Of Scrolls and Speeches

During the State of the Union address last night we could not help but notice the antics of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She should get an Oscar or Grammy award for her spot-on impression of an eighth-grade girl. It was interesting, and disconcerting, to watch her literally drip disdain for the Leader of the Free World and his Office. Several times she was signaling to someone in the gallery with her fingers. The cameraman had the good sense not to pan to the audience and identify whoever was misbehaving. When my Mom finger signaled me in church, it meant that I had better straighten up or thunderation would ensue at home. I guess Madam Nancy had some miscreants to control from the platform.

And her piece de resistance was her “performance” at the end of the speech. As President Trump was winding down his address, our heroine was conspicuously shuffling the copies of the address, I assume. She was paging through some type of manuscript all during the speech and now she gathered them up, collated them, and “straightened” them by tapping the batch between her hands to align them in order. Then, astoundingly, she proceeded to take a few pages at a time and, holding them deliberately in front of her chest, tore them in two. She continued the charade until the entire pile was “shredded.” (I wonder who gave her that “ingenious idea.” Is she bright enough to think of that herself? Her female adolescent advisor may have had a hand in that.)

Or, maybe she copied it from the Bible. There is an interesting story in Jeremiah 38. The prophet had written the warning that he received from God and sent it to the King, named Jehoiakim. Ironically, the scroll instructed Jehoiakim not to rebel against the King over him, one Nebuchadnezzar. (Can we read, “disrespect,” here?) So the scribe sent from Jeremiah took the scroll to read to the King. Follow the text beginning in verse 20.
So they went to the king in the court...and they reported all the words to the king. 21 Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he...read it to the king as well as to all the officials who stood beside the king. 22 Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. 23 When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. 

Not only did Jehoiakim have the temerity to desecrate a President’s address, he sliced the Word of God and burned it in his fireplace. Too bad Ma’am Nan didn’t have a charcoal barbeque handy.

Well, just glance down the chapter a little ways. Verse 27 continues the tale.
Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah after the king had burned the scroll...saying, 28 “Take again another scroll and write on it all the former words that were on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned. 29 And concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah you shall say, ‘Thus says the Lord, “You have burned this scroll, saying, ‘Why have you written on it that the king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land, and will make man and beast to cease from it?’” 30 Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, “He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night. 31 I will also punish him and his descendants and his servants for their iniquity, and I will bring on them and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah all the calamity that I have declared to them—but they did not listen.”’”

As Dr. Phil asks, “And how did work out for you?” Old Jehoiakim ended up “tot” which is German for “assuming room temperature.” And his descendants followed his ways and died without sons. If I were a voter in California, I would look long and hard for an alternative to send to Congress to represent my district and State in November, not named Pelosi.

The mind roams back to junior high days. I had a crush on the queen of the class, the head cheerleader, and the girlfriend of the team captain. And she was all the same person. So I screwed up my courage and wrote her a note, professing my profound admiration for her. I anxiously watched as she discovered the note in her desk and, curiously, opened it.

Then, with a determined “Nancy-esque” look on her face, she proceeded to rip my missive to shreds. (Excuse the anachronism.) And, sadly, I was not emotionally decimated by her crass dismissal of my affections. I had expected it. And, undoubtedly, President Trump was not surprised by her perverse behavior, even in the Congress of the United States.

Let’s see what happens now. And the Democrats want this, and possibly another, near octogenarian to run the country for the next four years?

Impeachment

The biggest controversy, outside of when Pelosi delivers the papers, is will witnesses be called. Besides the fact that no witnesses were called in the Clinton Senate proceedings, there is another reason for not doing so that I have not heard anyone mention.

The Constitution, as I understand it, says that the House is the one who brings the charges. The Senate is the “jury” that hears the case and makes a decision. Despite the fact that the term, “trial” is bandied about with abandon, this procedure is not like a civil trial. The “trial” has already occurred in the House, and the proceedings are presented to the jury.

A civil trial does not send witnesses to the jury deliberations. All that the jury is allowed or even supposed to use it the transcripts of the actual trial. The same is true of the Senate proceedings. The House developed the “case” and presents it to the “jury.” All of the testimony has been entered for the jurors to consider and will be presented by the House handlers.

If, as they seem to imply by requesting/demanding witnesses, they failed in their burden of proof, they should be censured for incompetence. The hue and cry was, “This is so urgent that we cannot wait to get it done.” But “done” is like baking a cake with half the ingredients. Instead of being fast, they were “half-fast.” Or as the Senate leader McConnell described their investigation, “slapdash.”

Let the Senate deliberate and render its verdict.

Read the Transcript

Whoa! Have any of the Democrats read the transcript of President Trump’s call to the President of Ukraine? If you have not read it yet, do so. There is nothing left to discuss. (But I will for the sake of the record.) And ignore the scurrilous paraphrase that Chairman Schiff made. He could make a decent living writing sitcoms for CNBC. Except that his monologue went longer than the dialogue between the Presidents lasted. Maybe we should say, “An indecent living.”

At least two critical things pop out. Well, maybe three. First, the original query was about the European contribution to Ukraine. Nothing too intimidating there. President Trump wanted to encourage our NATO allies to pull their fair share of the weight of supporting this ally.

Then he segued into the internet server involved in the Russian allegations. President Trump asked if it belonged to Ukraine. President Z said that he was checking on that.

The third question was about the corruption in their country and the fact that one of their prosecutors was pulled off the case. (No mention of “you know who,” whom we now know was the instigator of that action, by his own confession.) President Zelenskyy lamented that the investigation had stalled and he was going to reinitiate it.

Then, President Trump mentioned “Biden’s son,” in passing and that was that. Schiff was right. That was a terrible story and wouldn’t last for a single four week run on network TV. It needs more spice and drama. His story was much more compelling, and, a bunch of his colleagues “drank the kool-aid.” You can follow the race of lemmings off the cliff on TV.

Frankly, I am embarrassed that this, and I love Senate Majority leader, McConnell’s description of “slap-dash investigation,” that this has gotten as far as it has. It is no wonder that the American people are turning it off in droves. The “Dick and Jane” novels were more credible.

Oh, by the way, keep reading about the previous Ambassador. It sounds like she was actively and aggressively opposing President Zelenskyy. So much for representing the USA and keeping out of local politics. It would seem that there are two “actionable” items in the conduct of foreign policy in Ukraine, and neither has caught the attention of our “diligent Congressional watchdogs” who claim to protect and preserve the Constitution.

Maybe we are hoping that someday pigs will fly. In case your browser is handicapped, here is a link to the actual document.

As they say, “Read it and weep.” Or, just watch the TV and “read it and sleep.”

"We Must Impeach"

Does anybody remember the infamous OJ Simpson trial? The pompous, and sadly incompetent, prosecuting attorney addressed the jury as OJ began the process of trying on the damning, blood-soaked gloves found at the murder scene. Mister DA somberly intoned, “If the glove fits, you must convict.”

Much to everyone’s surprise, and to his chagrin, the gloves, having reacted to the soaking in blood, had become hardened, and possibly even shrunken in size. OJ was not able to draw the convicting evidence over his rubber-gloved hand. He looked up with a helpless shrug and wry smile. “It won’t fit.” (I think I recall his comment, but it was obvious.)

That came to mind as I witnessed a recording of the announcement of impeachment. (Did not waste my time to watch it live.) In somber, sepulchral tones, one after another, the House bigwigs maintained their giddiness and glee as they announced the pending, potential, impeachment charges that they had developed.

I am not a lawyer, nor the son of a lawyer, but I have watched a few “procedural” dramas on TV. Even with that shallow and limited understanding, I pity the poor prosecuting attorney who will have to present this case to the jury. He is starting with three strikes.

Charge one: abuse of power. Even the rawest newcomer in the DA’s office would recognize the dearth of probity in this. Point A: The accused denies that he did anything. (Nothing surprising here. Most of the times this is the case.) Point B: The alleged victim denies that anything happened. (Again, a reluctant witness is not the worst impediment to conviction.) Point C: Nothing happened. Well now, that poses a little more of a challenge. The supposedly interrupted  aid was delivered and no QPQ (quid pro quo) was received.

I remember noticing one case, an actual one in the news, I believe, where an obviously guilty man was acquitted on appeal because the prosecuting attorney had failed to establish the fact that a crime had been committed. Everyone in the courtroom “knew” that the victim was dead, but that fact was never actually introduced into the evidentiary record. An appeal court subsequently overturned the verdict based on the fact that the defendant had been convicted of a non-existent crime.

Quick, before anyone notices, turn to Charge two: The President obstructed Congress. (Aside: I saw a presentation of the “Wizard of Oz” where the curtain was drawn back, showing the “wizard” as a diminutive little guy frantically attempting to present an imposing image of the great wizard, replete with a bull-horn. He turned to the audience and commanded, “Ignore that little guy behind the curtain!”) I did not hear it, but can imagine that over half of the country was cheering when the House leaders lamented that Donald J. Trump had thwarted the will of Congress. Well, the will of the House of Representatives, but why quibble? “Ignore that swell of cheering!”

Now, if DJT had simply ignored the subpoenas they might have a case. But, dastardly, dirty, devil that he is, he appealed to courts, even the Supreme Court.

The cry rang out. “We do not have time for such frivolities! We want, what we want, when we wants it. And we want, what we wants, right now!” The response reminds us of a spoiled, five-year-old child stamping his or her foot, waving arms, and screaming, “I want it! I want it now!” (Well, both sexes of spoiled brats in this instance.)

And we have yet to consider the actual merits of this brouhaha. Did the President intentionally and overtly refuse to respond to the subpoenas? Well, an appeal is a response. If they refuse to consider the appeal process as being legitimate, what kind of justice system are they proposing? Obviously, one that differs from what we currently enjoy under the Constitution.

Oh yes, they continue to trumpet their respect and love for said Constitution. That is the one that they are violating. But let’s go on. Even if the President does eventually defy these tin-pot dictators, oops, that just slipped out. If DJT actually does defy a legal order that has been validated and confirmed by the appeals process, then, and not until then, is there an obstruction charge.

The poor novice prosecutor may even begin with four strikes. No crime. No obstruction. He has less chance than the proverbial tissue paper sail in a hurricane. So, is the declaration, “We must impeach,” making less and less sense? OJ was probably guilty. President Trump is not.

One minor thought, and we will retire for the time being. If the guy in the Ukraine oil company had been the son of John Doe, Bill Gates, or Mike Pence, would the Democrats have gone so berserk at the request to investigate the “corruption?” Or, conversely, had it been the son of Donald Trump, and it had NOT been investigated in these same circumstances, would we be right back here? “Abuse of power!”

(For the record, there are multiple videos floating around the internet, dated 2016, calling for an impeachment. Why did they bother to wait three years? They didn’t need any real charges then, and they seem to have no more now.)

George Washington warned the fledgling country against political parties. His valedictory warning  may be translated today as avoiding “career politicians.” They get so caught up in their own games that they forget who the REAL Boss is. Hide and see. November’s appeal to the voters may surprise a lot of posers.

Hopefully, next time, someone with some smarts will advise, “If you find no grounds, you must not impeach.”

PSA, (Not Political if you can believe it.)

By PSA  I do not mean the test to see if you have prostate cancer. This is a public service announcement. There was an article about an employee at a Buffalo Hot Wings restaurant who died after cleaning a bathroom. The story did not say exactly what happened, but the details ring a bell in my chemical memory.

DO NOT MIX bleach with a toilet bowl cleaner. This might seem to be a good idea to effect a better clean of the toilet, but it does not. It does produce, however, a very toxic gas. And it can be fatal, even in very small amounts.

Want to hear a story? How about two? One goes way back to Grampa Williamson in Small Town, Nebraska. He used to show us kids his “magic trick.” He would take a small amount of bleach in a very small container and sprinkle toilet bowl cleaner crystals into it. “Watch it fizz,” he would instruct.

He went on to say that it smelled very bad and not to do too much or watch too long. He didn’t know that it produced a chemical called chloramine, which is lethal, even in small amounts. We were just lucky.

Story two and the merciful conclusion. Not only does bleach and toilet bowl cleaner make chloramines, mixing bleach with ammonia will also produce it. When our first son was born we used cloth diapers. The diaper pail soon took on an incredible odor. And it was not good. I was going to do a favor for my wife one day and decided to “disinfect” the thing. And, you guessed it, bleach was my disinfecting agent. Whew! What a disaster! That odor was worse than a day old urine-soaked diaper. I got out of there, pronto.

Chemist, I be. (Yoda talk there.) So I checked out the chemistry. I was blown away. (Literally and chemically.) And in those days, before Al invented the internet, we had to do it the old fashioned way. I looked in a chemistry book. The first reaction of bleach and ammonia is to form chlorine gas. You probably recognize that as a poisonous gas used in the First World War and sadly, often since. Not a good thing to breathe and live. Even survivors suffer lung damage for life.

Then the chlorine gas can react with any excess ammonia and produce the chloramine. It is a double whammy. I told my chemistry classes from then on to avoid mixing things that are not specifically designed, and designated for mixing. In actuality, it probably incited as much experimentation as it did abstinence, but they were warned. But, hopefully, they were a little more wary of the consequences than before.

The details of the incident in the news are identical to the effects of the situation that I have described. I am not sure whether the reporters omitted the details or were unaware of them. A warning can often have the reverse effect of its intentions. But, on the other hand, not warning people of danger has its own inherent costs and consequences. You are warned.

My Dad used to say, “It is a wise man who can learn from OTHER peoples’ mistakes.” Be wise. Don’t make your own mistake and possibly pay a very high price.

End of PSA.

Sanctuary City and Hypocrisy

This is almost as interesting as a headline of “Man Bites Dog.” The Tennessean (8/30/19) published an article about Mayor David Briley protesting that some Metropolitan (Nashville) agencies were cooperating with the federal government, particularly the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Here is an excerpt:

In a letter sent Thursday morning to Interim Metropolitan Auditor Gina Pruitt, Briley said it was "absolutely unacceptable" that Probation Director Robert Green and probation officers have been cooperating with ICE agents since at least 2017. Briley said the behavior "does not reflect the character of our city."

This administration is complaining about the city government cooperating with duly appointed and authorized federal law enforcement agencies. The thing that makes this story so interesting is that this is the same mayor who protests, condemns, and has attempted to ban scooter companies for operating in this fair city because they are not obeying the “laws” that he had established.

(We will not address the fact that these regulations are ex-post-facto, attempting to control pre-existing operations. Seems like some obscure document way back there in history proscribed passing laws outlawing ongoing operations. Or something like that–don’t write me to object. I know, it is on-going operations, not past ones. It is not germane  to this discussion.)

Mayor Briley is essentially claiming that his administration is justified in enforcing the laws that he chooses and ignoring those that he does not like. Seems like the term, “scoff-law” applies here. Not to the city, but to the scooter companies, in his economy. Well, maybe it applies to both.

Riders do not wear helmets. They drive where they should not. They go too fast. They are reckless. They abandon the scooters where ever they dang well please. And Mayor B doesn’t like that. (And a few other people as well.) But then he chooses to ignore laws, not just regulations or guidelines. But his rationale is that this does not reflect our city.

Does he mean, by “reflecting,” that this shows the character and conduct of the city in ignoring federal regulations, or that they want to be caring and compassionate? The “caring” moniker is somewhat suspect overall as reported by Bobbie Patray in The Tennessee Eagle Forum. Many instances all over the country deal with convicted felons being released into the community. Once free, they continue to commit further crimes because the jurisdiction refused to comply with ICE requests to hold them until the criminal could be repatriated to his own country.

It seems like the Ma’er (as they say in Chicago) only complains when it is his bull that gets gored. It is okay to disregard and disdain the laws he doesn’t like, but don’t dare scoff at his restrictions. (Ed comment from out of town: Maybe that is why about 75% of those voting for mayor in the preliminary chose a different candidate. They want him out. I didn’t get to vote in that election, but I would have been in the majority.)

“Obey my laws, but I will choose the ones I want to respect.” Does that bite?

Here is a link to the original Tennessean article along with some other comments from other government officials.

And here is a link to the newsletter from the Tennessee Eagle Forum.

No Dog in the Hunt

For the record, I do not have a dog in the hunt. The Tennessean (8/14/19) published an article about a program to dismiss minor offenses involving driving violations. They largely deal with people who are charged with driving with a revoked license, often because they had unpaid fines for other violations. These multiplied fines and charges cripple the individual’s ability to secure housing and employment.

(Without commenting on the merits of the dismissal or even the fact that the individuals have been crosswise with the law for some reason and are now compounding their predicament, we will peruse the dispute between law enforcement agencies over the dismissals, called the “Steering Clear” program.)

The mayor, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the public defender all back the program. The charges are dismissed or not prosecuted. But the police have not removed the citations from the public record, thwarting the intent of the program.

And now we come to the interesting part. Reminder, this is the part of which I have no “dog in the hunt,” but which is extremely interesting. Some adherents of the program have filed suit to have a judge order the police to expunge the records. And the police have responded that they will refuse to comply with the order, stating that there is no statutory authority for eliminating the records. The mayor’s response is to make an attempt to change the state law governing public records. (Again, we will withhold comment on the wisdom of this or the slippery slope consequences that may follow. Just exactly which and how many offenses will be dismissed and erased?)

The interesting part of this brouhaha is one at-large councilman. He said, “I get that there’s a disagreement. But I don’t think resolving that involves a police chief saying he’s not going to follow a court order. He’s there to adhere to the rule of law which means you do what the judge says and follow other legal recourse, not just ignore it."

Hold on thar, Tonto! Analyze the interior logic of this statement. (Or lack of same.) The police chief, according to Councilman at-large, is to obey the law. So if a judge orders him to do something, he has to do it. “He’s there to adhere to the rule of law....” He asserts that this means that the police chief has to do what the judge says.

But, and here, even “his side,” agrees, that state law is in play. Is he demanding that the police chief acquiesce to the judge and violate state law? This is what we loved to find in a debate contest, an internal contradiction. Official X has to obey the law. Official Y rules that Official X must do something contrary to the law. And our “impartial” (not really, it seems) observer condemns Official X because he will not “obey the law” by obeying the order from Official Y, which contravenes the law. Clear?

This is what is known as “legislating from the bench.” A judge changes the law because he or she does not like it by ordering the executive to do something other than follow the legislative mandate.

The good news for Nashville, but maybe not so much for Councilman at-large, is that rational heads seem to be prevailing. Several parties have proposed and even submitted proposed legislation to change the legal basis of the program.

And, since I have no dog in this hunt, I will not have to vote in favor of some alternative,  hopefully, more logical, Councilman at-large in the next election. But it will be very interesting to watch the proceedings as time passes. Just a passing thought. If the subjects of this tempest in a teapot would resist breaking a law in the first place, they would not be in the “pickle” of not being able to pay their fines, losing their driver’s license, driving in violation of that law–a second offense–and then having further fines and sanctions.

For what it is worth.