered to be well into the political west wing, a former correspondent for The Nation, a  liberal magazine, and a part of the growing online news world. His father is a theoretical chemist at the Argonne National Laboratory. He says his mother’s family was undocumented immigrants from El Salvador.  College grad with a degree in English literature. He has broken other stories using leaked material, too.

We wonder how quickly his name is in a Pamagram sent to the list.

Trump is not the first ruler to impose his “traditional views” on the people.

Tomás de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition from 1483 to 1498 under appointment of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain, the patrons of Christopher Columbus who ventured forth during a period of extreme persecution of Jews and Muslims to spread those traditional (Christian) views to whatever heathens he found when he arrived someplace that he did not know he was going to.

Going back even earlier, we can talk about Pope Stephen VI, who in a remarkable fifteen months pulled all kinds of stunts including the calling of the infamous Cadaver Synod in which he put his dead predecessor on trial for perjury and the illegal assumption of the papacy.  He dug up the corpse of Pope Formosus, put papal vestments on it, propped it up on a throne and had a mock trial.

The corpse did not mount much of a defense and after being found guilty was stripped of his vestments and ceremonially maimed (three of his fingers were cut off) before the remains of his remains were thrown into the Tiber River. There was widespread disapproval of Pope Steve’s definition of “traditional views” and he wound up in prison where he was strangled to death, apparently by non-traditionalists.

Long before Russia had Stalin and his “traditional views,” it had Ivan the Terrible—Ivan IV—who reigned for more than fifty years. He, too, started by promising reforms but quickly was consumed by paranoia and formed his own secret police that terrorized and murdered his subjects by the thousands, one of who was his own son.

Romania in 15th century had Vlad III who once ordered 20,000 enemy soldiers impaled, their bodies remaining on display as a warning against disloyalty. Vlad the Impaler, he is still called.

His cruelty wasn’t just reserved for outsiders; he targeted his own people as well. Vlad would punish dishonesty and laziness with extreme torture, sometimes impaling entire villages. Laziness and dishonesty also were abhorred by our Puritan ancestors, but they just stuck people in the stocks for a few hours—

—Unless they were witches.  Hanging, pressing, and drowning seemed to have been the Puritan Christian cures for those tendencies.

As far as I know, nobody has accused President Trump of being a Puritan. So we’d appreciate it if he’d offer a clear explanation of his terms sometime when he’s awake and not playing the Game of Invective all night on his social media account.

We don’t want to spend any more time—although we could—listing other rulers who sought to protect “traditional values” as they defined them. And we certainly don’t want to suggest that President Trump fits the mold of those we have cited and others on various lists of vengeful rulers. But punishment for differing with any ruler who considers himself the only one to define “traditional values” has a past that must raise questions about a person of questionable personal ethics setting a national agenda for you and me.

The Trump memo also demands creation of “a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”

The President’s definition of “domestic terrorism threat” as being any organization that uses “violence or the threat of violence” to oppose “law and immigration enforcement, extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders, adherence to radical gender theology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government” and the aforementioned “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”

Except for MAGA and January 6, 2021 celebrants.

You will excuse me, I hope, if I cannot consider Donald J. Trump in any way fit to determine nation’s views “on family, religion, and morality.”

The Constitution aside, this is a pretty broad mission for our national ruler. Just about everybody falls into one of these categories in one way or another, including me. And you.

Apparently, however, there is a way that we can become immune to prosecution under this policy. We just have to cough up a nine or ten-figure amount to pay for decoration of the monstrosity of a Trump Worship Center that will stand for decades as a tribute to his bad tase and his desire to have more monuments to himself than anybody since the ancient Egyptian pharaohs.

I’m going to put an orange jumpsuit on my Christmas gift list to make sure I’m properly dressed when the traditional values Pamgoons come for me.