Paul Soglin: Waxing America

COVID - 19 This Pandemic Outcome: You Got What You Need Post #11

The inability of the federal government and the state governments to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic was planned. I reviewed two hundred pages of reports from the CDC and NIH including the one's linked in previous posts such as the Pandemic Influenza Plan 2017 Update.

First, the studies accurately predict and model what is happening. The U.S. government did not obfuscate the probability of a pandemic or the subsequent consequences.

Secondly, the strategy to address a pandemic was clearly inadequate. There are no recommendations that the federal government prepare the nation for a pandemic on the scale modeled. The reports contain a series of recommendations placing the responsibility on the individual states. That reports acknowledges that the states do not have the ventilators, respirators or other necessary PPEs.

A conscious decision was made to recommend an inadequate response.

If you examine the reports there is only one conclusion. The present crisis is a victory for those who want a smaller federal government, advocate for "state's rights," and who believe economically it is best not to prepare.

No one is to blame, the right-wing won this health and economic battle. The Trump, 'get back to work' and Texas 'old people can die' viewpoint is simply a continuation of the mentality that crafted the reports.

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometimes, well, you might find, You get what you need.

 

You  can't get your prescription filled at the Chelsea drugstore.

Yeah, and he said said one word to me, and that was "dead"

 

Trump Joke of the Week: President-elect is Toothless Cat

Everyone from Bernie Sanders to Politico is on to the Trump tax cut gambit.

Candidate Trump threatened Carrier with tariffs if it moved jobs out of the United States.  Now Carrier will keep most of the jobs in Indiana after President-elect Trump, declawed and de-fanged, wheeled and dealed with Carrier and gave them major tax breaks to stay put.

Tax cuts to companies, income and property (this does not include TIF, secured by job guarantees and/or building improvements), are not justified: Kauffman Foundation, Three Tax Topics.

The scary part of all of this is the direction towards corporate socialism in the name of building the economy.

The Castle Doctrine and The Coming Gunfight

The tragedy in Florida where young Trayvon Martin was murdered was inevitable, This post is from six years ago.

The twisting and manipulation of the Castle Doctrine is quickly moving the United States in a dangerous direction. The radical right now distorts a principle which dates back to the English Common Law, with roots in Roman society.

The concept is simple. Confronted with violence, once is always expected to retreat. Retreat is the rule, not the exception. Then an exception was carved out allowing the use of deadly force if reasonably used in self-defense. But always, there was first an obligation to retreat.

A thousand years ago our ancestors realized that if civilization was to move forward, the obligation was on everyone to retreat.

From this another exception was carved.  Once within his home the Englishman, faced with nowhere else to flee, obligated to protect his family and property, was entitled to use deadly force, but only as necessary to stop the intrusion. During the reign of King Henry VIII:

Duty to Retreat

Historically, English common law justified deadly force only in circumstances where one was executing the law -- effecting a legal arrest or preventing violent felonies ( see Perkins, Self-Defense Re-Examined, 1 UCLA L Rev 133 [1953]). When deadly force was reasonably used in self-defense it only excused -- but did not justify -- the homicide ( see Wharton, Homicide § 3, at 211 [1855]). The difference was more than theoretical, as the excused killer was subject to property forfeiture and, at times, even a penal sentence ( see Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, [3d ed], § 17.01, p 205). However, with the enactment of 24 Henry VIII, ch 5 (1532), the justification defense was enlarged to include deadly force reasonably used in self-defense. This broader reading of the justified use of deadly force was further refined by cases involving attacks in the dwelling of the defender. Such a defender -- even if the original aggressor -- did not have a duty to retreat when inside the home, or "castell" (Lambard, Eirenarcha, or Offices of the Justice of the Peace, 250 [1599]).

Our contemporary castle doctrine grew out of a turbulent era when retreat from one's home necessarily entailed increased peril and strife ( see Thompson, Homicide in Self- Defense, 14 Am L Rev 548, 554 [1888]). The rationale that evolved -- now widely accepted -- is that one should not be driven from the inviolate place of refuge that is the home. "It is not now, and has never been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground, and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home" ( see People v Tomlins, 213 NY 240, 243 [1914] [Cardozo, J.]).

The home exception to the duty to retreat reflects two interrelated concepts -- defense of one's home, and defense of one's person and family. "The house has a peculiar immunity in that it is sacred for the protection of a person's family," and "[m]andating a duty to retreat for defense of dwelling claims will force people to leave their homes by the back door while their family members are exposed to danger and their houses are burgled" ( State v Carothers, 594 NW2d 897, 900-901 [1999] [Minn] [internal quotations and citations ommitted]). Yet somewhat at odds with this privileged status accorded the home is the state's general interest in protecting life. "The duty to retreat reflects the idea that a killing is justified only as a last resort, an act impermissible as long as other reasonable avenues remain open" ( People v Jones, 3 NY3d 491, 494 [2004]). Indeed, requiring a defender to retreat before using deadly force may in fact be "the more civilized view" (LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 10.4 [e], at 155 [2d Ed]). Inevitably, then, a balance must be struck between protecting life by requiring retreat and protecting the sanctity of the home by not requiring retreat.

.....The Legislature also incorporated the castle doctrine -- balancing the competing interests of protecting the home and protecting life -- directing that the duty to retreat does not apply when the defender "is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor"... If the attack occurs in the dwelling, a defender need not retreat but may use reasonable force to repel it. (emphasis added)

Now the radical new Republican right wants to take the exception and make it the rule nationally, having succeeded in Florida.

Here is what the NRA POLITICAL REPORTsays:

The right to defend yourself against violent, criminal attack is a fundamental human right. NRA-ILA is in state capitals, fighting for laws like the Castle Doctrine, which guarantees your right to defend yourself against criminals anywhere you have a right to be. We're also fighting for Workers Protection laws, to prevent employers from discriminating against employees who choose to keep firearms in their locked vehicles while working.

The intent is straightforward though not honest.  First, the Castle Doctrine now becomes the rule, not the exception.  At the grocery, the ball game and the tavern, there is no longer a requirement to retreat.

laws like the Castle Doctrine, which guarantees your right to defend yourself against criminals anywhere you have a right to be

Bu the bigger lie is here:

guarantees your right to defend yourself against criminals anywhere you have a right to be.

A dispute with the next guy over the parking space? Bam! Bumping into the other shopper's cart? Boom! Didn't like the way he was looking at you? Blam!

All one of the parties has to do is perceive that the other is not backing down; from there we have the physical confrontation with no obligation to retreat, and permission to use deadly force if you believe your own life is in danger.

Employers in Florida and other states want firearms out of the parking lots and workplaces. The NRA is claiming that their Property Rights allow them to take their gun (property) wherever they go. Whatever happened to the the person who owns the property, the real property?

Edit note: this was originally posted Feburary 27, 2006.

Walker Defies Wisconsin Constitution

I Will Serve Steven Slater's Prison Sentence. Righteous Dude.

Steven Slater, the angry Jet Blue flight attendant knows that it is often the circumstances that make the hero.

As President Calvin Coolidge said, "Heroism is not only the man, but in the occasion," or perhaps better put by Gerald W. Johnson, "Heroes are created by popular demand, sometimes out of the scantiest materials."

In any case, I volunteer to serve a one tenth share of any prison sentence he receives for doing the right thing. I am sure there are enough of us to fill all of the prisons in this nation for the next decade.

Slater spoke volumes when he said he did it for all of us poor, abused travelers who follow the rules.

In these trying times we should heed the words of Mahatma Gandhi, though he probably did not have obnoxious airline passengers, or the people who run the airlines in mind, "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good."

Ben Masel Settles With UW & State of Wisconsin; Gets Some Money But No Apology

Only $7,500? And Ben's attorney probably gets half. This is a bargain for us taxpayers, considering the facts of the case and the costs of another trial.

Over a year ago, Waxing America concluded:

• The UW and the Wisconsin Attorney General's office should offer a sincere apology and a reasonable settlement to Masel before the jury awards him everything they legally can.
• The UW-Madison police need upgraded training in alternatives to using force and in community policing techniques.

I hope the training's been done or is ongoing. The settlement is more than reasonable. Masel probably got no apology though.

So, as a UW employee of long standing with free speech rights and no official standing whatsoever, I'll say it, since apparently no one else will: "Sorry, Ben." 

- Barry Orton

"Lyndon Baines Obama"

The San Francisco Examiner nailed it. The headline is "Lyndon Baines Obama takes Afghanistan reins."

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama described the conflict in Afghanistan as a “war of necessity,” but the plan he announced last night at the U.S. Military Academy bears disturbing reminders of the doomed strategy doggedly pursued by the last Democratic president to commit the U.S. to a major land war in Asia.

Senator Russ Feingold gets it right:

I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest.  It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy.  Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there.  I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.

Representative Tammy Baldwin didn't equivocate:

“In 2001, I voted to authorize the use of force to bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I believe our current actions in Afghanistan and President Obama’s proposal for moving forward bear little resemblance to that original, narrowly-focused mission.

I cannot endorse a military surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It’s time for our troops to come home.”

Paul thinks differently, and will post subsequently.

- Barry Orton

The Collapse of Communism and the Collapse of Capitalism

When I posted Dubai: Free markets, Unrestrained, Unregulated Capitalism. Phooey, Jeremy wrote and posed an interesting question:

If the default (or possible default) of Dubai is evidence of capitalism's failings, I'd be curious to know what you thought the lesson of the collapse of the Soviet Union was.

As best I can tell communism failed in Eastern Europe for four reasons, three of which can collapse any economic system. The three that can impact capitalism as well:

1. They devoted too much of their resources to military expenditures and not enough to education and building domestic infrastructure.
2. Corruption.
3. Lousy management which relied on slogans, ineffective efforts to motivate workers, failure to listen to the the workers, rules that stifled everyone when the problem was isolated, production based on correcting bad work after the fact with inspectors, and not listening to the customers. (Read any good book on quality production. It is scary how communism and capitalism have so many common traits caused by correctable failures from leadership.).

The one reason that Communism failed that was inherent to the system was lack of freedom of expression, which has less to do with economics and more to do with the power of rock n' roll.

People want to be free. Not so much to chose between forty-seven different automobiles, but to choose what to read, say, think, and feel. Part of that freedom is to make an honest living.

Curiously, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have constricted the freedoms of expression in this country, not the freedom to make money or rip people off.

Arlen Specter Always Uncomfortable, Never a Leader

The problem for Arlen Specter (PA) and the Democrats is that this man who knows better will probably be as uncomfortable as a Democrat as he was as a Republican.

Arlen Specter's  jump to the Democratic Party surprises no one. For the past half dozen years it was clear that Specter was uncomfortable with the Neocons and right-wing zealots in his party. The addition of one more vote in the Democratic column is all he brings, along with his desk and chair.

Over two years ago we posted Arlen Specter Makes a Deal: Sells Out The Constitution for Power. At the height of one of the Constitutional crises presented by the out of control Bush White House that had no recognition of civil liberties, Specter made a lot of noise about freedom and then collapsed:

Specter went into negotiations with the White House and his own party, knowing that his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee was at stake. He caved.

...It is hard to believe that the Arlen Specter of the nineteen-eighties—the maverick who defied his party on an issue of the magnitude of the Bork nomination—would have considered yielding on a question as fundamental as habeas corpus ...

He destroyed the foundation of Anglo-American jurisprudence and took us back to the days of the Star Chamber Courts.

...Specter is hoping the courts will restore the rights of the detainees to bring habeas cases. “The bill was severable. It has a severability clause. And I think the courts will invalidate it,” he told me. “They’re not going to give up authority to decide habeas-corpus cases, not a chance.” Others are less sure.

When you look at Specter's record on all matters Constitutional in 2006, the man has no shame. He signaled all year that he was unprincipled and shallow.

Unlike most of the Republicans in power at the time, Specter knew better as to what was right and what was wrong. Like all of the Republicans, he failed to show any leadership.

Specter is as good as those who surround him. He is not a leader.

That is why he choose to be a Republican in the first place, that he why he failed to lead during the Bush Constitutional crisis, and that is why, faced with sure defeat as a Pennsylvania Republican, he switched parties.

What power he gathered was through seniority, not command.

His vote is welcome; his addition to the majority is welcome.

Never count on him to lead.

Fitchburg Mayoral Candidate Says Drumlin Farmers Linked to "Domestic Terrorists" - WTF?

In what could be a very tight election for Mayor of Fitchburg, Mark Vivian's campaign has run off the rails of sanity into the great bog of the bizarre. Facing a popular 14-year veteran City Councilman, Jay Allen, former Mayor Vivian sent out a fundraising letter that claimed that:

"My opponent, Jay Allen, has introduced legislative action to use the City’s police powers to condemn land owned by the Novation Campus, and threaten 2.5 million dollars of your tax money to interfere in what should be a private matter between current tenants living illegally on Novation property and its owners. The illegal tenants have known ties to an organization identified on the U.S. Federal Government list of domestic terrorist groups."

Huh? In Fitchburg? Really?

Bill Lueders has the story on The Dailypage:

Grab the kids and run for cover! Can car bombings in McKee Park be far behind? Will deadly biological agents be added to the produce at the Agora Pavilion farmers market? Will Berbee and Promega become havens for sleeper cells?

Allen explains that he recently introduced a resolution to begin an eminent domain process against Alexander Co., which is developing the Novation Campus. He says the goal was to compel the company to discuss the possible sale of Drumlin Farm, a five-acre community garden that enjoys huge community support.

Waxing America told you about Drumlin Farm and the land development deal it is located smack dab in the middle of:

Everybody understand the meaning of "fair market value determined by independent appraisal assuming the highest and best use of the property?" As the Novation Campus business park develops, the highest and best use of property within and adjacent to it is... as a business park, not a farm or a community garden.

Lueders showed the Vivian letter to Allen:

Apprised that his rival in the race for Fitchburg mayor has linked him to domestic terrorists, Jay Allen has an interesting reaction: He laughs and laughs.

"He wrote that?" says Allen, a 14-year veteran of the Fitchburg Common Council, between guffaws. "Oh my God! That is just crazy. Just absolutely insane."

Drumlin Garden neighbor Tim Morrissey sees politics behind it all, but will be vigilant:

Jay Allen, terrorist sympathizer?  Yah, and I'm the poster boy for Weight Watchers.  This is a low blow even for the right-wing stooges behind Vivian's campaign.

I live a few blocks from the development site in question, but I'm across the boundary line in the wide-open Town of Madison.  I'll be sure to watch for any suspicious characters planting things over there in the community farm.

We need to keep an eye on those radical gardeners.

Maybe this photo of the Drumlin Garden explains Vivian's fears - the metal sculpture could do more than scare crows:

Fitchburg curmudgeon and lifelong troublemaker Rich Eggleston had the best reaction:

The Drumlin Gardeners are a well known terrorist group, dedicated to bombing us with tasty vegetables and threatening the American way of life, i.e., Americans' propensity to consume over-processed foods, foods laced with artificial ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and foods grown thousands of miles away from our stomachs.

Emily Mills puts it all in perspective:

Basically, Vivian's letter is a pile of crap, and an incendiary one at that. The issue of land use rights and specifically what happens with the Drumlin/Novation property is an important one, and deserves a higher degree of debate that that which Vivian appears to be prepared to offer. I can't imagine that someone who would put out a piece of literature as ridiculous as that would make an even remotely good mayor. But, ultimately, that's for the fine folks of Fitchburg to decide.

Right. Early next month, we'll know whether the Fitchburgers, now living on land that was almost entirely farmland, will allow manufactured fear of the farmers to rule their city.  Shame on Mark Vivian.

- Barry Orton