Sunshine Patriots and Summer Soldiers

There is only one way the average citizen can stand up to Donald Trump and his increasingly repressive acts:

Vote against any candidate who either supports his administration or who lacks the courage to speak against it.

We will lose some good Republican office holders in November not because they are incompetent but because they are silent.  As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense in 1776:

Voters should evaluate their candidates with much greater thought and care this time, more than any time we have experienced. They and the state and the nation will be well-served by allowing their inner Independent to emerge and evaluate each candidate on both sides of the ballot with thought and concern.

We do not advocate wholesale rejection of the Republicans.  A Democrat might have less to offer to voters and should not be elected solely because that candidate has a D above their column. Likewise, individual Republicans should not be solely evaluated because of voter hostility toward the President. Think. Evaluate.

At the same time, this is no time to be a summer soldier and a sunshine patriot.  There must be a strong message from the citizens of this country that blind loyalty to Donald Trump carries a cost.

We have lived through the completely unnecessary election disaster that his demand for another Republican congressional district has caused with the Secretary of State turning himself into a pretzel trying to defend his actions and his party’s decisions supporting Trump’s wishes.

If I was a Republican candidate for the General Assembly, whether as a new person running for a House seat or a House member hoping move up to the Senate, I would look at the overwhelming rejection of two GOP amendments in August, the dropping survey figures for the President and for our Governor, the furor over congressional districts, and sense that approval of Republican proposals on the November ballot might not go well and I would carefully consider what kind of lawmaker I will promise to be—

—and then hope I get a chance to keep that promise, knowing that in just two years as a State Representative I will have a record no matter what I say I am for in this election.

This is a time for candidates on both sides of the aisle to honestly evaluate who they are. It is not enough for a Democrat to run on the concept that he or she is not a Republican.  It is not enough for a Republican to remain silent about current times and issues or to deny what they have done to contribute to them.

This is a time to start over for some, perhaps many, of our lawmakers to convincingly promise not to be who they have been and for others to be specific about what they want to do that will be better than what has been done.

It is not true that in politics a leopard cannot change his spots. Whether that leopard can be convincing in trying to do so is for voters to decide.

It is American to vote back and forth on the ballot.  We are living the danger of determining fitness of office only on the basis of an R or a D.  Do not be afraid to cross party lines. Your vote is secret. Only you will know. Voters must exercise their conscience when their party’s candidate will not exercise his.

Whether voters realize it or not, the future of our state is very much in their hands in November.

We voters should keep in mind the words of Lincoln in his address to a joint session of Congress in 1862:

“We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us.”  What was good  advice for Congress at the start of the Civil War is good advice for the electorate today. These are dangerous, historic, times and we must remember, as Lincoln also said 164 years ago, “We cannot escape history.”

For generations we have failed to recognize the value of what we have obtained too cheaply and esteemed too lightly.

A President who has no loyalty to this nation and its people but only to himself is an albatross around the necks of many candidates who have not or will not stand apart from him and in their silence sanction the evil that he is and that he does.

Our preachers tells us it is never to late to repent and it is never too late to respect the truly penitent. That’s a good point to think about in the voting booth.

History will measure us severely by the choices we make in November.

(Image credit: libquotes.com)

Snipers and Drones?

Building a triumphal arch overlooking Arlington Cemetery is not enough of an abomination. Our President has not surprisingly found a way to make it worse.

Snipers???  It will house snipers????

Drones?????

Ammunition stockpiles???

What the Hell has prompted him to turn his arch celebrating military triumphs into a mini-fortress or, as he has put it, “a top grade Military Complex.”

He says it’s being done as a matter of national security (which is his excuse for a lot of stuff, isn’t it?) and after a “strong request” from the military.  Could we know who in the military made this strong request?

Will he have ICE snipers up there picking off suspected illegal immigrants as they cross the Arlington Memorial Bridge?  Will drones launched from his arch blend harmoniously into the routes of airliners on their final landing approach to Reagan International Airport?

We wonder when his demented mind will realize the arch would be a good checkpoint to make sure only American citizens of at least three generations are allowed in or out of Washington.  Additionally, officers could block anyone crossing the bridge into the city if there are signs in the back seat or trunk protesting his ongoing fevered dream of defiling the Kennedy Center by putting his name on it. That number might even be much larger these days than the number of dead legal or illegal immigrants.

If it also is to serve as Fortress Trump, perhaps it would be better located at Outpost Hegseth, the Pentagon, and where appropriately the new Hegseth Boulevard could pass through it.

The National Park Service, which one might suspect in normal times would object strongly to this idiocy, instead is equivocating.  It says the arch would affect several historic sites near Arlington National Cemetery including the cemetery’s historic district, the Washington and Lincoln monuments, the Jefferson Memorial the Capitol Mall, and others.

But NPS says it’s okay to go ahead with the arch as long as there are “mitigations,” such as an archaeological investigation before any digging is done. vibration monitoring near the bridge, and a plan so that funerals and wreath-laying ceremonies will not be disrupted—and some new interpretive web pages would help, including one that discusses “the history and significance of triumphal arches.”

We heard last week the digging had started. Forget any archaeological investigations.

There goes the idea of putting it at Outpost Hegseth.

The arch is to have three golden statutes on top of it. A big statue of Lady Liberty will be flanked by two gold eagles that are to represent national pride and strength.

At least the big statue is not of himself.

I really hope these entries are never read to him by anybody. I hate to think I would give him the idea.

The urge to suggest the eagles be replaced by Loons is something I am repressing.

Oops.

A Nation of Laws 

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)

What’s Left After Contempt and Concession 

Records in the State Supreme Court Historical Society indicate Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ contempt of court case is the first contempt case before the court since 1878 and might be only the fifteenth in state history, none of which involved a statewide office holder.  All of the old cases were appeals of lower court contempt holdings. This could be the first time someone was held in contempt of the Missouri Supreme Court itself.

In my sixty years of reporting in Jefferson City, this is the first contempt of the Supreme Court case that I have ever seen.

Shortly before the court was to return with its finding Thursday afternoon, Hoskins buckled to the inevitable and notified local election officials that the congressional district map approved by the legislature in 2022 would be used in the November election.

His earlier notice said that the Republican gerrymandered districts adopted to please President Trump would be used—although other court rulings had blocked that usage.

The tricky issue of deciding a proper penalty for violating the court’s earlier order forbidding use of the gerrymandered districts was thus avoided.  Chief Justice W. Brent Powell noted that Hoskins could purge himself of his previous statement and orders and that he had done so with his letter to election authorities. The contempt ruling stands but there will be no punishment from the court. Whether feelings of voters when Hoskins is up for re-election in two years will take their due is something we’ll have to wait for.

There might be many bottom lines from this series of actions.  Legislative Republicans are 0-for-3 on major public policy decisions this year with two really hot issues on the ballot in November—

Amendment 3 prohibits abortion in most cases, and blocks gender transition procedures for people younger than 18. The amendment would overturn a more pro-choice amendment adopted by voters in 2024 after a petition campaign generated enough signatures for a ballot position. It got about 52% of the vote.

Amendment 6 says the legislature cannot change a law proposed by a petition and approved by voters without 80% percent of the voters agreeing with the change.

The other proposition is the one that upholds the gerrymandered redistricting plan, proposition A. What all of this fuss and feathers has resolved is that voters still can approve the new districts by adopting proposition A, which will make the districts available in the 2028 elections but not useful in protecting President Trump from a House and/or Senate controlled by Democrats after November’s election.

Republicans could go 0 for 6 this year on ballot issues if the People Not Politicians movement maintains its momentum or, with these court rulings, picks up strength.

There still remains one piece of absurdity in this ugly worship of The Donald.

A few hours before the court’s hearing and its ultimate ruling on contempt, fourteen members of the legislature threatened the court with impeachment.

The seven judges didn’t even blink when hearing of this threat.  They not only went ahead with the hearing and found Hoskins in contempt.

So now what?

The only thing goofier than the threat would be for these fourteen Republicans (and their colleagues) to file articles of impeachment in this week’s veto session. The court’s lack of interest in their threat gives them a choice: Look foolish for filing the threat or look foolish for going ahead with it.

How would they go about impeaching and convicting the court—all seven members?

Guess who conducts the trial of an impeached state official?   The Supreme Court, that’s who.  Impeaching one at a time leaves the other six to run a trial of a colleague, a pretty goofy idea. Maybe they could import the supreme court of a surrounding state to do it.

Goofiness seems to be the order of the day.

Will their threats generate votes for them and their party in November?  It’s hard to see that it will because of national surveys showing that President Trump’s behavior as a political bully isn’t going over anymore and in fact is turning people off, way off. .

What we have here, folks, seems to be that too many Republicans are lowering the anchor of the ship of state, not realizing the chain is wrapped around their own ankles.

The Republicans have handed Democrats wheelbarrows full of campaign issues that the D’s can use in the next two months or so to pound on R’s.

And in two more years, when the Governor, Attorney General (who represented Hoskins), and Hoskins come up for re-election along with legislative Republicans seeking re-election or election to a higher office, the Democrats still will be well-armed.

Republicans need to do some serious image repair. They need to pick up a major issue (or many major issues) that will sympathetically resonate with the people.

(Picture credit:  Front row (from left): Judge Fischer, Chief Justice Powell, Judge Ransom; Back row (from left): Judge Gooch, Judge Wilson, Judge Broniec, Judge Russell —Missouri Supreme Court;  Goofy—Etsy)

Chaos 

(Two important updates to this posting occurred overnight as the gigantic mess that will be our congressional elections in November has gotten even worse)  Look for  the boldface additions in this revised–for the third time—column).  

The two people in this household are going to vote in the November election. As of today, we are not sure who we will want to be our member of Congress because we aren’t sure which congressional district we will be in.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh might have settled it yesterday when he flatly rejected the appeal of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling that the old districts will be used for the election.  Kavanaugh is a Trump appointee and we would not be in this mess if Trump had not asked his loyal Republican-dominated legislature to skew congressional districts to help keep him in power.

However, shortly after that, a lower federal court judge ruled the other way.  We went to bed last night glad the day was over but knowing it is likely today will produce more political and judicial mayhem that none of us deserves but that all of us are getting, thanks to a President thinks our political system was invented just to keep him happy.

But since then, things have really heated up.

Shortly after that, the Chief Federal District Judge of this region, Stephen Clark, ruled the other way, issuing a temporary restraining order telling Hoskins to use the gerrymandered map while the case goes forward in the federal court system.  We went to bed last night glad the day was over but knowing it is likely today will produce more political and judicial mayhem that none of us deserves but that all of us are getting, thanks to a President thinks our political system was invented just to keep him happy. 

Governor Kehoe thanked the judge for providing “much needed clarity for Missouri voters and the election process.”  Since yesterday was the last day to make changes to the November ballot, he said, “the Missouri First Map will be used in the general election.”

He said, “Voters and candidates deserve consistency, certainty, and not to have the rules changed between elections,” an observation that is interesting because that is exactly what President Trump, the legislature, and Governor Kehoe have done “between elections” in 2024 and 2026. 

The scramble yesterday has left the Missouri Supreme Court, shall we say, in a state of high urinary agitation.  We awoke this morning to read a Missouri Independent report that the court has ordered Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to appear before it in person at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning to show why he should not be held in contempt of court for telling election officials to go ahead with a district map the court has forbidden him from using. It seems Hoskins had, as soon as Clark’s order came down, certified the official state ballot using the rejiggered congressional districts and sent the order, and his certification of the districts out to local election officials.  He says the Clark order, in effect, overrules the Missouri court’s order. 

The Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court wants Hoskins to explain exactly why his actions “is not an affirmative violation” of the court’s injunction which has the backing of a United States Supreme Court judge (who ranks higher on the judicial food chain than Clark) and, “if he is not willing to comply with this court’s injunction, he should take no action in all things related to the congressional district map until guidance is received from a higher court…”

Chief Justice W. Brent Powell made it clear this hearing is a face-off between Hoskins and the court.  Nobody else will be allowed to intervene.  

The last time we can recall a sitting state official to answer to the Missouri Supreme Court was when the court tried and convicted Secretary of State Judy Moriarty in 1994 of committing impeachable offenses—-  

—–which raises a question about how all of this could eventually play out for Hoskins, should anyone want to make a case of it.  If the GOP continues to control the legislature, that question likely is going to be moot.

This whole ugly thing is compliments of the same political party that gave us two amendments that were stomped flat by voters in August, allowed a small number of maverick state senators to produce two or three of the least productive legislative sessions—probably since the Civil War when we had a government supported by the U. S. Army in Jefferson City and a bunch of exiles pretending to be a Confederate government based in Texas, and who so badly fumbled a chance to pass a sports gambling law that the interested parties gave us a constitutional amendment that is of grave disservice to the people of Missouri

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves if voter in November seek retribution for this craziness by promoting many GOP lawmakers back to private life. Will the majorities in the House and Senate switch in November? Probably not.  But we’ll be watching to see if the two-third majorities and the accompanying arrogance that comes with such margins disappears at the hands of voters who think these lawmakers have gone too far.

The Missouri Supreme court has blamed our Secretary of State, who was one of those maverick senators, for this mess.  And the court underlined its feelings with a unanimous vote.

The court suspended the congressional district maps drawn because President Trump is afraid he’ll lose control of Congress in November and asked the Missouri legislature to approve maps that will oust one of our senior congressmen, Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. That would giving the GOP one more Congressman from Missouri who can protect Trump..  The legislature was more than happy to oblige him.

But then some citizens who felt such manipulation of the political system more focused on government of one person, by one person, and for one person is not exactly what this country is all about.  They went around and collected signatures of about 300,000 other dissenters demanding the new map not go into effect until the people had agreed to it.  The number of signatures was more than adequate to put the question on the ballot.

Secretary of State Denny Hoskins apparently found some wiggle room in a federal district judge’s ruling last December that the new map would be suspended if the petition had enough signatures and a vote could be held on overturning that map. The judge’s opinion noted, however, that Hoskins believed he had the power to declare the petition itself was unconstitutional.

The Missouri Supreme Court told him, twice, that he had to rule on whether the petitions had enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

Rather than do that before the primary election that used the questionable new districts, Hoskins waited until the primary election was already underway before proclaiming the petition unconstitutional.

The Missouri Supreme Court said he screwed up, saying there actually are no new districts because opponents had gathered adequate signatures to have an election on their legitimacy. Unless voters approved the districts, they did not exist.

But Hoskins let the election proceed with the new districts.  So now we have candidates in our eight districts and—-

?

Justice Kavanaugh’s terse rejection of the districts is a second loud slap in the face of Hoskins and the obedient Trumpicans in our Capitol, coming after our Supreme Court’s ruling.

As we understand it these two rulings, we have no districts except the old ones and the candidates did not run in the old districts. They ran in the new ones which the court says don’t exist. The Missouri court has said rather clearly that Hoskins is responsible for any confusion the people of Missouri might have.

That’s a very heavy load of responsibility.  Hoskins will be up for re-election in 2028. Missourians are likely to be reminded of these events.

Out of this complicated embarrassment so far, however, is something vitally important. The Constitutional right of Missouri citizens “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”     to enact laws through a petition process and to overturn offensive laws enacted by the people who are supposed to represent us has been upheld. The court decisions have upheld Missourians’ right to initiative and petition in overwhelming numbers. (Next year will be the 120th anniversary of the adoption of initiative and referendum in Missouri. We need to have a big celebration.)

Hoskins disputes the Missouri court’s ruling that he’s the one to blame.  He seemed to argue in a radio interview (KFTK) that the Trumpian map should be valid for November because voters used it in the primary election.

—although the State Supreme Court says they (we) voted in illegal and therefore nonexistent districts.  Justice Kavanaugh obviously didn’t buy Hoskins’ arguments either.

We must confess that we are as befuddled as most people are and we’re not convinced we understand all of this folderol or if we have explained the situation correctly.

If the districts were not legal, then there actually was no congressional primary election, right?   And those of us who voted were just rehearsing for the real thing. Can that be correct?  Are we headed to November with candidates nominated in a non-election?

And since the petition issue gathered enough signatures to merit a vote and no districts, old or new, will be established until voters have decided on the petition issue, how can we vote for our congressional delegation in November?

If it turns out that one of the winners in August is not a resident of the old district that might be in effect in November—-

Well?

I feel as if I am wading in the dark through an endless swamp of mashed potatoes and the legislature led me to it.  Lawmakers are back at the Capitol for a day or two next week to consider overriding any of the Governor’s vetoes from the spring session.  Can they, will they, do anything to restore some orderliness in our state political system?

To paraphrase an old saying:

“To err is human. To really screw up things you need a politician.”

I am now going to take some aspirin and lie down and hope this all passes.

(picture credit: Demotivators)

 

It Must Be Hard

It must be hard as you contemplate

Your political and uour personal fate

To realize you are a duck increasingly lame

And the power is diminishing of your name.

That you have less and less control

Of those whose loyalty to you has taken a toll.

It must be hard.

It must be hard to see

That your supporters have begun to flee;

When those counted as your tools

Begin to realize they have been your fools;

When those to whom your voice filled their ear

Let it be known they no longer hear

Or fear

You.

It must be hard.

 

It must be hard

To see those you called your friends

Have used you for their own ends;

Your friends Xi and Putin and Un

Think you’ve been just a little bit of fun.

When bluster and bullying and lying fall flat—

It must be hard to admit that

No one believes in the significance

Of You.

It must be hard.

 

It must be hard

To know the people you throw

Out of the country know

Better than most

The narrowness beyond your oft-heard boast

That you’re really just helping Americans most;

They know, because they watch and they wait

For your next explosion of vengeance and hate

Of people you don’t know or about whom you don’t care.

But you know no matter what,

They’ll always be there.

Despite you.

 

It must be hard

To see those you cooose

lose.

To know you have less power

That you no longer tower

Over those loyalist

who have flown

And no longer are your own.

It must be hard for you to seek

The power you once had,

But know that now you now are weak.

It must be terribly hard.

 

It must be hard

While playing pasture pool in your big back yard

That few people care about the score

That you might approve on your personal card

A few strokes less, maybe one more

It’s not golf that will determine your most final score.

Others are scoring you, you see

As you stumble from hole to tee

While the world around you falls to ruin and rack

You only care about the nine holes coming back.

Soon you will be gone, that is a fact

And nobody will care anymore for your act.

It must be hard.

It’s got to be hard to know how few will mourn

When you go. Few hearts will be torn

While so many will be eternally glad

And not at all sad

That you are gone.

And the places you named

To prove you were great

Will soon be returned

To their original state

 

It must be hard to know

What will happen when you go—

For go you will,

Your overnight rage

Will at last be gone from the stage

And we will never forget

The damage you did

But at last we will be rid

Of you.

And that won’t be hard.

(copyright 2026 by Bob Priddy)

A Little Politics We’d Like to Forget 

Saturday nights when Liz and Rob were not taller than we are, Saturday nights had kind of a ritual to them.

At 5 p.m., I’d turn on KBIA, the National Public Radio Station at the University of Missouri, and wait for A Prairie Home Companion to come on.  I had my reel-to-reel SONY recorder wired into the radio and set at the slowest recording speed to record the two-hour program based around a mythical Minnesota town called Lake Wobegone (“a little town that time forgot and the decades cannot improve, where all of the women are strong, the men are good looking, and all the children are above average”) and the stories told by one of its former residents, Garrison Keillor.

I left the speakers off because we were still doing stuff at 5.  Dinner was usually about 6.  At 7 we’d gather in the living room where I rewound the tape and we’d listen back to the recording. Popcorn was part of the evening.  While the playback was underway, I’d turn on my cassette recorder and dub the program onto the smaller format.  There also in our house were some LP recordings of old radio programs—Jack Benny, Fibber and Molly, Suspense, Mr. Kean—Tracer of Lost Persons, Gangbusters, the Shadow, the Lone Ranger, the Green Hornet, Straight Arrow, Escape, etc.—some of which I dubbed onto cassettes before we went on long trips.

SiriusXm now has a channel for those old programs (the PHC is on Keillor’s webpage) but in those days, cars had cassette players and those programs came in handy when World War III broke out in the back seat.  I’d just slide a cassette of Garrison or Jack or Fibber or Molly or one of the creepy shows into the player and peace would immediately break out behind us.

The kids’ imaginations were immediately seized by those radio shows.  The “theatre of the mind” took over and for an hour or two the miles slipped by easily and quietly.

We are not alone in thinking children today are missing that important element in their development—-imagination.  Oh, they can imagine they are great dragon fighters or world-saving soldiers on their computers.  But it’s not the same, by far.

Radio could then, and still can today if we ignore the local stations that aren’t local anymore and aren’t imaginative anymore, and are mostly forums for people whose egos are their greatest asset, expand the mind far beyond anything we can see, even on a 100=inch flat screen screwed to the wall.

(In 1965, the great radio humorist Stan Freberg did a series of public service announcements for the Radio Advertising Bureau promoting radio.  They’re all priceless but the fourth one, “Stretching the Imagination” is considered the classic:

(bing.com/search?q=Stan+freberg+who+listens+to+radio&form=ANNTH1&refig=6a8601c200594754ba45e2583e91c5c7&pc=HCTS)

The Singer is Sarah Vaughan.

Garrison Keillor is no longer doing his radio program but he does do stage shows recreating the program. He’s 84 now, writes books, lives in New York instead of Minnesota, and writes with his familiar droll humor a daily column.

A few days ago on the 17th, he offered this observation that we decided to pass along:

(7) Another modest proposal, but a good one

Yes, It is obvious that he’s a Democrat. In fact one of his books is called Home Grown Democrat. But he seems to capture the contradictory, confusing, infuriating political mess we are living through.

Saturday nights at our house aren’t so interesting anymore. The kids are all grown up and have their own families.  Sometimes, though, we do have some popcorn.  And in our cars, we can listen to Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar, Gunsmoke (with William Conrad as Matt Dillon, Boston Blackie, Tales of the Texas Rangers, the creaking door of the Inner Sanctum and many more.

And the miles just slip away.

We The People

Many years ago during a meeting in Washington D.C., a friend of mine from Maine insisted I go along with him to the Birchmere Music Hall across the Potomac in Arlington, Virginia to listen to a folk music trio from his state, Maine.   Schooner Faire’s harmonies on music focusing on northeastern culture has stayed with me to this day.  One is especially appropriate for our times.

One of the three men I watched that night has died but the other two, brothers Steve and Chuck Romanoff continue to perform. The third member, Tom Rowe, died in 2004. .

One of the songs they sang is one of their most popular. It’s called “We the People,” and although they’ve been singing it for decades it seems appropriate today.

If you want to follow along, or join in the signing, here are the lyrics by Steve Romanoff

We the people, hand in hand
We, the people, understand
That there’s an answer, there’s a way
We, the people, have to say
So, send the orders to prepare
We, the people, do declare
Send the good news, send the word
We, the people, will be heard
We, the people, everywhere

There’s a message in the air
And it’s a’movin’ across the land
If you listen you can hear it well, my friend
We know the time has come
To take our heads out of the sand
‘Cause if we don’t the chance might never come again
The future is in reason
Not in building ways of war
And the time has come for reason to be heard
The purpose of the people
Is what this declaration’s for
And it’s why our fathers told us word for word…

We the people, hand in hand
We, the people, understand
That there’s an answer, there’s a way
We, the people, have to say
So, send the orders to prepare
We, the people, do declare
Send the good news, send the word
We, the people, will be heard
We, the people, everywhere

We won’t accept excuses
And we won’t accept the lies
Of those who’d lead our nations into hell
It’s time to call their bluff
To say to them, enough’s enough
It’s time we all could hear the tolling of the bell

It’s time to feed the hungry
And it’s time to heal the pain
And it’s time to beat our weapons into plows

It’s time to hear the voices that have risen once again
It’s the wisdom of the people clear and loud
Singing proud…

We the people, hand in hand
We, the people, understand
That there’s an answer, there’s a way
We, the people, have to say
So, send the orders to prepare
We, the people, do declare
Send the good news, send the word
We, the people, will be heard
We, the people, everywhere

We the people, hand in hand
We, the people, understand
That there’s an answer, there’s a way
We, the people, have to say

So, send the orders to prepare
(That) We, the people, do declare
Send the good news, send the word
We, the people, will be heard
We, the people (Oooh)
We, the people (Oooh)
We, the people (Oh, Yes Oooh)
We, the people (Oooh)
We the people everywhere

Schooner Fare still performs after more than fifty years of concerts although you have to go to Maine at this time of year to hear them.

(The song can be heard on an album with the song’s title. Find it on Amazon at: https://music.amazon.com/albums/B00IIVZUGM?do=play&trackAsin=B00IIVZUOO&ts=1787150255&ref=dm_sh_zsaULICOxXOjIqQEaRmXCxqAz

There also are several Schooner Faire songs on YouTube and a complete 1992 concert from the Chocolate Church Arts Center in Bath, Maine. The song starts about 98 minutes in the concert if you would like to sing along with them:  youtube.com/watch?v=oJXtbDLHMl0&t=6234s.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXtbDLHMl0&t=6234s)

When you go to the polling place in November, perhaps this song will be in your mind along with Edmund Burke’s comment, “Governments who ignore the natural wisdom of the eople willd o so at their own peril.”

(photo credit: YouTube)

Smithsonian Museum of Un-American History 

If Donald Trump thought he could get away with naming the Smithsonian Museum of American History something such as a Museum of Un-American History, he would already have signed an executive order doing it.

While most of us were paying attention to celebrating Independence Day, Trump’s White House Domestic Policy Council was issuing its latest accusations targeting that museum. For months his administration has been busy “reforming” our national parks, monuments, and museums to get rid of “anti-Americanism.”  He prefers to pretend that slavery was a friendly relationship between master and slave, that the Confederacy and its key figures who repudiated the United States Constitution and fought with a breakaway segment of our country openly based on protecting slavery were just advocating for state’s rights, that nothing serious happened to Native American nations, and that his White Christians are the only important religious policy setters of our society.

Last year, Trump ordered the Smithsonian to remove anti-American ideology from the 21 museums and galleries (and the National Zoo) that fall under the Smithsonian system.

The Trump Domestic Policy Council’s 162-page report refers to “thinly veiled anti-Americanism” at the history museum and accuses it of showing this country is “a fundamentally oppressive nation.”  The council accuses the museum of moving “toward an extreme political activism.”

Then it breaks down that activism as “anti-white activism,” and “illegal alien activism,” and “transgender activism.”  It is also critical of the museum for having exhibits and programs depicting slavery, race, and systemic inequality, as ABC News put it in one of its reports.

I have been to many of those 21 museums, some of them—including American history—many times.  I am a white Christian with an ancestor who settled in Virginia on a land grant given him by the first Queen Elizabeth and I can tell you the council report, as is the case with the majority of Trump’s appraisals of the general history of our nation, is pure BS.

Perhaps Trump doesn’t like to see (as if he has ever visited the place) the whites-only Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina where four black college students sat down on February 1, 1960 and politely asked for service.  They refused to leave when asked to leave, setting off demonstrations that led to eventual integration of the lunch counter and helped trigger the civil rights movement in the south and its large student base. Four years later, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

One of the museum’s directors, Anthea Hartig, has called the exhibit in question, “central to our mission to explore, preserve and share the complexity of our past (that would be part of the America 250 celebration)…a bold and immersive experience across all three exhibition floors of the National Museum of American History. Suggestions that the Smithsonian had planned or intended to remove the lunch counter and stools are false. Daily, thousands of visitors view and learn from these cherished objects in the national collection.”

The Organization of American Historians charged the Trump administration with trying to “coerce Smithsonian leadership to shape ​its presentation of ⁠U.S. history so that it serves the administration’s political agenda – part of an ongoing and multi-pronged assault by the Trump administration against accurate and evidence-based history in American public life.”

Trump has issued an executive order directing notices be put at the entrances to the history museum with a warning that “the exhibits in this museum were prepared by people who don’t want you to love your country.”

It is precisely love of country that makes Trump’s signs and his attacks on this and other Smithsonian museums so putrid.

This statue in the history museum by Horatio Greenough might be the symbol of Trump’s America.  Washington, all-victorious and all-virtuous, a symbol of American courage, a legendary figure whose human shortcomings are overlooked—including owning 317 slaves at the time of his death and dispatching the Army to punish Native Americans in the new Northwest Territory objecting to white settlers taking their lands (resulting in an ignominious defeat), a man who refused a $48,000 salary to lead the army and asked only to be reimbursed for his expenses that turned out to be about $450,000.

Next thing you know, the man who thinks Mount Rushmore is incomplete without him will decide this museum needs a Trumpian figure like the one of George Washington. I’m afraid a marble image of Donald Trump without his shirt might make the museum for adults-only because the statue would be too frightening for children.

One wonders if Trump ever saw The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the great western film about a man credited with killing a dangerous outlaw who actually was killed by another man.  After telling the truth to a newspaper editor near the end of the film, James Stewart’s character asked, “You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?”  And editor Maxwell Scott (played by Carleton Young) responds, “This is the West, sir.  When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

That’s Trump’s preferred history. Ignore the truth. Ignore the reality. Believe a legend—and he’ll tell you what the legend will be.

But this isn’t the West.  It’s America. Our history has had its troublesome times (including this seemingly endless period). How we overcome those troubles is a part of history that says we can always do and be better, a concept he has trouble grasping for himself as well as for the nation.

In this time of heightened awareness of our nation’s history, we cannot let the bigotry of our historically-illiterate President prevail. We cannot become a better people if we ignore the times when we were at our worst and a President who desires a return to that era should be resisted strongly by an unafraid nation.

We are likely to have more about Trump’s desire to make us as historically ignorant as he prefers to be.

(Photo credits: Smithsonian)

Just for the Record

There have been few times Missourians have so revolted against legislative proposals for new constitutional amendments as they did Tuesday.

Worst losses:

1912 Am 6  Authorizes land inheritance and utility taxes, excepts personal property, abolishes poll and occupational taxes, removes tax limits.  86,647-508,137    85.43% no

2026 Am 5  Phase out of Income Tax  233,309-1,165,085   83.31% no

1914  Am 14  Fifty million dollar bond issue  build and maintain state highways, authorizes a tax levy to pay off bonds (10 cents a gallon of gas)  76,542=378,530   83.17%  no

1918 Am 8  Restructures state tax system to derive public revenue form improved value of land 80,725-373,220   82.21% no

1914  Am 15 Allow petitions to authorize bond issue for road construction and maintenance. 80,935-373,202  82.18% no

2026 Am 4  Constitutional Amendments proposed by petition must be approved by votes in all congressional districts   275,040-1,122,748  80.32% no

1910 Am 8  Increase per diem for legislators  95,045-385,765    80.23% no

1914  Am 4  Establishes annual salary of $1,000 for member of legislature  89,629-355,326  79.85% no (rounded up to 80%)

November is a whole lot more interesting now—-and one question will be whether the Republicans can retain their two-thirds membership in the House and in the Senate.

And then there is 2028.——The offices of Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of Sate, Attorney General, and State Treasurer—all are held by Republicans—and all are up for decisions by voters.