Claims And Issues

WHY THERE IS A 1/6 COMMITTEE.

In one sense, the answer to the headline question is very clear.  There is a Select Committee to Investigate the Attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 because the Bogus Boy tried to steal the United States, assisted by secret societies and useful supporters.

Whatever the 1/6 Committee does, however many Hearings it holds or how many reports it writes, the Bogus Boy and those that still listen to him will not change their minds.

Changes in legislation are expected after the Hearings are over, and so are the Committees’ legislative recommendations.  It remains to be seen whether changes in legislation will be enough.

In the end, the 1/6 Committee exists for us.  It exists to change our perceptions.   It has already changed the perception of January 6 as a protest that got out of control on a single day, to a plot that went on for months.  The events of January 6 are now widely seen as the desperate culmination of detailed planning that just did not work, that time.

In the end, to say again, the 1/6 Committee exists for us and for our perceptions.  In the end, it is a Truth Commission with another name.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MAYBE NOT A MORAL FAILING, BUT DEFINITELY AN ECONOMIC CALCULATION.

REASONS FOR OPTIMISM IN THE UNITED STATES IN JUNE OF 2022.

I have been searching for optimistic news to write about.  I found some.  Let me say, first, that I did not find optimistic news in Washington, D.C.  As you will see, the efforts in the U.S. Senate surrounding murders with guns are not the kind of efforts that make most people optimistic.  I found optimism in some news from the States.

Uber and Lyft want their drivers to be classified as independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.  Uber and Lyft in particular in the so-called “gig economy” have set out to persuade voters to vote for this classification through elections.  Uber and Lyft have made a conscious choice to spend their money on elections.  They have decided that it is cheaper to pay for elections than to pay their workers.

I do not mean to say that their position is a moral failing.  It is, however, their clear economic calculation.

In Massachusetts Uber and Lyft pushed for a question on the ballot that the voters would decide that Uber and Lyft workers are independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.  They tried to do too much.

In their ballot measure, Uber and Lyft snuck in a provision that would have given them immunity from all liability, not just immunity from liability as employers with an obligation to pay benefits.  Uber and Lyft spent millions to get voters in Massachusetts to vote for their plan this year.  In addition to hiding their intent by burying their proposals in a single plan, their plan ran afoul of the Massachusetts State Constitution in the eyes of the highest Court in Massachusetts.  The Uber-Lyft proposition proposed two “substantively distinct policy decisions, one of which is buried in obscure language,” the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote in striking the Uber-Lyft proposition from the ballot in Massachusetts.

In California, Uber and Lyft previously pushed and after Uber and Lyft again spent millions on the campaign, voters passed an initiative that became law, that their workers should be classified as independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.  Parenthetically, in California a voter initiative is a ballot measure that becomes law when it is passed by the voters just as if the Legislature itself had passed the law.

In their initiative, Uber and Lyft snuck in a provision to ban collective bargaining by their drivers.   Like the Massachusetts State Constitution (and many State Constitutions), the California State Constitution requires that ballot measures have one subject.  A California State Judge held that Uber’s and Lyft’s initiative was unconstitutional under the California Constitution’s requirement, saying that “a prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers” has nothing to do with classifying those workers as independent contractors without benefits rather than employees with benefits.

The Uber-Lyft initiative would also have stripped worker’s compensation protections from their workers.  In the California State Judge’s eyes, that by itself made the initiative law unenforceable under California State law.

There is positive news, hopeful news coming from the States.  At least from some States, like Massachusetts and California.  And from the State Courts there specifically.

Washington, D.C. is a different story. 

In the District, there is an idea that the most important thing, to the exclusion of everything and everyone else, is to “get something done.”  That idea plus the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate gives power to a minority.  Actually, the combination gives power to a minority of a minority.  Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and their gang of Republican Senators are not only in the minority in the Senate, but as a group they are elected by a minority of Americans.

When Chris Murphy and other Senators wanted to pursue the possibility of legislation that might at least reduce the number of murders such as the Uvalde Elementary School Massacre, they worked in the direction of the few ideas that the McConnell Gang liked.

Practicing the art of the possible at all costs, means throwing any ideas overboard that the other person doesn’t like.  Even if the entire country, or most of the country, likes those things.  Even then those ideas must be thrown overboard; compromise is everything in these things.  Just take a look at the evidence of even a few of the things they discussed, and discarded.

Ban assault weapons?  Gone.

Make gun makers liable for their product defects?  (Gun manufacturers are perhaps the only manufacturers in the United States who are not at risk of paying damages for misuse of their products.)  Gone.

Limit or ban ammo clips with insane numbers of bullets?  Gone.

All of these measures, and more, are supported by the American people.  None were acceptable to the minority of the minority, the McConnell Gang.

Instead, the Senate’s proposed solutions – maybe (they haven’t been adopted yet, and they may never yet be voted on) – are things that are not necessarily designed to stop murders with guns.  Their announced suggested proposals include more money for suicide prevention and mental health programs, and money for States that may choose to enact “red flag” potential murderers using guns, but not apparently actual red flag laws.  Why?  The gun lobby has lots of money and much of it goes to the McConnell Gang and their few friends.

I do not mean to say that their position is a moral failing.  It is, however, their clear economic calculation.

So, there you have it.  There are grounds for optimism in the States.  Do not look to Washington, D.C. for inspiration or even for hope.  We have a Senate that offers neither inspiration nor hope.  The Senate will stay that way just as long as the McConnell Gang or any other minority of a minority is calling the shots, or more accurately perhaps, is allowed to call the shots by silly rules and deluded people.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

#BARR #BULL #DURHAM “HECKUVA TRIAL LAWYER.”

Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr says that when the jury acquitted  the criminal defendant that was prosecuted by John “Bull” Durham and his “team” of “trial lawyers,” it was the jury’s fault.

Also, Mr. Barr says that Mr. Durham “really won” anyway, despite losing the jury trial.

Reasoning like that may explain why Mr. Barr is no longer the Attorney General.  We are done with Mr. Barr.  Can we be done with Mr. Durham now too?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

P.S. TO #BULL #DURHAM “HECKUVA JOB, JOHNNY.”

In an earlier article posted on this blog, I wrote:

1. Durham prosecuted a lawyer who fudged in an affidavit for a warrant for the FBI to investigate one person.  That lawyer pled guilty in a plea bargain.  That lawyer got no prison time in his plea bargain.

That is all true.  However, it makes it seem like Mr. Durham may have been the one to find this lawyer, during Mr. Durham’s Multi-Million Dollar investigation.

He did not.

The alleged wrongdoing of a fudged EMail was already unearthed by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.  Not by Mr. Durham.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

#BULL #DURHAM "HECKUVA JOB, JOHNNY."

In 2019, John Durham was appointed by Bill Barr to prosecute crimes that allegedly took place in the 2016 election.  Not the known crimes, but the crimes Messrs. Barr and Durham just knew took place when people falsely, so they said, linked their boss to the Russian interference.

As of December, Mr. Durham reportedly spent nearly $4 Million of the taxpayers' money to ferret out these supposed crimes.  Mr. Durham has indeed surfaced bull, represented in these three accomplishments in three years time:

1.  Durham prosecuted a lawyer who fudged in an affidavit for a warrant for the FBI to investigate one person.  That lawyer pled guilty in a plea bargain.  That lawyer got no prison time in his plea bargain.

2.  Two more people were indicted before the statutes of limitations ran on trying them.  So far, one has gone to trial,  His alleged crime was lying to the FBI whether he told an FBI official that he was talking to the FBI on behalf of a client, or not.  That one ended with a Not Guilty Verdict.  The foreperson on the jury said afterward that our time and money is better spent on other things.  Heckuva trial lawyer you've got there in Bull Durham, obviously.

3.  The remaining person has been indicted and is up for trial later this year.

That's it.  None of these three accomplishments have anything to do with refuting the involvement, or not, of anyone at all with the Russians in the 2016 election.  These are the three accomplishments of Mr. Durham's three years on the job.  He has shown one thing in all that time:

John Durham is no-one's idea of a trial lawyer.

Give the money back, Johnny.  Give the money back.  Then resign and go away.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

 

.@AlexandraBerzon #21STCENTURYJOURNALISM TAKE SOME ADVICE, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Ms. Alexandra Berzon published a story in the paper about one of the Grievance Boy’s lawyers who is travelling across the country about alleged voting fraud solutions.

I figure the piece is about 3,500 words.  That’s pretty prominent.  It's a lot of work.  This is an important piece.  Something important is not in it, though. 

Not one time was anyone asked who is paying the lawyer’s salary to do this.

We do get a few references to far-right groups that are financing the lawyer’s operations, but no identification of people who are paying for that, either.

If the reporter asked but got no answers, it is reasonable to say that:  ‘I asked but did not get an answer.’  There is always the usual statement of reporters when they do not know something:  ‘It is unclear.’

Take some advice from past successes in reporting:  “Follow the money.”

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

#UVALDE RESOLVED: THAT THE TEXAS POLICE ARE BETTER OFF NOT SPEAKING.

Does everyone agree with me that the Texas Department of Public Safety is better off not saying anything?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

#UVALDE #BUFFALO THE McCONNELL GANG VOTES AGAINST MAKING DOMESTIC TERRORISM ILLEGAL.

Less than 2 weeks after a White terrorist murdered 10 people in Buffalo, and within 2 days after another White supremacist gunned down 19 children and 2 of their teachers in Uvalde, Texas, the Republican organization in Washington, D.C. (can't call them a party, can we?) voted in the U.S. Senate against making domestic terrorism illegal.

The only think I can figure is that voting against domestic terrorism might have cut into a big part of the McConnell Gang's base.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

#UVALDE ANOTHER SLAUGHTER BY A DOMESTIC TERRORIST?

The murders of 19 elementary school children and 2 teachers in Uvalde, Texas have made me ask a couple of questions that I have not seen raised even in all the endless media coverage.

Is it a coincidence that most of the students and most if not all of the victims are Hispanic?

Is it a coincidence too that the school year was ending this week?  Once the school year ended, the killer would not have a captive audience, ready-made for slaughter.

When will we be treated to news that the killer's "manifesto" of White Supremacy has been found?

When will this stop?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

DIRECT ACTION #DEMOCRATS, LIKE @BetoORourke CHALLENGING ABBOTT AT HIS PRESS PARTY.

Direct action is a legacy concept, perhaps, and may require explanation.  It comes from the days when the Vietnam War was on and people opposed it.  Some of those people took direct action to register their opposition to the War, such as burning draft cards, pouring fake blood on draft records,  and even things like Country Joe and the Fish singing certain songs.

Yesterday Greg Abbott, current Governor of Texas, held a party for the press.  He invited the most prominent Republicans of Texas to be on the stage with him.  There for example was Rafael "Ted" Cruz, late of Cancun.

Beto O'Rourke, who is running for the Democratic nomination to oppose Mr. Abbott, interrupted Abbott's choreographed party for the press.  That was after Abbott intoned in essence that nothing could be done about the massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.  Nothing except talk about the mental health issues of people like the apparent shooter.

Beto O'Rourke interposed reality to say that "Yes, there is something to be done:  Stop selling AR-15's!"  That didn't fit into the choreography of the event, needless to say.  For that, Mr. O'Rourke was escorted out of Mr. Abbott's press party.

Direct action seems to be making something of a comeback.  And it should.  Direct action helped to stop Americans dying in Vietnam.  Direct action can help to stop Americans dying in America too.

Democrats and all people who are fed up with choreographed events that are pre-programmed for friendly venues and obedient audiences, be advised:  Choreography and pre-programming are not normal.  They are not American. 

Direct action!  From now through November and beyond.  Direct action!  Be alive and active.  Like Americans are born to be.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved. 

.@TheDemocrats @democrats Target The Money Against Other Side & For US

Corporate Democrats are clearly concerned about the strength of Progressive Democratic Candidates.  Corporate Democrats are hiring political "hit men" to pay for attack ads against Progressives.

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) reportedly spent $3,300,000.00 against Summer Lee and in favor of her opponent, Steve Irwin, in her primary race for Congress in Pittsburgh, PA.  (She won the nomination anyway.)  Why so much money and why did AIPAC spend so much more money on a primary than it ever has before?

Summer Lee is in favor of Israel and like much of the Democratic Party she is also in favor of Palestinian rights.  It would make sense that being in favor of Palestinian rights may make AIPAC unhappy with Ms. Lee, but not to the tune of $3.3 Million.

In addition, the attack ads against her and in favor of her opponent were all to the effect that Ms. Lee is not a "good" Democrat.  Nothing about her support for Palestinian rights (and certainly nothing about her support for Israel).

So why was it important to AIPAC whether or not Summer Lee was a "good" Democrat?  It wasn't.  It was important to the Corporate Democrats who run the Party.  You see, Summer Lee is also publicly in favor of reforming the Democratic Party to make it more responsive to its constituents.

Looks to me like Ms. Lee was right:  The Democratic Party needs reform.  The Corporate Democrats just proved that in primaries in which they have been attacking and continue to attack Progressive Democrats across the nation.  The Democratic Party and the nation would all be much better off if they spent all that money attacking the other side.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

#UKRAINE Questions for RAND PAUL, PAUL MANAFORT, PUTIN

In 2018, a Russian aluminum company owned by Oleg Deripaska was sanctioned for interference in the 2016 U.S. election.  In 2019, the Russians opened a multi-million dollar mill in Kentucky.

In 2019, the Grievance Boy held up aid to Ukraine.  His employee, Paul Manafort, was also Deripaska's employee. 

In February 2022, Oleg Deripaska's good friend Putin invaded Ukraine.  

In May 2022, Rand Paul of Kentucky holds up aid to Ukraine.

Has anyone looked into why Rand Paul is holding up aid to Ukraine?  Has anyone looked into why Rand Paul would choose to be pro-Russia and not pro-Ukraine?

Have there been any conversations?  Has anyone asked?

"Inquiring minds want to know," as they say.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

#UKRAINE "Filtration Camps." Call Them By True Names. They're CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

Ukrainian civilians are being apprehended by Russian soldiers in the areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.  The civilians are being rounded up and routed into what the Russians call "filtration camps."

That is what the corporate media in the West call these camps as well, "filtration camps."

Men are separated from their families.  Men of military age and men who served in any official capacity at any level of Ukraine government have been taken away, not to be seen since.

Women and children in the camps are reportedly starved, tortured, and beaten.

Call the camps by their true names in the same reporting then.  They are concentration camps.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE BILL DIDN'T GET THE VOTES. BUT IT DIDN'T FAIL.

It should not escape attention that every one of the justices of the supreme court who oppose abortion and women's rights call themselves Catholics.  Ratzinger Catholics to be sure, not so much Christian Catholics perhaps, but we'll leave that to another blog article.

The U.S. Senate could not pass a bill which would have codified and apparently expanded Roe v. Wade and a woman's Constitutional right to choose, within limits, whether to come full term and give birth, or have an abortion.   Within limits.  When those limits are exceeded, the state's interest takes over in a balancing test until gradually there is no right to an abortion under certain circumstances.

The U.S. House of Representatives had already passed the bill, which seems to be the usual way of things in Washington, D.C., with the House passing something and the Senate passing nothing.  Or so it would seem.

The bill may not have had the votes but it revealed the votes.  It was not a failure to hold the vote because it showed everyone who voted and how they voted.  Now we know who voted against a Constitutional right.  Now they are on the record in a way that they were not on the record before.  Before, all they did was talk their game.  Now they were forced to play it and cast their votes which were recorded.

Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, I'm looking at you.  But not only you.

In the future we will have more opportunities like this.  The same minority of people in this country who want to overturn Roe v. Wade want to end contraception too.

Some of the minority want to end inter-racial marriage as well.

Still more -- and still a minority -- want to end the equality of gay marriage and generally ban LGBTQ rights of equality completely.

Yes, we will have more opportunities like this one in the future.  Do you think that this is what "American exceptionalism" means to the vocal minority in this country?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE REMIND ME WHY JOE MANCHIN IS ALLOWED ...

TO BE A DEMOCRAT?

Joe Manchin voted again today to uphold a Republican filibuster of a Democratic bill in the U.S. Senate.  Once again, he was the only member of the Democratic Party to do that as he has too many times before.  And he has obstructed more than votes.  He has also obstructed things that did not even come to a vote, like President Biden's Build Back Better program.

So I ask again, please remind me why Joe Manchin is allowed to be a Democrat?  Oh, right, Chuck Schumer.  Chuck likes the perks of being Leader of the Senate, which he could not be once Joe joins the Republicans.  Sorry, Chuck.

That's not good enough.  As a Member of Parliament hollered at Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons before he resigned as Prime Minister of the U.K., "For God's sake, go!"

Go, Joe.  Go now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MOTHERS' DAY MESSAGE To: House leadership @SpeakerPelosi @LeaderHoyer @WhipClyburn

If Democrats intend to lead the fight for reproductive freedom and privacy rights, you can’t continue to support conservative, anti-choice Democrats like Henry Cuellar. Rescind your endorsement today!

Thank you.

Please read the disclaimer.   All rights reserved.

Mallory McMorrow, The Best Domer Since Hesburgh and Parseghian.

.@MalloryMcMorrow, I'm on board with your message.  I'm a White Christian straight suburban Dad who went to @NotreDame, too:  #HateWontWin.

Thank you.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

President Biden, May I Call You Joe? Listen, no joke.

.@JoeBiden it's not just Christians and @NotreDame who win with the people you know.  It's everyone who leads by example, who does not accept unfairness, who includes us all in the human family, like @MalloryMcMorrow, @staceyabrams, @PramilaJayapal, @spmaloney.  #HateWontWin.

No joke, now act.  Thanks for listening.  

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE JUDGE. IT'S ABOUT JUSTICE.

Let's take a look at the federal judge's ruling that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agency does not have the authority to tell people to wear masks on airplanes, so as to control and prevent COVID-19.

No, I will not be writing about the judge who issued this freak ruling.  She is not the point her. Enough people are already talking about her, anyway.

The focus here is on how the Department of Justice has defended the CDC and the Mask Mandate on airplanes.

Briefly stated, they haven't.

Before we get into the weeds a little bit, only one thing about lawyers and lawsuits that you need to know first.  I promise, this won't be complicated.  The one thing to know here is that people who are sued, defendants like the CDC and other federal officials including President Biden in this case, defend themselves with an Answer to the Complaint against them.

That's it.  Just like real life, when someone complains, you answer and defend yourself.

Except in this case, the Department of Justice didn't defend anyone or anything.  They filed an Answer in the Court file, yes, but they did not raise any defenses.

They agreed that the people suing, the plaintiffs -- there were three, one individual who said she lives in Pinellas County (St. Pete), a second individual who said she lives in Hillsborough County (Tampa), and the third, a Wyoming corporation with headquarters in Idaho -- could amend their complaint.

And after they agreed, and after the plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, the Department of Justice did not answer it.  The DOJ did nothing.

With this kind of legal representation, you have got to wonder about many things but there is clearly no doubt about one thing, and that's how this case ended up with a ruling that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agency does not have the power to tell people to wear masks on airplanes in a pandemic.

And these are the people who are supposed to win the appeal? 

The federal case in Tampa is Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden (M.D. Fla. No. 8:21-cv-01693).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

SAY IT'S SO, JOE.

Dear Joe @JoeBiden,

May I call you Joe?  I feel like I know you.  You're a good person, not perfect, but better than many.  Certainly a better person than some other people in Washington, D.C. who seemingly have been around forever.

It's a hard thing to say, Joe, but your approval numbers are in the low 30 percent in the polls.  That doesn't mean that anybody would vote for The Former Guy instead of you; we've already been there, done that.  You're the President.

But things are not looking up, Joe.  You're doing so many things right -- rallying NATO, standing up to the little guy Putin (did you know he's only 5'7"?), appointing Judge Jackson to the highest Court in the land, making eleven straight good jobs reports and on pace to make 10 Million new jobs and 3% unemployment, all for the first time ever, and good stuff like that.

On the other hand, you're doing so many things not right -- opening up federal lands to oil drilling permits when you promised you wouldn't, choosing Merrick Garland, making moves that make Joe Manchin (Joe Manchin, for gosh sake!) look better than you, and not-so-good stuff like that.

So, I've been telling you on Twitter that you need to change it up.  Maybe you've seen my tweets.  I think I could have been a little more specific.  In my defense, you just can't say a lot in tweets (and that's before Elon Musk gets his hands on Twitter).  At any rate, you haven't changed things a heck of a lot, which is what you need to do, Joe.  You need to change things a heck of a lot.

One thing that you could change is to stop turning off people that want to support you but are appalled by your catering to the corporate Democrats.  This is your biggest overall problem, Joe.  Being a corporate Democrat did not sell for Hillary, and Barack never ran as one (although he governed as one after he got elected).

Specifically, there are things you can change, and change now, if you want to, Joe, things like those oil drilling permits for federal lands.  Some of your hardest-working supporters in the 2020 election were the young people of the Sunrise Movement.  If you continue to turn them off with your anti-environmental actions that you said you were against in the campaign, where do you think they will go?  Not to TFG, that's for sure.

No, they will sit out the next elections, Joe, if you keep turning them off.  Why would you do that when you need support so badly?

Oh, and if it comes to that, how many corporate Democrats do you know that are willing to walk precincts and knock on doors and do all of the things that campaigns need to get done, whether it's in the Midterms in 2022 or the next National Election in 2024 or any election in-between?

Young people are willing to do those things.  Just check out the aforementioned Sunrise Movement.

Progressive Democrats and Progressives of all kinds and parties are willing to do those things as well.

Pay attention to them, Joe.  Listen to them.  Put them on your policy teams.  Change things now, Joe.  Make things better.  For you and for your country.

Thank you for listening.  May God bless you and Dr. Jill.

Sincerely,

Dennis

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

ANDREW CLYDE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. IT'S MUCH WORSE.

Andrew Clyde moved to North Georgia and was elected to the U.S. Congress in 2020.  Born in Canada, he moved to Indiana and New York before he moved to Georgia.  Mr. Clyde took office in the U.S. House last year.  His district is 79% White and less than 7% Black.  These things are important to our story's background.

    Since he took office, Andrew Clyde first declared the 1/6 insurrectionists a "mob" such that he had to help blockade the House, before he declared that the mob was on a "normal tourist visit" to the Capitol.  A gun dealer by trade, he voted against giving the police a medal,  and refused to shake the hand of a police officer who had protected him on 1/6.  There are many more things that show the quality of his character, but that is enough for now.

    Andrew Clyde, it should be clearly understood or nothing wonderful can come of our story, is currently from Georgia.  He opposed naming a federal courthouse in Florida after a deceased federal judge.   

    It turns out that 2/3 of the House was required to vote in favor of naming the federal courthouse.  Both of Florida's two Republican Senators supported it; all 27 of Florida's Representatives supported it too.  In fact, it seems that at first everyone supported it.  Then a member of Andrew Clyde's staff showed him a newspaper clipping from 1999.

    The newspaper clipping was about a decision authored by the judge, who was Black, when he was on a federal appellate court.  The decision obeyed a previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down a measure that would have allowed prayer to be a mandatory part of the official state graduation ceremonies at a school in Jacksonville, Florida.  It seems that Mr. Clyde's real problem, in this situation anyway, was with the Supreme Court's decision interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

    To say again, that was in 1999.   It was a newspaper clipping.

    Now the rest of the story, as they say.  Mr. Clyde showed his Republican colleagues in the U.S. House the newspaper clipping about the Black judge from Florida.  His Republican colleagues dropped their support for the bill to name the federal courthouse.  That left the House short of a 2/3 majority.  The bill failed.

    The Black judge wrote many opinions in his professional career, starting from the time he became the first Black Justice on the Florida Supreme Court, which was before he became the first Black judge on the federal appellate court.  The decision that the newspaper wrote about in 1999 was only one decision from a judge's lifetime on the bench in which the judge made too many decisions to count.

    But this story is not about defending that one opinion.  This story isn't even about Andrew Clyde, not really.  It is about how it came to be that a person in office a little over 1 year, from Georgia, went to Washington and ended up blocking more than a mob on January 6, 2021.   This is the story of how an elected federal official from Georgia blocked a federal courthouse in Florida from being named after a federal judge from Florida.

    We start with the perspective that a person in Mr. Clyde's position had on the task facing him.  Clyde wanted to stop a federal courthouse in Florida from being named after a Black judge from Florida.  To be sure, Mr. Clyde denies that his opposition was born from the judge being Black.

    Still, it is reasonable to ask how many other federal courthouses from anywhere let alone Florida, did Mr. Clyde block from being named after any other federal judges?

    Back to Mr. Clyde's perspective, if we ever really left it.  The pending bill to name the federal courthouse required a 2/3 vote.  The objective was to reduce the vote enough so that it would not get a 2/3 vote.  (As it happened, a majority voted for the bill, 238 to 187, but not 2/3.)  That was the system.

    How the system was gamed also deserves our attention, because it shows how things are run in today's national Capitol.  In this case, a press clipping was enough.  It is very doubtful that many if any of the people who were for the bill before they were against it, actually read the 23-year-old decision.  It is probably even doubtful that many of them actually read the newspaper clipping before they changed their position.

    They moved on the word of what someone told them a newspaper clipping from 23 years ago said about a judicial decision in one federal case.  Even many children need better evidence than that.

    To sum up the story here, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass a bill which started with virtually unanimous support, then got majority support, but a majority did not win because of House rules.  Mr. Clyde took advantage of the House rules; he did not write them.  But he or someone else knew them.  To get majority rule, the House rules need to be changed.  Blame the Clydes all you want, but the system needs to be changed.

    It is also a part of the story that some Republican Representatives were persuaded strictly by fear.  They did not even know why they were suddenly against something after they were for it.

    And all because of a 23-year-old press clipping.

    Blame the system all you want, blame all of the Representatives if you want, but here our focus at the moment is instead on the people who are so afraid that they do not know why they are doing what they are doing.  They are not the people we need in positions of authority in this country.  It is no consolation that they are in the minority; as our story shows, they still run things. 

    But maybe, in the end, they did know why they were doing what they were doing, when they suddenly refused to name a federal courthouse after a federal judge who happened to be Black.

The saga of U.S. Representative Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) using a newspaper clipping from 1999 to successfully block the naming of a federal courthouse in Florida after a Black judge from Florida was published deep in the New York Times, reported by Annie Karni, House Republicans Abruptly Kill Bipartisan Bill to Honor a Pioneering Black Judge, NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, April 13, 2022, at A24, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/us/politics/gop-joseph-hatchett-florida.html?searchResultPosition=2.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

SEXUAL PREDATORS, YOU'RE SAFE UNDER THIS FLORIDA BILL.

Florida's House Bill 1557 begins with the title "an act relating to parental rights in education," but it is better known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill.  It has passed the Florida Legislature and the Florida Governor just signed it so it is now the law.

          The three most significant things about this law are, first, that it will make school districts notify students' parents of any change "in the student's services or monitoring" related to her health or well-being and the school's ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment.  There are lots of things this law does not define and obviously leaves to judges to define, such as "services or monitoring" in the first place, as well as "well-being," "safe," and "supportive," but that's not the first significant thing about it. 

          This law allows school districts to adopt procedures permitting school personnel not to notify the parents "if a reasonably prudent person" would believe that telling the parents would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in current Florida law.  The first significant thing about this law is that it puts the burden on the "school personnel" to prove that notifying the parents would result in abuse, from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent person.

          What if the "change in the student's services or monitoring" (also not defined) was because the student told the school personnel of the parents' abuse, let's say?  Would that be something a reasonably prudent person would believe would result in more abuse, abandonment, or neglect?  And would the "school personnel" have to tell the parents -- the potential child abusers -- what the student said in order to prove it?

          Long ago, I was a case worker dealing with abused and neglected children.   Far and away the most common child abuser was the child's own parent or, sometimes, both parents. 

          Second, this law will enshrine a parent's option to "withhold consent or decline any specific service" offered by the school district to her child, and it makes the school district tell all the parents at the beginning of every school year that they have this option.  That appears to include the services of the school nurse, if there is one.  Without a school nurse, whether because the district cannot afford one or because a given parent does not want her child to be seen by a school nurse, there will certainly be less opportunity to observe any bruises and even small fractures.

          Requiring school districts to notify parents of their option to bow out of "each healthcare service" offered by the district to their children, will of course include notice to abusive parents that their children will no longer be seen by "each healthcare service" at school once the abusive parents simply opt their child out of the school's healthcare service.

          Third, if a parent has undefined "concerns," and if those concerns are not "resolved by the school district," then every parent has two options.  They can either request the Florida Commissioner of Education in Tallahassee to appoint a "special magistrate" presumably from anywhere (this law does not say), but the "special magistrate" is required by this law at the local school district's expense.  (This bill was sponsored by a 34-year-old landscaper from Williston, Florida.  Do you think he will vote now to provide the funding for these special magistrates that his bill requires?  It is not very likely.)

          Or the parents who have "concerns" that the school district did not resolve, can sue the school district for "declaratory judgment" and "injunctive relief."  Somehow while seeking declaratory relief and an injunction, the parents who sue school districts can also recover "damages;" for what and how much is not stated.  This is rare in my experience as a Florida lawyer.

          But it is not unheard of.  In Florida, we have what you might call a part-time Legislature.  Members of the Florida Legislature, like the sponsor of this bill for example, are not full-time lawmakers.  On the contrary, they are only part-time lawmakers and full-time something else.  Long experience with Florida statutes reveals this clearly, because every once in a while, shall we say, a given Florida statute just does not make sense.

          When a Florida statute does not make sense, it is up to lawyers and judges to figure it out.  Or, if a statute cannot be figured out for whatever reason, it will be treated in the courts as it deserves, whatever that may be in a given case.  In this case, the case of the "act relating to parental rights," the statute itself tells what viewpoint is behind every provision of the act.

          This law does not use these words, but these words tell the viewpoint behind this bill:  'Children as chattel.'  Chattel means property.  This act views children as the property of the parent.  It says that it is written to support "the fundamental right" of parents to "control" their children.  Parents do not "control" their children; they love and support them as best they can, they provide food and a home and clothes and all the other things that a child needs, as best as the parents are able to do so.  But none of that is how any parent "controls" her or his child.

          Children as chattel?  Children as property?  No.

          Children as the people who will inherit the earth, hopefully without laws like this one.  Children as the future.  Yes.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

AT LEAST SPARE UKRAINE THAT MUCH.

Civilian deaths are a tragedy. But they are not a mistake.

Is it not possible, perhaps even likely, that things like the savage annihilation of the city of Mariupol including attacks on Maternity Hospitals and on civilians sheltering in a theater, are planned?  And that they are intentional?

It increasingly begins to appear that these heinous acts may be designed to elicit a response from the Ukrainians. Then, after the Ukrainians act in their justified outrage, Mr. Putin may declare an after-the-fact justification for his death-dealing invasion based on the reaction of the Ukrainians nearly a month after the Russian Army crossed the border into Ukraine.

That would be an even greater tragedy than the death of innocents, which is a great tragedy in itself. The world should bear the burden of responding to what we see Putin and his soldiers doing to Ukraine, so that Ukraine does not have to--such as pursuing a lawsuit in the International Criminal Court in the Hague for war crimes under international law.

Now let the world act to condemn this brutality, this cruelty, so that Ukraine does not have to take action into its own hands, which would not be good for Ukraine, Russia, or the world.

With everything else Ukraine is being forced to contend with, spare them that much.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WATCH FOR IT AT TONIGHT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

The Republican members of Congress will be seated on the President's left, which will be to our right on the television screen.

The Democratic members of Congress will be seated on the President's right, which will be to our left on the television screen.

Look to the right side of your television screen where the Republican members of Congress will be arranged.  Watch them.  See how they behave.  Remember how they behave.

Look to see if they are sitting on their hands and not applauding when American values are mentioned.  Look to see if they are folding their arms and not making any movement when the needs of the United States are listed in the address.

Most important of all, perhaps, look to see what if any reaction Republican members of Congress have to any mention of the 1/6 Committee.

Above all, if anyone shouts out tonight the President this time should land on him or her like a ton of bricks.  Ignoring and appeasing bullies only makes louder bullies.

Or, as we see in Ukraine right now, bullies behaving badly in many other ways besides talk.

Watch them.  Remember what they do, and what they do not do.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHAT WERE THEY TALKING ABOUT?

Remember when Putin and The Former Guy talked to each other without a translator or at least without another American present?  What was that about?  I haven't seen anything about it since, and I certainly have not seen any reporting on what they said to each other.  It had to be something that they did not want the world to hear because they shut the world out of their conversations.

We know since that they both had or have their plans for Ukraine.

Did Putin and TFG talk about Ukraine?

Is that what they did not want the world to hear, their plans for Ukraine, and their plans for other things?  Hmm.  One tried to stop anti-tank missiles going to Ukraine, the other sent tanks to Ukraine.

You gotta wonder.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

NO WONDER THEY DON'T LIKE DEMOCRACY.

The Canadian Truckers (who weren't really all Canadians, or all Truckers, but that's another story) wanted to overthrow the Canadian government.

Putin wants to overthrow the government of Ukraine.

The far-righteous in the U.S. want to overthrow the government of the United States.

They all want to overthrow the government because they cannot win at the ballot box.  They cannot win democratically.  So they are against democracy.

That's what I realized.  What do you think, do you think differently?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

OH, BUT YES, WE CAN. OH, THE SACRIFICES WE MAKE.

I just read an obituary about a person who taught high school biology at Bellport High School, a high school on Long Island not far from the high school I attended.  If I had lived closer to that school district, he might have even taught me high school biology.  We played Bellport in football; I do not recall whether they were good or not, but I think that they were fair to middling.

The person's name is Art Cooley.  The obituary says that he lived in East Patchogue in the fall of 1965, when my high school freshman year began.  I have been to Patchogue.  It was not the likeliest place for a miracle.

But in the fall of 1965, Mr. Cooley and others began to organize what eventually became the Environmental Defense Fund.  Their small group of friends shared concerns about the use of DDT on Long Island at first.  As time went on, they expanded to reach the entire nation.  Mr. Cooley's obituary says that the EDF "reported $221 million in support and revenue in its 2020 fiscal year."  DDT, on the other hand, is now banned across the entire nation. 

The obituary reports, without amplification, that Mr. Cooley's marriage ended in divorce.  We have no way of knowing, at least from this obituary of course, but you have to wonder if the end of Art Cooley's marriage was one of the costs of the miracle that started with friends gathering together and, years later, ended up with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Rest in peace, Mr. Cooley.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

HERE'S A SOLUTION: SUE THEIR SACKLERS OFF.

In December a federal judge rejected a Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy settlement because the Sacklers, individuals who own Purdue, insisted on immunity from being sued for their alleged liabilities in the Opioid Crisis.

Now the Sacklers have somehow come up with another $1Billion to put into the pot while they still insist on immunity.  It is rare for individual owners of bankrupt companies to be given immunity even as the bankrupt companies are given immunity.  It is the companies that are in bankruptcy, after all; here it is Purdue, not the Sacklers, that are in Bankruptcy.  Yet the Sacklers insist on the Bankruptcy Court giving them immunity.   See Jan Hoffman, Sacklers Raise Their Offer to Settle Opioid Lawsuits by More Than $1 Billion / But they continue to insist on protection from civil liability claims over opioids, an unusual and controversial measure that derailed a previous deal, NEW YORK TIMES, posted online Friday, February 18, 2022.

Cynical rich people.  Buying immunity.  Throw another $1Billion at them, that will make them  give you immunity.

Here's a solution.  The Purdue Bankruptcy litigation has an automatic stay of all lawsuits until March 3.  Let it expire.  Then sue their Sacklers off.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

STUDENT LOAN SETTLEMENT INCLUDES ONLY STUDENTS IN DEFAULT.

The student loan settlement "between 39 states and Navient, a student lending giant" doesn't include students who are current paying their loans.  It includes only students who have defaulted on their loans.  Everyone else has to --continue -- to pay Navient.  See Stacy Cowley, Student Loan Settlement Was Too Good to be True, NEW YORK TIMES, Friday, Feb. 18, 2022, at B1.

No word in this reporting, though, who exactly made this settlement, if there was a lawsuit, where a lawsuit was filed if it was filed anywhere, and so on.

Guess we'll have to do our own reporting to find those things out.  But one thing we do know:  The student loan settlement "between 39 states and Navient, a student lending giant" doesn't include students who are current on their loans.

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved. 

POSTSCRIPT TO 'THE CANADIAN TRUCKERS AREN'T TRUCKERS PROTESTING VACCINATION.'

P.S.

Does this photo look like Canadian truckers protesting vaccinations?

American Eagle in supposed Canadian trucker anti-vaccination protests.  (Blair Gable / Reuters)

P.P.S. Where are all the supposed trucks?

P.P.P.S.  What a crock.  A few Canadian truckers.  Very few trucks.  Virtually zero anti-vaccination protests.  Other than all that, the reporting on this story is really good, don't you think?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.