Category Archives: government

The 51st State

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump’s fixation on creating a 51st state is, as is the case with so many of his ideas, poorly thought out. Who is it going to be?  Canada?  Greenland?  Cuba?  Venezuela?  Some other country somebody mentions to him that sticks in the front of his mind ahead of all other issues?

A COD—Country of the Day.

Who have we left out?

Well, there’s one place that’s been hopeful for more than a century of becoming the 51st state.  Puerto Rico. But Puerto Rico—it’s just a place for paper towel-throwing demonstrations by a president who seems to want anybody BUT Puerto Rico to be considered anything more than he considers it to be—a possible trading chip to gain Greenland.

The Trump administration has been miserly in providing disaster relief to Puerto Ricans after hurricane a few years ago. He withheld $520 million in disaster aid.

I’ll trade you my ’62 Oldsmobile with no air conditioning and plenty of water damage for your ’53 Ford that doesn’t have a heater and uses tire chains seven months of the year.

None of the other four countries has expressed much interest in his undisciplined mind’s suggestions although Cuba certainly is closer than Hawaii—-although Cuba says it values its independence, is no Iran as a threat to this country, and shouldn’t be Trump’s next punching bag.

Putting Puerto Rico aside because it already is a United States territory, let’s think about the silliness of the other four.

He cannot sign an executive order declaring another country a state of the United States. That’s not the legal process for creating a new state—although for Trump, legal process is a dismissible thing.  His contempt for the law is beyond contemptible.

Think about this:

Making another country a state means that other country will come under our laws, our Constitution, our long history of court precedents. It will suddenly come under our clean air and clean water laws.  OSHA, just by itself, will be an enormous problem for many countries (we’ve climbed and descended some pretty dangerous steps lacking handrails in other countries just for one example). Highways will have to meet federal highway standards.  In the case of Canada, the province of Quebec will have to forget its French language.  It’s not ‘Murican y’know.

The EPA will face a seemingly insurmountable challenge. Healthcare programs will have to be brought into conformation with United States plans.  Currency, banking, stock markets—all will  be changed to the American system.

Integrating the military systems, minimum wage standards, pension programs, and taxes will have to conform to our system.  Speaking of finances—currency uniformity will be a real bear.

The social safety net expansion will be horrendous.

National Parks, national historic sites, cultural centers, museums, and school systems will suddenly have to be made American.

Licensed professionals will have to be re-licensed and relicensed under American standards. Lawyers under other countries’ systems of laws will have to be retrained in our system so their citizens will be protected as our citizens are (except in certain Democratic-controlled cities, of course).

Political conventions will face enormous challenges and it is likely there will be more than two parties.

Licensing of professionals—doctors, lawyers, etc.—-will have to be done by our standards.

Just changing the style of traffic signs will cost, maybe, billions. No more kilometers.

And our history books will have to be rewritten to reflect the history of the newest state.

Did you ever hear of Alexander McKenzie?  No, he’s not a character from “Outlander.”  He’s the Canadian explorer who became he first “literate traveler” to cross North America north of Mexico—a decade before Lewis and Clark.  Giving up Lewis and Clark might be a leap greater than some Americans can tolerate.

And that brings us to the differences in our countries in dealing with indigenous people—
“First Nations” as they’re called in Canada.

What happens to the national anthems? Will anybody be allowed to sing them?

Missouri was a district, then a territory, and once it became socially and bureaucratically qualified, a state.

What will become of the existing governments and their employees? And their government pensions? The national capitols and capitol cities?  What will be their status or will they cease to be nothing more than historic sites?  What new religions might we have to deal with or what religions from our newest “state” will change our religious demographics in an uncomfortable way for established denominations? //?

Highly important: How will we gerrymander their congressional districts so they’ll vote red? Gotta protect the homeland.

How long will it take for the new state’s education system to equal ours?   That’s one that could cut both ways.

And—-

Wait a minute!

Hold the phone!

Some of these countries speak SPANISH!!!!

We know what problems that present sto the 50-state country and what its present administration that thinks of people who speak Spanish.  It’s been rounding them up, impounding them by the thousands in often miserable concentrations, and shipping them off to countries that are not being considered for statehood.

And how about those who speak Kalaallisut, Tunumit, and Inuktun, and Danish?  The first three make up better than 96% of a language known as Greenlandic. The rest speak Danish.

Oh, dear….

For years MAGA people even before there were MAGA people insisted our official language is our version of English.  How can we be considering adding states that present us with such language challenges?

At least Canada has a language closer ours except they say “Eh” while we say “y’know.”

How long can we keep asking these questions for which our President has no answers?

But having no answers, at least no honest answers, is what he’s best at.

Viewing what he has done with the 50 states now under his supervision leaves no confidence that he can deal with a 51st state no matter how he might try to have it created.

Here is another possibility he hasn’t thought of.  Combine more than ninety islands that this country took over in the 1890s into one jurisdiction although they’re separated by a few thousand miles. Our country claimed them because of their vast mineral deposits.

And what was that much valued mineral?

Guano. These islands had no people but they had birds for centuries and their byproduct was needed as fertilizer in this country. Trump could claim that combining these islands into one new state would prove that this country is the only one that really has all it’s ______ together.

The People Will Not Be Defeated 

Posted on by
1

I walked out of the Missouri Supreme Court building last Tuesday and saw large crowd across the street chanting:

“The People,

United

Will Not Be Defeated.”

It was a “People Not Politicians” demonstration urging the court to throw out the new congressional district map enacted by the legislature  to protect President Trump from a new Congress that would hold him more responsible for his acts than his timid GOP Solons are doing now.

Later the group crossed the street and paraded in front of the court building.

—-and about four hours later, the court ruled against People Not Politicians on all three cases it had heard that morning.

Please do not take this to suggest people should not gather for this purpose, but protest demonstrations and marches in these situations are of limited utility.

Rallies to get and to keep people involved in public policy-setting are important. But in terms of forcing a change in direction by government far more is required.

Every year during a legislative session, thousands of people representing one cause or another, or one profession or another, organize “Day at the Capitol” events when they bus in dozens of people, many of whom have no experience in Capitol politics, to go to legislative offices to make their cases. For many, perhaps most, of these people, this is the only time they relate to their lawmaker, who usually is in the chamber working on legislative business.  So they drop off some brochures or information packets and then check their lists to see whose office they will visit next.

Days at the Capitol join demonstrations and marches, in general, with having little lasting impact.

Here are some things that do work:

Money.

Sayings such as “Money greases the wheels of politics,” or “Money is the lifeblood of politics” are, unfortunately, part of our system of government. This is not to say that those we elect can be bought, at least not directly.  But money buys lobbyists. Money for campaigns speaks loudly.

It is often said that money doesn’t buy politicians; it just buys access to politicians. However, the more access you can have, the more influence you might be able to exercise. That is the world they live in. It is wrong, however, to assume that all who live in this world are corrupt. In all my forty-some years of covering Missouri government, probably no more than twenty legislators and state officers were sent to prison or removed from their jobs, less than two percent of all of the people I covered in the pressure cooker of Missouri politics.

When your legislators drive across the bridge or under the viaducts to enter Jefferson City, they are entering a bubble that has a tendency to be all-absorbing of their attention.  It is a special world where the focus of those working in it is entirely on the issues in front of them. Home can become a long ways away.  The pressure is enormous and it grows even greater as the pages are peeled off of the calendar.

On Tuesday, the day the Supreme Court heard the redistricting cases, the House and the Senate met for the 68th time this year.

The session ended after 71 working days. Here’s what the lawmakers were facing: 1,002 Senate bills and resolutions introduced this year and 2,101 bills and resolutions introduced in the House—by our count. That’s 3,103 proposals, many of them duplicates or more.

The legislative process becomes a highly-selective and highly subjective matter. What goes on in the Capitol is an intense winnowing that will produce, in a good year, 100-125 agreements on legislation. This year, the total was about 90, a big improvement over recent years when a few members of the Senate decided that if they could not get their way, the large majority wouldn’t get anything done.

About twenty of those bills each year detail the way the state will spend money on programs and services that people want or need.  Even the most skilled lobbyist for even the wealthiest interest group realizes that legislative sessions resemble a crap shoot. Few things are guaranteed from the outset. Not even the governor is guaranteed approval of his issues.

It is easier to get some things approved when one party occupies two-thirds of both seats in the House and Senate—such as the protect-the-President redistricting plan upheld by the Supreme Court last Tuesday. Many of the protestors likely would have asserted that some words carved into a Missouri Senate wall were clearly ignored: “Nothing is politically right that is morally wrong.”

Noble words carved into Capitol stone are easier said than honored at times, in a system that is shaped by humans.

None of this should be considered excuses. It’s just the real world.

While all of this might sound as if there is no hope for principled protestors such as the People Not Politics demonstrators Tuesday, there is hope.

The congressional districts are drawn presumably to change our 6-2 Republican delegation in the United States House to 7-1. Even some Republicans have admitted publicly that the new maps should not be considered a predetermined result. They know a lot of public opinion can be swayed between now and November.

If that is going to be the case, Tuesday’s marchers will have to be more effective at home than they have been in Jefferson City. One day at the Capitol cannot replace many well-organized days on the streets at home. Their cause is more persuasive among the voters than among the lawmakers and judges. No Republican candidate should feel comfortable in their re-election campaigns this year, especially since the court has upheld that map. Donald Trump can be his party’s own worst enemy regardless of congressional district lines. The PNP demonstrators can become a formidable force if they organize at home and advocate against those who support President Trump in spite of all of his sins—especially those who passed the redistricting bill that manipulates our political system.

The battleground is not in front of the Supreme Court building. It is in the cities and counties of each congressional district and each legislative district. Redistricting can become a major issue against the party that did it, whether it’s the legislators who drew the lines or the congressional candidates who want to take advantage of them.

The Republicans have gotten what they wished for. But you know the old saying about being careful that what you wish for because what you got can become an issue of voter retribution.

This is not a suggestion that all of the rascals should be turned out.  It is, instead, an observation of how those opposed to the redistricting scheme can turn it against the scheme’s advocates and a warning to those advocates to be prepared in their own defense.

In 2016, Senator Ted Cruz told ABC’s Face the Nation, ““If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver, I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets. And I think quite rightly,” a metaphorical reference to England’s Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 against a perceived unjust government.

Will the Supreme Court marchers from last Tuesday go home and become the organizers and the activists—the pitchfork and torch carriers—whose biggest and most effective protest will be at the ballot box?

Will they create a united people who will not be defeated?

We’ll all see an answer in a little more than five months.

Don Jr., Sends Me an Email

Posted on by
Reply

I’m going through my phone messages Saturday afternoon and I come across one from 571-470-0894.

The message says, “Hi, it’s Don Jr. My father an….”

I don’t know any Don Juniors who would have my phone number. And the message doesn’t tell me why I should care about his father.  He’s only an “an.”

An what?

An engineer?

An astronaut?

An animal lover who wants me to donate 19 dollars a month so I can get an adorable plush toy?

An alien?

And why would a Don Jr., address me, someone he’s never met (because I don’t think I ever met him) is so casual a way?

I’ve known several people named Don although I don’t know any Don Juniors, or I don’t think I do.

So I go on the internet and check several sites that will look up phone numbers and after each one of them takes several minutes of my time they want me to pay thirty dollars or something to find out who belongs to this number.

By now I’m thinking this must be a burner phone and we know burner phones are used by blackmailers and the like.  But I know all of my family is safe so this must be a fake blackmailer—maybe one of those calls from someone who says, ”Grandpa, I’m down here in Alabama and I’ve been arrested and I need you to send me $500 to get out of jail.”  I got one of those once and my “grandson” didn’t seem to know his first name so I began to think this was a con.  So I hung up.

Well, I decided to open the message to see if Don Junior had a last name.

The rest of the sentence added a “d” to the “an.” And it told none other than Donald Trump Junior was concerned about my voting status.   “My father and I (he didn’t mention his name so I wondered if there’s some reason he’s embarrassed to do so) need you to do one thing: update your voter verification record. Robert, go to—(hmmmm, I thought, this is strange. The only time anyone calls me “Robert” is when I have an appointment with someone on my increasingly long list of doctors that have accumulated with each passing year and a nurse says it’s my turn for whatever ceremony I’m about to undergo.).

Well, it gave me an email address to open but I didn’t at first because opening those unsolicited things means a raft of future emails that I move to the Spam folder without looking. But I gambled because Don’s dad must be a pretty important guy to want this kind of information from me.

So I took a gamble and clicked on it. It’s labeled “The Official 2025 Voter Verification Questionnaire,” and we all know that when the word “Official” is on something, it is not something to be ignored.

The message invited me to tap on a website—

And when I did, there popped up a picture of a very serious—in fact he looked pretty pitiful, like a lost soul who needed a shave—badly—Don Jr. (Remember Emmett Kelly, the famous circus clown known as “Weary Willie?”  Well, he looked kind of like that although Don Jr. was dressed better.

Weary Willie always carried a head of lettuce that he gave a leaf from  to people in the audience, symbolizing his good heart because all he could afford to give people was a lettuce leaf. I had my suspicion that Willie’s lettuce wasn’t the kind of lettuce we’d eventually get around to discussing in this “survey.”

His father—-again, his name was not mentioned so I wondered why he was hiding his father’s name—“needs every Republican reading this message to update their official voting record.”  Then red ink—as in a dramatically increased federal deficit—the message said, “”With enough feed back nothing can stop us from making America great again.”  I was asked to fill out a form that asked it I agreed that only American Citizens should be allowed to vote.  I had only a yes-no choice but I would like have asked, “Who decides who is good enough to be an American citizen,” but Don apparently hoped I would fill out this form without thinking and I have some friends who think that would make me a regular MAGA person which I am not and besides it’s unfair to stereotype many otherwise intelligent people that way. Shame on my friend Don for wanting me to treat so many of my friends like that. I know them better than he does, apparently.

“Are you an American citizen?” was the next question.   If I’m not why did you contact me? If I say “yes” are you going to have the Department of Homeland Security see if I lied?

“Could you prove your American citizenship?”  Can you?  Why should I trust someone who looks at me like a circus clown?

Please confirm my zip code.  You have my area code and that ‘s enough. I expect to get a lot of phone calls at meal times from you and I don’t want to get mail.

Did I vote in the 2024 Presidential election?  That’s supposed to be a secret, or have you bothered to read election laws?  It’s none of your business.

If so, who did I vote for?  President Trump, Kamala Harris (wait a minute. If Trump can carry a title for this election, shouldn’t my other choice be VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS just to put things on a courteous and equal footing.)   I also thought that if I said I voted for “other,”  there would be a following question asking if that person was a transexual, gay, brown or black or a question accusing me of perjury if I had indicated I really was a Republican (which I am not; I am a radical independent although using the word “radical” might be dangerous in this context.).

He wanted to know what state I voted in, if I voted.  Well, he knows my area code so he must know where I voted, or where I likely voted, if a voted, so why ask?

Did I cast my vote by mail, in person, or did I not vote. You already know whether I voted so the last alternative is silly.  Actually, I voted absentee because I might be out of town on election day (and I was.  Just to make sure I was within the law, I drove outside the city limits, turned around and came home so I could say I was out of town—-although I think that qualification ended during the Pandemic.).

Do I want free and fair elections?  I certainly do, which is why I find attempts to redraw congressional district just to benefit one old man who is scared that he might have to face some consequences if he doesn’t do all he can to do something he has falsely accused others of doing odious.

Do I think voters should have to show photo ID before voting? Ehhh.  I have a driver’s license and I registered in person and the election folks at my precinct know me by name but, okay, if you insist, I’ll make sure I have a government issued ID card. My driver license will do it although I’ve lost some weight since the picture was taken.

Do I identify as a Republican?  What’s a Republican these days?  For that matter, what’s a Democrat?  Why should I identify with either?

Do I support Free Speech?  Of course I do.  But your dad—I assume that’s who you’re asking all of this information for—apparently does not.  So sue me. I’d be honored.

Do I believe big tech is censoring Republicans. Define big tech. Do Elon Musk and DOGE constitute big tech?  Do I believe Republicans want to censor anybody who doesn’t worship a certain creator of monuments to himself?  Ask the head of the FCC.

Do I believe our country is better off under President Biden and Kamala Harris? Have you noticed that they are not in charge of things anymore?

Which issue facing our country concerns you the most moving forward?  Well, I think moving forward is a big issue.

And then we get down to the real reason that I should  verify my voter record.  “Can we count on you to give $10 to ensure Senate Republicans can fight back against extremist Democrats in the Senate?”   No. In fact you should send me ten dollars for the time I spent filling out your fake “update.”

Plus, you said at the start your father wanted me to do only one thing. I would have filled in a lot of blanks, which is more than one thing. And then making a donation is another.

Don Junior, I am starting to think you weren’t honest with me from the start. But be assured that my opinion of you has not changed.

I was given a chance to contribute more.  Let me calculate my hourly rate and I’ll let you know how much YOU owe ME for considering  your, uh, survey.

At the bottom in little print is the notice that I had been given 25 minutes to ensure my response was recorded. However, ”the timer has expired, but you can still donate below!”  And I was given several choices ranging from $35 to$1,000 or “other.”

And in little print I was told my contribution “will benefit the NRSC.”

“Nurse?” I muttered.  What does this have to do with nursing?   And why are nurses interested in my voting record?

Then this “survey” really goes off the rails because it warns me that those dirty Democrats are “ALWAYS fund raising.  ALWAYS organizing. ALWAYS plotting their comeback.”  Think of Snidely Whiplash, who surely must be a Democrat in the eyes of Willie—or, I mean Don Jr.

“The only answer is consistent monthly support from patriots who refuse to blink.”

I’m sorry, but this patriot is presently tied up supporting NPR and Public Broadcasting. When they raise funds, they don’t try to hide behind FAKE surveys.

Then there’s a FLASH POLL that doesn’t quite meet the standards most legitimate polls use to formulate questions. “Should Congress DEFUND every radical left-wing organization trying to destroy our democracy? Vote YES and pledge another gift…to help us win!”

Does “every radical left-wing organization mean I should not give money to the Democratic Party?  Our two parties are in such disarray that I think I will make my donation to the Whigs.

Then we were told “Campaign Finance Law requires us to collect your employment information.”  Which campaign law is that?   And does it also require me to give you the phone number you asked for?

I’d prefer you not have it.  I get enough calls about Medicaid while I’m trying to each breakfast, lunch, or dinner.  I don’t need to be getting calls about nurses.

(Photo Credits: Emmett Kelly—State Historical Society of Missouri; Snidely—ClipArtMax.com; Don Junior—Don Junior, I guess)

-0-

Bob Psychology

Posted on by
Reply

I think I have figured out why Donald Trump is Donald Trump.

He never had a pet.  No dog, no cat, no gerbils, no fish or lizards when he was growing up.  There is something valuable in having a creature that expects nothing more than a pat on the head, a scratch behind the ears, a bowl of food and a clean litter box or a regular walk outside with regular people taking their dogs out for the morning or evening “duties.”

He grew up never knowing responsibility for another creature or never knowing the comfort of unreserved love.

Donald Trump grew up in a world of concrete, steel, and glass, a cold-eyed world committed to money and power. He never was exposed to the majesty of mountains, the beauty and sometimes threat of flowing streams and rivers, the quiet of a valley, the dignity of ancient trees.

He was never a scout, never spent the night in a tent listening to the sounds in the darkness. He never learned through such experiences responsibility for others, shared dreams, or loyalty to something other than himself.

He never was with people who were different but who were the same as fellow human beings.

Those things would have required him to live outside of his limited world and his limited culture.

He might be a different person if he had found the peace of a cat asleep on his lap or a dog by his side, creatures giving a great deal and expecting just a little affection in return.

He might be less cruel. More tolerant. Understanding that affection is more productive than loyalty.  It is harder to be belligerent, bellicose, and antagonistic if you have a dog that welcomes you home, licks your hand, and leans against your leg hoping for a gentle pat or a rub.

He is the first president without a White House dog since William McKinley who served from 1897 until his assassination in 1901.  However, McKinley did have parrots, roosters—and kittens while he lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Missouri Senator George Graham Vest is best known for his “Eulogy on a Dog,” spoken to a Warrensburg jury in an 1870 lawsuit filed against a man who killed another man’s dog:

The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is the dog.

Donald Trump never has known anything this beautiful and our nation—and our world—suffer.

He says he has “no time” for a dog. It would be good for all of us if he spent more time with a loving pet than he spends on social media hating so many people.

For example: Max sometimes helps me with these postings.

He gets that look about the time that he thinks its cat dinner time. And it works. I can’t stand that starving look in his eyes, that silent beg for a new bowl of food. Have pity on your poor starving cat, he seems to be saying.

And I have no choice but to obey.

And other times, sister Minnie has some thoughts she wants to share. Or she just wants some company. Or something soft and warm to sit on. She’s a clock watcher who starts suggesting it’s dinner time a half-hour before it is and I’m sure she calls in Max to stare at me if there’s a delay. Regardless, she makes sure I have opportunities throughout the day to commune with my lady cat even while I’m trying to type around her presence.

I am a better person because of them and because of all of the pets I have known since I was crawling on all fours at the same level of Jiggs, our first family dog.

It’s a shame our president never lived at that level with something as wonderful as a pet.

 

A Noisy Awakening 

Posted on by
Reply

Nancy’s newest birth anniversary was last Friday. I took her out to eat and then to see a movie.

Kind of the way things were back in our courting days.

We went to our GQT Capital 8 Theatre and we bought our popcorn and our sugar-free soft drink and sat down in some nice roomy seats.  Just as the pre-movie trivia game was about to start for the three of us in the theatre, one of the theatre employees told us tornado sirens were blowing and we needed to take refuge in the bathrooms.

After an hour or so in what became two unisex bathrooms, the theatre folks gave us passes for some other night.

So we went back Saturday with our visiting daughter Liz, used our free passes and our free concessions tickets and settled into watch A GREAT AWAKENING.

We watched the charming young lady from Noovie host the various short word games or trivia questions and then theatre exploded with a deafening display of the latest in DOLBY sound technology.   Then the previews came on—one movie featuring real people and four or five featuring cartoon people.  All at beyond maximum volume, apparently to make the explosions that replace plots in today’s flicks more fearful.

Finally, we got to the feature. It was so loud I took out my hearing aids and even then it was so loud that I decided, as I told Nancy and Liz later, that I was eager to see the movie on TV so the sound level wasn’t so distracting as to spoil the story.  I walked out of the theatre that night feeling exhausted.

Not only that, but the popcorn was mediocre.  I get better popcorn at a convenience store on the other side of town.

Come to think of it, the best part of the experience was being able to go to the men’s restroom without some women in there, too.  It was a safe experience in the bathroom but a danger to my hearing in the auditorium.

The movie?  Pretty good for an almost-Hollywood production. Interesting story that, on reflection, lacked a little of the sophistication in story-telling and dialogue that the major studios produce.

It was produced by Sight & Sound Films, a Christian-themed spinoff of Sight and Sound Theatres, the company that has produced Biblical-themed shows in Branson for some time. In case you missed the point the movie was trying to make, the producers give it to you during the credits: “True liberty comes through Jesus Christ.” I found the statement in conflict with what I had just watched (or endured).

The movie tracks the unusual relationship between the passionate English Methodist evangelist George Whitefield (he pronounced it as if it had no “e” in the middle), who was trained as a stage actor, and the calculating and politically savvy printer, later inventor and sage who was a key to writing the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, played impressively by John Paul Sneed.

Franklin realized he could profit from printing Whitefield’s sermons. Whitefield realized he could reach more people if he allowed Franklin to print and circulate his words.

(George Whitefield—The Genevan Foundation   (With his “lazy left eye” sometimes George Whitefield was derisively called “Dr. Squintum” by his many detractors)

Whitefield is portrayed by a young and handsome actor with no English accent and no resemblance to the real Whitefield an instantly-inspirational figure who spoke to thousands who quickly became “saved” by his dynamic sermons.  Franklin is the Franklin of our familiarity—a Christian, generally, who differ from those who think the only way to God is through Christ, which is Whitefield’s message.

Continue reading →

Putting Politics Back Into Our Highest Courts

Posted on by
Reply

Most Missouri judges are elected, but years ago the state and its people decided the highest courts should be as isolated from partisan politics as possible. That nationally-recognized plan is under attack in the Missouri Legislature this year—and the process that created that insulated system also is under attack.

The decision was made after the collapse of the Pendergast political machine that so dominated Democratic politics in Missouri in the first forty years of the Twentieth Century that it could field a substitute for a gubernatorial candidate who died three weeks before the election and push previously obscure Platte County Judge Guy B. Park to a win by the third largest margin in state history up to that time, 61 percent of the vote against the incumbent Lieutenant Governor, Edward H. Winter.         (That winning percentage had been exceeded only twice before—Thomas Fletcher with 70.3 percent in 1864 and by John Miller, who had no opposition in1828) or after, by Warren Hearnes’ 62% in 1964 and John Ashcroft’s election in 1988 with 64.2%)

Members of Missouri’s appeals courts—which includes the Supreme Court—had been elected throughout state history until citizens had had enough of Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast’s grip on state politics. A citizen-led initiative led to voter approval of “The Missouri Plan” in 1940.  The legislature tried to overturn it but voters rejected the effort. The plan was made part of the Missouri Constitution when the present document was adopted in 1945.

The plan applied to the Supreme Court and the appeals court as well as lower courts in a few counties. The changes were put in our Constitution in 1976.

Missouri rarely has been a leader in political thinking but this is a case where the state should be proud—because about forty states have adopted a version of The Missouri Plan which established a non-partisan Appellate Judicial Commission that takes applications for open judgeships handle appeals from local courts. The commission reviews applications for appellate judgeships and forwards three names to the governor who appoints one of them. The Senate does not confirm the appointment, another step to limit political influence in the makeup of our highest courts.

The commission is made up of three members of the Missouri Bar and three private citizens appointed by the Governor. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court chairs the commission.

The Missouri House Committee on General Laws has voted 8-6 to recommend the full House pass a bill junking the nonpartisan court plan and giving appointment power to the Governor with confirmation by the Senate.

If you think the similar system used to let a President pick U. S. Supreme Court Justices and federal district judges is the best way to have a non-partisan court system un-influenced by partisan factors, this bill is right up your alley. If the spectacle we see every time a new Supreme Court Justice is nominated approaches or exceeds your unbearable level, this bill is toxic.

When you have a President and a Senate under one party’s control, or a Governor and a state senate under one party’s control, there is room for discomfort about the fairness of the judicial system and whether money influences those who must confirm nominations.

Missouri no longer has political bosses such as Tom Pendergast, but it has something as bad—big-money political donors who have tried to buy state laws through the legislature or to buy sections of the state constitution (think of $43 million spent to get sports betting passed in 2024).

Moneyed political influence in shaping the laws mixed with political influence in determining the laws’ constitutionality is a dangerous combination.

There is a second dangerous move afoot in the two-thirds Republican General Assembly.  It’s the proposal saying no petition issue can be approved by voters unless it gets majorities in every one of our eight congressional districts. That means one district in which an issue fails by one vote can render positive votes in the other seven districts meaningless. Call it what it is—tyranny by the minority.

On one hand, our politically-independent upper judiciary is being threatened. On the other hand is a new threat—to the concept of majority rule, replaced with a one-eighth majority tyranny. Those backing this scheme certainly would not hold that no one could be elected to the legislature who did not carry every precinct in their district. Nor would they support the idea that no one could be elected to state office without carrying every legislative district. Or that no one could be sent to Congress without carrying every county in their district.

But they will silence the voice of the people when it comes to taking their grievances against government  to the ballot  box.

It’s a one-two punch to our democracy. The last time legislative Republicans tried to weaken the plan was 2012. Voters went 76 percent against it.

Fourteen years later they’re trying again. Let’s hope voters aren’t duped this time either.

Monstrosity

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump says he wants to build a 250-foot tall arch to celebrate this country’s 250th anniversary.  It is yet another project that wreaks of excess and of self-promotion.  Whatever its official name becomes, it’s always going to be known as the arch that Trump built. Arch deTrump, some already are calling it.

The only thing taller in the area that stretches from the Arlington National Cemetery east to the Library of Congress across from the Capitol is the Capitol itself, and by only a few feet.

Grace, beauty, and appropriateness have never been in his lexicon.  Gross, ugly, and inappropriate too often define him to an increasing number of people.  Last week, in an oval office reveal of the design for this monstrosity. CBS reporter Ed O’Keefe asked the President who the arch is for.  “Me,” he said.

The fact checkers who have built their careers on Trump’s lies had a day off on that one.

The Commission on Fine Arts refers to it as the Triumphal Arch. To be honest, the  letter “i” should replace the “h.”

The only manmade arch that we have been able to find that is bigger than this is the one on the St. Louis riverfront.

Napoleon’s Arc de Triomphe in Paris is almost 100 feet shorter, at 164 feet.  The Monument to the Revolution in Mexico City is only 220 feet. The Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang, North Korea tops out at 197 feet.

The four-sided arch that is the Pennsylvania State Memorial at Gettysburg, honoring the 34,500 Pennsylvania soldiers who fought there, checks in at 110 feet. Not far away, the National Memorial Arch at Valley Forge honoring those who wintered there 1777-78 is sixty feet high.

The top of the Memorial Arch in Huntington, West Virginia is only 42 feet from the ground. The Camp Randall, Wisconsin arch honoring Civil War veterans from that state needs only thirty feet to dignify them. The Bushnell Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Arch in Hartford, Connecticut is but 116 feet and the Washington Square Arch that commemorates George Washington’s inauguration in New York City gets the job done in 77 feet.

“It’s going to be beautiful,” he says.  Philip Kennicott with the Washington Post offers a brutal opposing view:

It is an insult to the men and women who risk their lives to protect democracy, who have fought in wars against fascism, who have actually achieved victory rather than merely declared and celebrated it. Its symbolism is borrowed and confused, and it will block a sacred vista that connects the Lincoln Memorial to the final resting place of the Civil War dead, and veterans from every major war and conflict this country has fought.

This is a subtly that escapes people such as Trump who think symbolic as well as real sledgehammers and wrecking balls are among mankind’s greatest inventions. The arch will stand at the southern end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, interrupting the flow of history from the Lincoln Memorial to the peaceful hillside that is Arlington National Cemetery, a cemetery on land confiscated from Confederate commander Robert E. Lee as a resting place for those who defended the Union in the Civil War.

Some critics say the planned arch will obscure much of he cemetery but will frame Lee’s mansion at the top of the hill beyond. Is that intentional?  Who knows, although Trump has expressed a fondness for honoring Confederate leaders.

Trump has said it will be 250 feet high as a symbol of the nation’s 250th birthday. As of last week, however, it is only colored drawings.  The first shovel of dirt for the project has not yet been turned and Independence Day is less than 90 days away.  As one critic put it, “If it isn’t going to be done this year, it really has nothing to do with the 250th Anniversary, and as Trump said, it’s for him.”.

Kennecott concludes, “It perverts a fundamentally American idea about war. We have fought them, we have died in them, and we have brought war to too many people who did not deserve our meddling with their politics and sovereignty.

“But no matter the cause, no matter how great the victory, we fundamentally honor sacrifice and service. We celebrate the end of wars and the achievement of peace, not victory. Roman victory arches are lovely to look at, but they were primarily political statements, assertions of personal power and propaganda by ambitious men”.

Caesar Trumpus wants his arch.

If it can’t be finished by July 4, maybe he can complete it in time to celebrate his glorious victory over Iran.

A Congressman Steps Down; Thousands Protest 

Posted on by
Reply

It would be nice if the headline reflected reality.  But in the case of Congressman Sam Graves, a native of Tarkio in the far northwest corner of Missouri, it’s not his retirement that has triggered the protests.  We’re going to offer some quick, surface, observations about these two separate events and how Missouri’s chaotic 2026 elections just got more interesting.

I remember Sam Graves mostly because he caused me some sleepless nights. More on that later.

Sam is now 62. He has served 26 of those years in Congress. He might just be hitting his prime and he’s leaving. The website legistorm.com calculates the average age of members of the U.S. House is 58 (for all of Congress it’s 61.5). However, he has served twice as long as the average length of service for U.S. Representatives. In fact, Graves is 32nd in seniority among the 435 members of the House (the Dean of the House is Kentucky Congressman Harold Rogers who is 88 and in his 45th year, his 23rd term and he will seek a 24th.).

The longest-serving Congressman from Missouri was Clarence Cannon, from Elsberry, in northeast Missouri. He died in office after 41 years 69 days and planning for more before a fatal heart attack in 1964. He ranks 29th as the longest-serving member of the U.S. House, 49th  on a list that also includes Senators.

In 1963, the year Graves was born, country music star Jim Reeves put out a song by fellow singer and songwriter Bill Anderson called “I’ve Enjoyed About as Much of This as I Can Stand.”  We don’t know if he has heard the song but in joining 35 other Republicans who are leaving, we wouldn’t be surprised if several of them felt that way (there are 21 Democrats who have decided there’s more to life, too).

Already, several fellow Republicans and at least three Democrats have filed or expressed an interest in filing for his seat and it would be no surprise if the numbers did not increase on both sides.

The Sixth Congressional District is a rural one that covers the entire sparsely-settled rural north Missouri—36 of our 114 counties. It has been solidly conservative for a long, long time.

But the political climate nationwide seems to be changing. Last weekend there were at least 33 “No Kings” rallies in Missouri, nine in the Kansas City area, eight in the St. Louis area, thirteen outstate and three more in northwest Missouri.

Here is something to ponder for the sixth district.  A “No Kings” rally in Quincy, Illinois—not listed among 33—probably had some attraction for some northeast Missourians in the sixth district. TEN of the scheduled rallies on the Missouri side of the Mississippi were in Graves’ present district.  Ten of them. Excelsior Springs, Harrisonville, Kearney, Liberty, Platte City, Madison, Moberly, Maryville, Chillicothe, and St. Joseph.

The “No Kings” movement has survived the winter and the Trump administration’s headline activities from Minnesota to Iran.  The sixth district will not have an incumbent with all of the vote-getting power that goes with incumbency.

The sixth district—in whatever form it winds up being after legislative action and courts reviews—might be more in play than it has been for two decades. And both parties know it full well.

Getting back to Sam—pardon the unfamiliarity but he was “Senator” when I covered him in the legislature and the last time I saw him I called him, “Sam,” an uncharacteristic familiarity that I almost never allow myself with present or past political figures.

There he is from the Missouri Official Manual (the Blue Book by more familiar name) for his first term in the Senate. He was in the Senate for the last years of Democrat-domination of state government.  I recall that he was collegial with good relationships on the other side of the aisle.

But the main thing about him that I recall is that he kept me up all night on at least two occasions.  Sam was not afraid of a filibuster but he rarely took a leading role and didn’t do it so often as to be tiring—as some have done more recently. And he was entertaining, something most filibuster participants never approach.

There were some senators after him who were so boring that I gave one of them a list of books to read that would at least educate those who had to endure them.  Sadly, the list went unused.

He talked about being a poor farm boy whose only pet, a three-legged dog named “Tripod,” was the star of some of his stories. The best performance, however, was the night he threatened to read the names of every high school student in his district who was graduating that year. Every time he was interrupted, he started over. As I recall, he finally forced a compromise on the issue under discussion—which is what filibusters should be for if participants respect them.

The only better filibuster story-teller than Sam Graves was Senator Danny Staples of Eminence.  I made sure I turned on my recorder whenever he asked another member, “Senator, did you know…..” because I knew what was coming.  The State Historical Society has several hours of Staples’ recordings. There are hundreds of other cassettes in the oral history collection that I have to listen to and label one of these days and there has to be some Sam Graves stories on them.  Or on the memory chips we used in later recorders.

He was a work horse not a show horse in his political career, as we observed him up close and from a distance. He’s young enough to have a long and prosperous K-Street career in Washington. K-Street is a street known for its offices of the special interest groups.

The folks in the sixth district would be well-served to seek out another work horse in November.

-o-

The Four Freedoms 

Posted on by
Reply

In a far distant time, a President would deliver a State of the Union address free of bombast, lies, and accusations.

Here’s one, delivered as one part of the world was back at war and the other part was likely to erupt somewhere, sometime.   Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke on January 6, 1941. The contrast to what we heard from our present occupant of the White House  jumps out at us.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute peoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people’s freedom…

The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.

For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
††††††††††† Jobs for those who can work.
††††††††††† Security for those who need it.
††††††††††† The ending of special privilege for the few.
††††††††††† The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations…

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception—the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change—in a perpetual peaceful revolution—a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions—without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.     

Less than a year later the nation knew the principles it was fighting for when a two-ocean war was threatening “the simple, basic things” we stood for…then.

T

 

(Image credit: Norman Rockwell exhibition, New York Historical Society)

0900909090

 

Olympian Words

Posted on by
Reply

Those whose undies quickly got into a knot when some of our Olympic athletes questioned their nation’s course seem to live by the motto, “My country right or wrong.”

They aren’t right—correction—they aren’t correct.

Those young people know what their country is experiencing and that knowledge will bode well for this country as their generation grows in experience and influence. National polls indicate a significant part of the citizenry agree with them.

The erroneous interpretation of that famous comment spiced up the first days of the Olympic games and led to some pretty tasteless retorts to the concerns expressed by those Olympians about the direction of our country.

Let’s begin by setting the record straight on this famous quotation. Should it be the guiding principle of our patriotism/ Or is it, as one source has put it, “a jingoistic war cry?”

There are various versions of this statement.

This is the original statement, from Commodore Stephen Decatur, a hero of the War of 1812, who reportedly offered a toast: “My Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong.”

Leaving out the words that precede the six words at the end short-changes the total message.

In 1871, one of Missouri’s U. S. Senators, Carl Schurz, got into a debate with fellow Senator Matthew Carpenter of Wisconsin, a power in Reconstruction America, who had quoted Decatur in one of his fiery orations.  Schurz told Carpenter the sentiment should be, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Reports indicate his interpretation led to thunderous applause from the Senate gallery.

Olympic freestyle skier Hunter Hess told reporters, “It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now. I think it’s a little hard. There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t. Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”

Figure skater Amber Glenn referred to Trump policies against the LGBTQ community and said, “I hope I can use my voice and this platform to help people stay strong in these hard times.”

Snowboarder Chloe Kim, the daughter of immigrants, told interviewers, “I think in moments like these, it is really important for us to unite and kind of stand up for one another for all that’s going on and I think that I’m really proud to represent the United States.”

They represent the best that American can be body.

Our President, of course, couldn’t stand it when the athletes exercised their free speech rights. He went on Untruth Social to call Hess “a real loser” and said it was “very hard to root for someone like this.”

Vice-President Vance added, ”You’re not here to pop off about politics. So when Olympic athletes enter the political arena, they should expect some pushback.”

I guess Vance is saying it would be just fine if these athletes “popped off’ at home although their comments would not be any less irritating to the constantly irritable—and irritation-producing—administration.

Republican Senator Jim Jordan, a Trumpian, called the remarks “ridiculous,” and said, “It’s an honor to get to represent the greatest country in history in the Olympic Games. That makes no sense to me. I haven’t seen some of the things they’ve said, but if they’re disparaging the country while representing it, that makes no sense.”

Sorry, Senator, It does make sense. The freedom to question power is inbred in the American character. It’s how we became an independent nation 250 years ago. Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware understands that. “There is nothing more patriotic than questioning your own country when its leadership makes decisions that are so sharply out of line with our values and traditions,” he said.

As far as “disparaging the country while representing it,” perhaps Jordan should consider the degrading things his President has said. They are far worse. John Stewart created a montage for his Daily Show to examine the hypocrisy of Jordan, Vance, and other defenders.  In the montage, President Trump proclaims, “Our country is now a cesspool.”

“We are a nation in decline.”

We’re in a failing country; we’re in a country that’s being laughed at.”

“We’re a dumping ground. We’re like a garbage can.”

“Our country is going to Hell.”

“We have blood, death, and suffering on a scale once untenable.”

“…a third world hell hole ruled by censors, perverts, criminals and thugs.”

I guess we could give him credit for speaking the truth (to himself although he doesn’t recognize it) on some of these points. His crude words and actions validate what our athletes voiced.

What our Olympians were saying is more closely attuned to something the great English statesman William Burke said in 1790:  To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.”

A book written in 1958 that became a best seller was called “The Ugly American.”  It’ still in print.  The title has more than some relevance today. And there has been no reason for these Olympians to say so because—-

—-a lot of the rest of the world has the same impression of what our country has become—and our President seems to be the epitome of that book’s title.

They show us grace on the ice, courage on the ski jump and on the bobsled run, subtlety on the curling floor, and daring as they skate at frightening speeds on a small track.  They are in deeds as well as in words representatives not of the United States that unfortunately is, but of what the United States can be—and will be as their generation, having witnessed these times, become shapers of better times to come.

(photo credit: NPR)