Obama and "peaceful protesters"

What President Obama said about "sending [federal] agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators," is a sham and a shame. The agents are not attacking peaceful protesters. They use force only when someone threatens them or federal property. Calling people who shoot explosives at federal agents or buildings, set fires to property, shine blinding lasers into eyes of federal agents, or tear down fences surrounding federal properties "peaceful protesters" is so false that I don't know whether to call the description fake news or despicable. A more accurate description is "rioters". We need honest and clear discussion about the role of federal agents, not false narratives about what they do.

Obama on the filibuster

What President Obama said about the filibuster at John Lewis's funeral is a sham and a shame. He called the filibuster a "relic of Jim Crow". His statement implies that the right to filibuster is racist and began during the Jim Crow era. Both implications are false. The filibuster is not racist and did not begin in the Jim Crow era. 

We need careful and thoughtful debate before deciding whether or not to remove the filibuster, not false portrayals of the filibuster as being racist. Ds don't want to remove the filibuster because it is racist. I suspect that they want to remove it to grab power. I suspect that they envision a Biden victory, gaining a majority in the Senate, and keeping control of the House. Then, by removing the filibuster, they could add Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states and give themselves another "safe" four seats in future Senates, perhaps "pack" the Supreme Court, and pass any bill no matter how much the Rs attempt to resist. 

Obama's claim that the filibuster is racist differs sharply from recent history. "In 2017 most Senate Democrats signed a letter supporting the filibuster because 'we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body.'" Either the Ds then were ignorant or the filibuster's association with racism or willing to overlook the association because it served a greater good. Or maybe the claim is false.

Obama would have been more accurate if he had said that the filibuster was used by Senators to delay civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 60s. However, that segregationists used the filibuster does not make it a relic of Jim Crow. Its use preceded and survives Jim Crow and has been used many more times to delay action on issues not related to Jim Crow. That racists use something does not make the thing racist. That racists used their votes to elect segregationists does not make voting racist.  

The filibuster did not begin during Jim Crow. In fact, the filibuster has been standard practice in the Senate since the founding of the country. Filibuster occurs when someone uses the right to unlimited debate to delay taking a vote on a motion. One of the first to threaten to limit unlimited debate and the ability to filibuster was Henry Clay, hardly a paragon of civil rights and racial equality. 

The Senate adopted a rule, known as cloture, to limit debate in 1917. They agreed a vote of 2/3 of the Senators would end debate. The Senate reduced the number of votes needed to 3/5 in 1975. Subsequently the so-called nuclear option reduced the number to a simple majority for confirming federal judges and, later, for confirming Supreme Court judges.

I agree with Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell says black and minority lives would improve if politicians supported charter schools (Fox News, July 2020).

Not one drop

The VCU Committee on Commemoration and Memorials has recommended de-commemoration of anyone recognized publicly by the University or the City of Richmond who served in the military of the Confederacy or provided medical care for the military of the Confederacy. The list of names of people that they want to de-commenorate include James Dooley, Fitzhugh Lee, Lewis Ginter, Hunter McGuire, Matthew Fontaine Maury, the McCaw family because of medical care provided by James B. McCaw, the Tompkins family because of medical care provided by Sally Tompkins, W.C. Wickham, and Judson B. Wood.

I don't think that applying a strict litmus test is the best way to determine whether or not to recognize a historical figure. I would prefer to reflect more generally on the accomplishments. 

1. Did the person do something that merits recognition? 
2. Could we recognize the person for contributions to humankind or the University while acknowledging their flaws. 
3. Might we consider more carefully their views on slavery, race, and succession before dismissing their accomplishments? Given the contentious discussions we are having now about race and federalism, adding information about their positions on race, slavery, and succession to their commemorations could be wonderful opportunities to learn. 
4. Might we consider more carefully their reasons for providing service to the Confederacy? Should we expunge people who opposed succession or provided service because they felt their primary allegiance was to their State or community instead of the nation? Adding information about why they served to their commemorations could be wonderful opportunities to learn about the concepts of duty, honor and patriotism. 
5. Might we embrace forgiveness as a value, similar to what Nelson Mandela did, when we judge them.  

Read below to learn more about the people the Committee wants to de-commemorate.


James Dooley
Major Dooley’s leadership of various civic endeavors runs as a continuous thread through the history of Richmond, from the early 1870s through the early 1920s. Like his father before him, he was a faithful board member of St. Joseph’s Orphanage for over 50 years. He served on the board of the Medical College of Virginia and, in 1919, gave the funds for the construction of the Dooley Hospital. He became an officer of the Virginia Cooperative Education Association, which advocated universal public education. A gifted orator, Major Dooley rallied the community around many causes, including support for Irish famine victims.


Hunter Holmes McGuire
was a physician, teacher, and orator. He started several schools and hospitals which later became part of the Medical College of Virginia (MCV) in Richmond, Virginia. McGuire was later president of the American Medical Association. McGuire contributed to the original (first) of the Geneva Conventions, which is why the Boston Medical Journal said in his obituary that he had "humanized war."

James McCaw
During his lifetime he was successively Professor of Chemistry and of the Practice of Medicine in the Medical College of Virginia for many years, served as Dean of the Faculty for twelve years, and at the time of his death was President of the Board of Visitors of the College. He was also a charter member and one of the founders of the Medical Society of Virginia, and at one time President of the Richmond Academy of Medicine. He pioneered advances in emergency care.


Sally Tompkins
She joins the ranks of women like Clara Barton who responded to the urgent needs which were presented during the Civil War, especially after the Battle of First Bull Run when the realities of warfare became stark in both the Union and Confederate capital cities. They helped develop nursing into the skilled profession it was to become. Sally Tompkins reported obsession with cleanliness led to progress in sanitation during treatment. Her proven lower mortality rates as a result are exceptionally notable among her many legacies to the United States and medical providers everywhere, practices still in widespread use.


Fitzhugh Lee

After the war, Lee devoted himself to farming in Stafford County, Virginia, and was conspicuous in his efforts to reconcile the Southern people to the issue of the war, which he regarded as a final settlement of the questions at issue. In 1875, he attended the Battle of Bunker Hill centennial at Boston and delivered a remarkable address. In 1885, he was a member of the board of visitors of West Point, and from 1886 to 1890 was governor of Virginia having defeated in 1885 Republican John Sergeant Wise with 52.77% of the vote.^[4]

Lee commanded the third division at both of President Grover Cleveland's inaugural parades in 1885 and 1893.^[8]

In April 1896, Lee was appointed consul-general at Havana by President Cleveland, with duties of a diplomatic and military character added to the usual consular business. In this post (in which he was retained by President William McKinley until 1898) he was from the first called upon to deal with a situation of great difficulty, which culminated with the destruction of the warship USS Maine. Upon the declaration of war between Spain and the United States, he re-entered the army.

He was one of four ex-Confederate general officers who were made major generals of United States Volunteers (the others being Matthew Butler, Joseph Wheeler and Thomas L. Rosser). Fitzhugh Lee commanded the 7th Army Corps, but took no part in the actual operations in Cuba. He was military governor of Havana and Pinar del Río in 1899, subsequently commanded the Department of the Missouri, and retired in 1901 as a brigadier general, U.S. Army.

Lewis Ginter

Major Lewis Ginter (April 24, 1824 – October 1, 1897) was a prominent businessman, military officer, real estate developer, and philanthropist centered in Richmond, Virginia. A native of New York City, Ginter accumulated a considerable fortune throughout his numerous business ventures and became one of Richmond's wealthiest citizens despite his exceptionally modest demeanor.^[1] While the Jefferson Hotel, Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden, and Ginter Park embody some of Ginter's major urban contributions to Richmond, many of his philanthropic gifts were given anonymously to charitable organizations and individuals in need.^[2] His continued devotion to Richmond is captured in his famous remark, "I am for Richmond, first and last."^[3]

Matthew Fontaine Maury 

was an American astronomer, naval  officer, historian, oceanographer, meteorologist, cartographer, author, geologist, and educator. He was nicknamed "Pathfinder of the Seas" and "Father of Modern Oceanography and Naval Meteorology" and later, "Scientist of the Seas" for his extensive works in his books, especially The Physical Geography of the Sea (1855), the first such extensive and comprehensive book on oceanography to be published. Maury made many important new contributions to charting winds and ocean currents, including ocean lanes for passing ships at sea. 

Williams Carter Wickham 
was a Virginia lawyer, plantation owner and politician. At the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861, Wickham voted against secession. After the American Civil War, Wickham became a Republican and served in the Virginia Senate as well as became President of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway company. After the surrender of the Confederacy, Wickham was active in improving harmony between the states and reorganizing Virginia's economy, which had been ruined by the war. He became a Republican and voted in 1872 for General Ulysses S. Grant as a member of the Electoral College of Virginia.


Finally, I quote some passages from E. P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate: A Critical Analysis.They illustrate that at least some Confederates were not motivated by a desire to preserve slavery or white supremacy. I think that we could learn from them.

When given the opportunity to remain in the Union army and serve his time on the West coast away from the war, he replied

What is Russia trying to do?

What we are hearing about Russian interference in the 2020 election is a sham and a shame. I don't know whether to blame the intelligence reports or the news media. Here is what AP reports:

"Just weeks into this year’s election cycle, Russia already is actively interfering in the U.S. presidential campaign in hopes of reelecting President Donald Trump, and is also trying to help the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, intelligence officials have concluded.

The Russian efforts are aimed at undermining public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stirring general chaos in American politics, intelligence experts say" (https://apnews.com/1398cc440971a3f39d95346a875d3726, 21 Feb 2020).

I suspect that the second paragraph is accurate. I am confident that "the Russian efforts are aimed at undermining public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stirring general chaos in American politics." The best way to undermine confidence and to stir chaos is to focus on non-traditional candidates with a core of fervent followers. Therefore putting out disinformation that is favorable to Trump or Sanders is probably the best way to undermine confidence and to stir chaos.

However, I challenge the statements in the first paragraph. No one knows who Russia hopes wins the nominations or elections. To claim otherwise is speculation. Moreover, the first paragraph contradicts itself. It  states that the goal is to help reelect Donald Trump and also to help Bernie Sanders. Unless having Bernie be the Democratic nominee helps Trump win the election, the two goals in the first paragraph are not the same.  

Holman Jenkins of the WSJ makes my point more emphatically. "We are idiots if we think the Russians are asking themselves what they can do to advance Trump’s cause. The Kremlin is asking how to keep American politics roiled and distrustful. ... The real upside of Russia’s meddling comes from keeping Americans unreasonably and unnecessarily poisoned against each other."

I see two possibilities for why the media keeps repeating something they cannot know. The first possibility is that the news media is not thinking. Instead, they are repeating a narrative about Trump and Russia without recognizing that the account is speculative and internally inconsistent. The second possibility is that the news media is repeating phrases from an intelligence briefing or a leak from a briefing and do not want to stray from the language of the source. The first possibility tells me that the news media is being lazy. The second possibility tells me that the intelligence agency or person describing the report is putting "spin" on the facts.

We need truth today. We need facts unvarnished with spin or narrative. We need reporters who say what they know and who refrain from speculating about things they can't know and from repeating mindlessly an what someone leaking a confidential report said was in the report.

Note: Reference to Holman Jenkins is a revision to the original post.

Where is the outrage?

The coverage of the FBI's abuse of FISA to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page is a sham and a shame. The Horowitz report "identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and many errors in the Woods Procedures" and "at least 19 references to the status quo’s threat to 'constitutionally protected activity,' notably the 'First Amendment.'” The FISA court found the report so troubling that it issued a rare public order for the FBI to report soon what it is doing to prevent making mistakes in the future. The Horowitz report also notes that it failed to find "documentary or testimonial evidence” of anti-Trump bias. Both the finding so many mistakes and the lack of finding bias deserve more attention. Here are questions I would try to answer if I were a reporter.

1. Is four mistakes per application typical? The 17 mistakes for Carter Page occurred over four applications.
2. Can the public rely on the FISA court to preserve our liberties?
3. Has the time come to eliminate FISA and stop the FBI and CIA from spying on US citizens without "normal" warrants?
4.  How many of the mistakes in the applications for Carter Page favored getting the warrants and how many worked against getting it? I presume that the answer is 17 to 0 in the next question.
5. What is the probability that all 17 mistakes favored getting the application if the probability of one mistake favoring the application is 50%. Answer = 1/131072 = 0.000007629394531 = 0.0007629394531%.
6. Is such a low probability of making so many of the mistakes in favor of getting the warrants more consistent with systematic political bias or lack of anti-Trump bias?

The lack of attention in the news media to the  abuse of FISA by FBI is shocking. If we cannot rely on the FBI to play carefully and straight then FISA cannot protect our Constitutional rights. I fear that loss of those rights is too great a price to pay for whatever benefits we are getting.

I am surprised at the lack of attention to the preponderance of mistakes that favored getting the warrant. Any possibility that political bias leads the FBI to spy on a citizen, much less a politician, strikes at the very heart of a free and fair democracy.

What really matters

Much of the debate over what is or is not one of the isms, capitalism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism, etc., is a sham and a shame. Many realities fall between classical definitions and the debate over where a particular reality falls does little to improve our understanding. The key distinction in an economic system is the extent to which it relies on liberty and voluntary cooperation  relative to coercion. My understanding of classical capitalism is that it envisions relying predominately on liberty and voluntary cooperation. My understanding of classical communism is that it relies predominately on coercion - a person works where instructed and consumes what government allocates to her. 

I want my economic system to rely predominately on liberty and voluntary cooperation. and want my government to do things that create liberty and foster voluntary cooperation. For example, a government police force enhances my liberty because it reduces that chance that a thief coerces me through theft or at gun point to give up something I own. 

I recommend this commentary.