Author: bobreagan13

The “shot heard round the world” was on April 19, 1775. Since then American colonists and British forces had engaged each other for over a year. There was no clear purpose for the insurrection other than the colonists wish to have the king and Parliament to recognize their “rights of Englishmen.” Many of those lawyers, merchants, landowners, and planters who were members of the Continental Congress debated fiercely as to what the outcome of the conflict would be. Many of those who ultimately would be the leaders the leaders and founders of the United States still considered themselves British subjects and loyal to the King. Formation of an independent nation state was not necessarily the outcome.

That changed in the spring and early summer of 1776. The catalyst for change was a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and published in early that year titled Common Sense; addressed to the INHABITANTS of AMERICA.¹

This rather lengthy (12,000 words) pamphlet argues several topics: “Of the Origin and Design of Government in general, with concise Remarks on the English Constitution; Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession; Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs and Of the present Ability of America, with some miscellaneous Reflections.”

These may be summarized in Paine’s words (with my comment):

“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.”

This really is common sense. People go about their daily affairs and interact with others generally without any direction with an external coercive authority. Association with groups with common interests and desires forms a greater society. But occasionally interests and desires can conflict. Most often, those conflicts resolve with a functional society without coercion. Sometimes they cannot. James Madison said in the Federalist # 51 “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But they are not. So a government is necessary. Having the only legitimate monopoly on the use of force, however, it a government must be limited and institutionally restrained.

“Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.”

Paine argues the essential illegitimacy of monarchy, and, in his opinion the British king. He points out that George III, being a direct descendant of William the Conqueror, ”a French bastard,” and like all original monarchs was the principal ruffian of a roving gang of bandits. The author points out the evils of a hereditary monarchy. At times there will be a minor of tender years or a doddering elder becoming the king. When this occurs, it tends to result in conflicts among regents and other retainers of a deceased king. Paine points to the many civil wars in England’s history spawned by squabbles about succession to the throne, as well as foreign in wars resulting from the incestuous intermarriages in royal families.²

“In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves.”

“I have never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath
not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the countries, would take place one time or other: And there is no instance, in which we have shewn less judgment, than in endeavouring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for independence.”

Paine makes as a point, the absurdity of a continent, North America, to be governed by an island, Great Britain. In the nature and the universe a satellite is larger than its primary planet. Britain is small, America is large. Of course, in 1776 Britain’s population — the most common measure of size of political entities— was much greater than the Colonies. Furthermore, Britain is inextricably intertwined with Europe; America being linked to it is affected by European politics. Britain’s enemies or friends are Americas. The Seven Years War (or French and Indian War as it was known in America) makes that point, and the fallout from that conflict, although a British victory, with a lot of help from the colonial militias, created many of the grievances that disturbed the Americans.

To Paine’s mind, then, reconciliation was out of the question, for at least these reasons: The powers of governing would remaining in the hands of the king, who will have a veto over the whole legislation of the Colonies. King George demonstrated himself to be “an inveterate enemy to liberty.” Any concession made to the Colonies as the price of acquiescence to British rule could be abrogated by that king. nothing but independence, and a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars.

Paine adds an Appendix that contains the stirring words that have been quoted by American (and perhaps other) visionaries since: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now.”

Thomas Paine published his pamphlet in January 1776. It was widely distributed and read throughout the Colonies. In June, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman to draft a proposed declaration. Jefferson largely wrote it, and after consideration and some edits, the members’ minds and resolve to declare the Colonies’ independence. So they did — 250 years ago today.

1. References include Sophia Rosenfeld, Common Sense A Political History, (2011); Harvey J. Kaye, Thomas Paine and the Promise of America, (2005). The text of Paine’s pamphlet is available many places on the Internet. ↩︎
2. The Constitutional requirement that the U. S. President be a natural born citizen stems from the European experience of foreign princes claiming thrones by virtue of heredity. The Founders were aware of the bloody Wars of Spanish and Austrian Succession early in their Century. ↩︎

Less than one month prior to the adoption of Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress, another document was promulgated: the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted in that state on June 12, 1776. George Mason was the principal author.
While George Mason is today well-known by historians and Constitutional scholars, he generally is recognized by others for the university that bears his name in Fairfax, Virginia, a suburb of Washington D.C.¹

The Virginia Declaration enumerated concepts of liberty that influenced the more famous July 4th Declaration, the Constitution, and, most importantly, the Bill of Rights amendments.

George Mason was one of three delegates to the Constitutional convention of 1787 who refused to vote for the Constitution as it was then drafted. His principal objection was the lack of a bill of rights. He also objected to what he considered excessive power in the hands of the general government which could erode the power of the states. Upon submission of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification, a lively debate followed between September 1787 and July 1788. Mason became one of the “anti-Federalists” along with Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and others. Mason wrote and promulgated his “Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention” setting forth detailed concerns for the proposed national government.

Alexander Hamilton, who along with James Madison and John Jay, wrote many of the Federalist Papers that urged the several states to ratify the Constitution. In Federalist 84, Hamilton objected to a bill enumerating rights in the Constitution as unnecessary because its enumeration of powers of Congress, and of the executive, limited as they were, did not authorize legislation that would impair those rights. Hamilton feared that any enumeration of rights would exclude those not listed. Hamilton, lawyer that he was, was doubtless aware of the legislative construction principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius.²

Several states—Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina and Rhode Island — initially balked at ratification, mainly because of the lack of a bill of rights. If these states, particularly New York and Virginia, were to reject the Constitution, it would be unworkable.

The anti-federalists in those states initially demanded inclusion of a bill of rights as a condition of ratification. James Madison initially had concerns similar to Hamilton’s. But because he was convinced ratification of the Constitution by the principal objecting states was critical Madison, together with Samuel Adams of Massachusetts and John Hancock, worked out a deal whereby the objecting states would make strong recommendations to the first Congress to propose and send to the states amendments constituting a bill of rights for ratification. Madison drafted twelve proposed amendments that addressed George Mason’s fears and his own concerns.³ He added what became the Ninth Amendment providing that the enumeration of specific rights was not exhaustive, and the Tenth that specifically reserved powers not given to Congress and the executive to the several states. This “Massachusetts Compromise” induced the four large states to ratify, and upon proposal of the bill of rights by the First Congress, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined the Union.

George Mason certainly deserves to be remembered and honored in this two-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our Nation’s founding. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted mainly by him and ”made by the representatives of the good people of [that state]” in the next month was echoed in the Declaration of Independence.

1. George Mason University’s faculty included the late economist Walter E. Williams from 1980 until his death in 2020. Professor Williams also wrote syndicated columns distributed nationwide. It is an institution that tends to include conservative and libertarian thought. GMU hosts the Mercatus Center, a free market economy think-tank and advocate. ↩︎
2. Expression of one thing implies exclusion of another of the same class. ↩︎
3. Ten of the proposed amendments were ratified by the States in the First Congress. The original first amendment stipulated that a congressional district cannot have more than 50,000 residents; it was never ratified. The second would require any pay change to happen after the election, essentially allowing citizens to approve or disapprove of any pay changes during the election; it was finally ratified in 1992 and became the 27th Amendment. ↩︎

“As to his ethnicity or national origin, a politician cannot usually deceive his public. If he is a Ruritanian he has to admit it and bray loudly that he is inordinately proud of it, thus securing the votes at least of nitwit Ruritanians.”— Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich (1968)

Under segregation, black Americans generally shared a common experience of being second-class citizens. That is no longer the case, but the supporters of segregated voting districts and racial preferences in hiring and college admissions would have us believe that nothing has really changed. Racial gerrymandering advocates today assume that black voters are essentially fungible and share identical political preferences. That is not only false but insulting, and this Supreme Court corrective couldn’t come soon enough. — Jason L. Riley, The Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2026

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. — Ayn Rand (1963)

_______________________________________________________

The recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Louisiana v. Callais has produced the latest paroxysm on the political left. In a 92-page opinion, the Court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that had been drawn explicitly on the basis of race, using Census data to cluster precincts with high percentages of residents who identified as “black” into a district designed to favor a candidate of the same skin color. Critics say the Court’s real offense is its reinterpretation of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that provides that states may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing districts. Now the Court says that plaintiffs must now show intentional discrimination rather than simply point to “disparate impact.” ¹

---

Many political activists and commentators (mostly on the left) are fond of stating that “systemic” racism permeates our nation and its institutions. In one sense they are correct. Whatever the long-term impact of Callais, one powerful instrument for perpetuating racial division for now remains intact: the decennial U.S. Census.

This essay suggests a radical reform: abolish racial and ethnic classifications in the Census and on all official forms. Forcing people into identity pigeonholes based on ancestry, physical characteristics, or ancestral language sustains division and neo-tribalism. It can yield political advantage for some, but it has harmed the country by sustaining racial or ethnic identity that harms the country. Here is some history.

Before the 2010 count, the Census Bureau announced that, after more than a century, it would no longer use the word “Negro” to describe black Americans on its surveys. Instead, respondents would be offered “black” or “African-American.” I will address “black” later; my quarrel here is with “African-American” as a racial or ethnic term. Africa is vast and internally diverse. People from Ghana differ from the Xhosa in South Africa as markedly as Scots differ from Greeks. Egyptians, Algerians, and Berbers in countries along the North African Mediterranean coast have been classified as Caucasian. What, then, of Afrikaners, many of whose families have lived in South Africa for nearly fifteen generations? A student in community college where I was teaching objected to being labeled an “African” or even “Nigerian.” She wanted to be known simply as “American,” having made a effort to become a U.S. citizen.

Racial categories in the Census arose from the three-fifths compromise in the original Constitution. The Census was needed to apportion seats in the House of Representatives, and slaveholding states wanted their enslaved populations fully counted, while others argued that those who could not vote should not be counted at all. The compromise counted three-fifths of “all other persons”, which meant the enslaved population, for apportionment purposes, and because slave status largely overlapped with being black or “colored,” the Census built race into its classifications. After the Civil War, the principle of hypodescent—the “one-drop rule”—was used to support Jim Crow laws. That notion rests on the insulting assumption that a parent or other ancestor of supposedly lower status contaminates the “blood” of the other parent, and its continued official use keeps alive the notion that some “races” are inherently superior, while any detectable ancestry from an “inferior” group consigns a person to lower status.

Historically, the Census used “white” and “colored” throughout the nineteenth century. “Negro” became standard in the early twentieth century, and later “black, African Am., or Negro” appeared as a combined category. Many politicians found it advantageous to treat racial and ethnic groups as voting blocs so the categories of such groups proliferated.

Those who had endured legal segregation and other formal disabilities had legitimate grievances, and at one time it may have been necessary to take race into account in order to design remedies. But it has been roughly a half-century since any United States or territories endorsed racial segregation in law or public policy. Private prejudice still exists and always will in a collectivist culture, especially among the foolish and small-minded. Human beings rely heavily on sight; visual aesthetics tend to dominate other senses, which is why beauty pageants and telegenic news anchors flourish. Individuals, however, retain the right to choose their associates on whatever basis they wish. So long as government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin—and individuals do not do so under color of law—the freedom of association should be left largely untouched.

State and federal governments have a legitimate interest in removing barriers to commerce. Public accommodations and large employers that practice racial exclusion can impede commerce and may be forbidden to do so. Too often, however, the methods used to combat such practices rely on illusory group “rights” rather than individual rights, and social engineering by government tends to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

As for “black,” it is striking that some who so identify have lighter complexions than many considered “white.” Of course, the label has come to reflect more than skin tone. It calls to mind Kate Chopin’s classic short story “Désirée’s Baby,” an early and still powerful piece of anti-racist fiction by a Louisiana writer whose work would make useful required reading for secondary (and possibly late elementary) school students.

It might be soon too late to reform the 2030 Census, if not already. But reform might be effective if enough of us realized the continued harm segregating persons by race in such an important process, and so write their Senator or U. S. Representative to that effect.

1. No. 24-109, 608 U.S. _____ (2026) ↩︎

The Ides of March, March 15, was a day made famous by William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, wherein the Roman leader was assassinated by conspirators fearful of his increasing power. This drama and the story upon which it is based is known, or used to be known, by high school students in English speaking countries. Here in the United States, unfortunately, the study of the classics in many public schools have been eliminated in favor of more so-called “relevant” subjects, much to the detriment of a meaningful education.

Shakespeare obtained the story of Caesar’s assassination from the writings of the Roman historian Plutarch (c.46 – c.120). During his lifetime, Plutarch wrote biographies of many of the prominent Greeks and Romans from the Greco-Roman classical world, including several legendary persons like Theseus and Romulus. While the Bard employed quite a bit of dramatic license, the basic facts of Caesar’s assassination and the aftermath have never been questioned by later historians.

According to Plutarch, and featured in Shakespeare’s play, a soothsayer previously sought to warn him of the impending coup and repeated the warning on the morning of that day. Shakespeare related the soothsayer’s warning as “Beware of the Ides of March” often used, but not taken seriously, by some contemporary politicians and others.

Note: For more on this topic, please see https://bobreagan13.com/2012/03/15/cave-caesar/

Semiquincentennial? Sestercentennial? Quarter-millenial?

How about 250th anniversary instead? Any one is a mouthful, but whatever, it’s worth noting, and even celebrating.

Naturally there has been made a lot of news, and some hype, about our Declaration of Independence that was adopted on July 4, 1776, 250 years ago. Those of us over the age of 50 recall the hoopla of the bicentennial in 1976: fireplugs painted red white and blue, tall ships sailing into New York Harbor, fireworks on the Mall in Washington DC, and many other events.

Declaring American colonies independent states caused a sea change in the world order. But it took an eight-year-long war between the newly declared states and Great Britain, at the time the preeminent military power in the world, to ratify that status.

We refer to the event as the American Revolution. But for the former colonies it was not a revolution in the sense that it upturned their government and body politic, it was not a “regime change” as were the 1989 French Revolution and the 1917 and 1990 Russian Revolutions. The American acts were designed to gain independence from a remote monarchy and to affirm their status of self-governance. Each new state kept its colonial government and body politic, though without a remote parliament and king.

It is significant that in that same year, four months prior to the Declaration’s adoption by the Continental Congress, another, perhaps the second most important document of the century, was published: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith. In shorthand, Wealth of Nations.

In his lengthy book, Smith challenged the widespread economic theory termed mercantilism. Mercantilism held that wealth was static and it consisted of the amount of gold and silver in a nation’s treasury; trade was a zero-sum game. The amount of gold and silver could be increased by two long-established principles (1) restraints upon the importation of foreign goods for home consumption that could be produced at home, from whatever country they were imported; and (2) restraints upon the importation of goods almost all kinds from those particular countries with which the balance of trade was supposed to be disadvantageous. These restraints, or regulations, tended to stifle production.

Smith, on the other hand, contended that wealth was potentially unlimited and was measured by production of goods and services. He articulated three basic principles for the production of wealth: individual self-interest, the division of labor, and freedom of trade.

Self interest: the most quoted passage from Wealth of Nations is “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” The self-interest Smith describes is rational self-interest. “Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want” appeals to the self-interests of both sides of a transaction. He further opines that “nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens,” and even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely.

Division of labor: Specialization increases economic value. It makes a small quantity of labor produce a greater quantity of work. As an example, Smith points out that the making of a pin could be divided in about eighteen distinct operations from the mining of the ore containing the metal, to the sharpening of the point. Even if the raw materials were available at hand, one person could scarcely make more than a few in a day. But when the functions were divided amongst, say 10 individuals, perhaps they could make thousands of pins in the same time. But Smith was not an absolutist in this regard. He was concerned about the ill-effects of excess in the division of labor. “The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention . . . [t]he torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.” Polymaths can take comfort.

Free-trade: Smith observed that all trades, freely made, are mutually beneficial. One side obtained what he wanted more than a certain sum of his money, e.g., a widget; the other side got what he wanted more than his widget, that money. In this example, the cost of production of the widget, or distribution thereof, would be impaired by taxation or regulation at some level that artificially reduces its utility or desirability. That restraint of trade inhibits growth and thus the creation of wealth by imposing on comparative advantage. (The notion of “comparative advantage” was articulated by David Ricardo a few years after Smith’s death.) Smith was opposed to most economic constraints by authority such as tariffs, bounties, price controls, monopolies, cartels, et cetera. Freedom of trade, he maintained, enhances individual freedom.

His solution was that Great Britain should voluntarily give up all authority over the colonies and the Americans would become friends and allies rather than factious subjects. That friendly relationship was ultimately formed, and with some exceptions over the two and one-half centuries, endured.

Even more enduring has been the United States as the most successful capitalist nation the world has known. Celebrate what happened 250 years ago on July 4. And commemorate what was published on March 9 of that same year.

NOTES

Wealth of Nations is quite a tome — in some editions over 1000 pages. This author used the one in Volume 39 of the Great Books of the Western World series (University of Chicago Press 1952). P. J. O’Rourke’s On The Wealth of Nations (Atlantic Monthly Press 2007) is an entertaining explication and commentary in 242 pages including notes and index. O’Rourke explains “Why is the Wealth of Nations So Damn Long” in a chapter so titled. Also available is Jesse Norman’s Adam Smith: Father of Economics (2018). Works of other economists such as F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman are influenced by Wealth of Nations.

I have published a number essays for Christmas on this blog in the past. All are invited to search the key word if interested.

Here are two observations from writers from around four centuries apart that are worth repeating this December 25th.

Some say that ever against that season comes
Wherein our Savior’s birth is celebrated,
This bird of dawning sings all night long;
And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad,
The nights are wholesome; then no planets strike,
No fairy takes, nor witch has power to charm,
So hallowed and so gracious is that time.

    — Hamlet: Act 1,Scene 1

There is an angel close to you this day. Merry Christmas, and I wish you well.

    — Paul Crume, “Angels Are among Us.” Dallas Morning News 12/25/1967
        (reprinted every year)

My sentiments exactly. Merry Christmas to all.

The late 1960s saw a lot of political turmoil and some violence (sound familiar?) as a result of a civil rights movement that turned violent and the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War. Racial segregation and discrimination were legally ended with some dispatch, but the social and cultural reality would linger for some time, even to today to some extent.

Accordingly, from the middle of the decade onward there emerged a Black Power movement demanding a concept of equality, to be achieved by violent means if necessary.

H. Rap Brown, one of the most vocal leaders of the Black Power movement, and who often advocated violence, died last week in a prison hospital while serving a life sentence from 2002 for the killing of a Georgia sheriff’s deputy and other charges. He was 82.

In 1967 Brown succeeded Stokely Carmichael as leader of the civil rights organization oxymoronically named Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC, pronounced “snick” by some). As SNCC Chairman, Brown developed a reputation as a fiery orator and leader of the militant black power movement. He was a founder of the Black Panther organization and was styled as its minister of defense. He spent the next decades in and out of prison for his conduct in violent protests.

In July 1967 Brown spoke in Cambridge, Maryland saying, “It’s time for Cambridge to explode, baby. Black folks built America, and if America don’t come around, we’re going to burn America down.” Gunfire reportedly broke out and both Brown and a police officer were wounded. A fire started that night and by the next day, seventeen buildings were destroyed. Brown was charged with inciting a riot.

Brown’s trial was originally to take place in Cambridge, but a change of venue moved the trial to Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland, to start in March 1970. On March 9, two SNCC officials, Ralph Featherstone and William “Che” Payne, were driving on U.S. Route 1 just south of Bel Air when a bomb they were carrying exploded, killing them both.

At that time I was in my last tour of military duty at the nearby Aberdeen Proving Ground as an officer in the Ordnance Corps. I recalled hearing about the blast but did not pay much attention to it at the time. Several years later when I was a detective in the Dallas Police Department I met Dr. Vincent DeMaio, then Assistant Medical Examiner for Dallas County and consultant to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences. At the time of the Bel Air bombing. Dr. DiMaio was employed in the Harford County medical examiner’s office, where what was left of the bombers was taken for autopsy.

Dr. DiMaio recalled that the county sheriff’s office was on high alert for anticipated violent protests surrounding Brown’s trial. One afternoon a deputy noticed a car making several slow trips around the courthouse in downtown Bel Air, apparently casing the location. The occupants appeared to have spotted the deputy and turned onto the highway leading out of town. The deputy followed them and looked for a reason to stop and investigate. While driving behind the suspect car, he decided to contact the dispatcher by radio. A second or two after keying his microphone, the suspect car exploded, severely damaging it and killing Featherstone and Payne. Dr. DiMaio said the investigators determined the RF from the police radio set off an electric blasting cap, detonating the dynamite. The passenger had the bomb in his lap and the explosion literally blew his body in two.

One lesson from that incident: there is always a way to blow up explosives; the trick is not to be around when they go off.

This lesson has oft gone unheeded. There have been numerous wannabe bombers in militant groups from the Provisional IRA to the Weather Underground to Al-Shabaab who have succeeded in blowing themselves up, not having learned that trick.

Note: Dr. Vincent DiMaio left Dallas County to become the Chief Medical Examiner for Bexar County (San Antonio) Texas until 2006. He was appointed to the Texas Forensic Science Commission in 2011. Dr. DiMaio authored many publications about forensic pathology and testified in a number of high profile trials, including for the defense of George Zimmerman in the Trevon Martin shooting in Florida. He died in 2022.

The Dallas Morning News obituaries this week announced that Suzie Humphreys has died at age 87. May she rest in peace. For those of us who were around during the late 60s through 70s and later, Suzie was a television and radio personality. She was probably best remembered as Ron Chapman’s remote sidekick on his popular morning program on radio station KVIL. Chapman and his crew catered to an audience primarily of the young urban professionals, then known as “yuppies,” many of whom were reformed hippies. In addition to playing contemporary pop music, Chapman fielded phone calls and exchanged banter with listeners. Those calls rarely involved politics, except when some politician did or said something ridiculous or otherwise humorous. Such comments were not hostile or venomous like today’s social media, but many were followed by a “what’s this world coming to” jingle. This, of course, was an age in which there were only line-land telephones. 
	Suzie’s role was making traffic reports, first from the KVIL helicopter and later from the “Yellowvan” that roamed the streets. She and Chapman engaged in a lot of humorous and interesting banter interspersed with reports of jams on the freeways and the occasional wreck. Suzie’s transition from the sky occurred only after her escape from death. One morning in the late spring, while pregnant, Suzie, intrepid as ever, flew and made her reports and conversation with Chapman. That day’s weather was turbulent, some gusts over 25 MPH. Suffering from nausea brought about by her morning sickness and the rough air, Suzie asked the pilot to land and let her out. He did and took off again. After several minutes, the KVIL helicopter crashed, killing the pilot and destroying the aircraft. After that harrowing brush with death, Suzie, Chapman, and KVIL management decided that it was prudent that she continue her career on the ground — she did and continued until Chapman’s show ended and he went to another station.
	I had a somewhat minor connection with that event.  The day of the KVIL helicopter crash I was a detective with the Dallas Police Department’s special investigations unit, a group of officers that investigated organized property crimes and anything else the chief assigned. At the time there was a rash of burglaries of wealthy homes in North Dallas. One of the burglars had been arrested, and probably in hopes of some leniency, told us that he and his partner in crime had stolen a safe from a victim’s house. They could not open the safe and it was too heavy and bulky to carry very far. They left it on the side of one of the numerous creeks that ran through the neighborhoods in North Dallas. We caught one of the burglars and when interrogated he told us about the safe and roughly where they left it. Rather than search on the ground that day, I volunteered to ride in a police helicopter to look for the safe along the creeks. It did not take long to spot and we called officers on the ground to retrieve it. On the way back to the airport in southwest Dallas, we ran into the same weather Suzie and their pilot were experiencing. Susceptible to motion sickness myself, I thought about asking the pilot to put down, but valor rather than discretion took over and I toughed it out. Later, after hearing about the helicopter Suzie had been in crashing, I thought about what could have happened to me. It has taken the grim reaper another forty-eight years to claim Suzie. Hope it takes him longer to harvest me.

Eighteenth Century composer George Frederic Handel who is probably best known for his oratorio Messiah, wrote and performed many more of the same genre. One, Judas Maccabaeus, was reportedly composed to celebrate the victory of the Duke of Cumberland over Charles Edward Stuart (known as “Bonnie Prince Charlie”) at the Battle of Culloden during the 1746 Jacobite rebellion. The libretto, with considerable dramatic license, comes from the Bible’s Old Testament Book of 2 Maccabees that chronicles the period 170–160 BC when Judea was ruled by the Seleucid Greek Empire.¹ The then ruler Antiochus IV had undertaken to defile the Second Temple in Jerusalem and destroy the Jewish religion.

Judas Maccabeus, son of a priest who defied Antiochus, became the leader of the resistance and inspired the people with thoughts of liberty and victory through the power of Jehovah. When victory was finally achieved for the Jewish people, Maccabeus was celebrated as their hero (the chorus “See the Conquering Hero Comes!” in Act III). News arrives that Rome is willing to form an alliance with Judas against the Seleucid empire. The people rejoice that peace has at last come to their country (“O Lovely Peace”).² The Jewish feast of Hanukkah commemorates the victory and the cleansing of the Temple.

Mark Twain is reputed to have observed history does not repeat itself but it rhymes.³ So go recent events in the war of Israel against its Hamas enemies in Gaza. That war, or at least that phase is over. The result has to be regarded as an Israeli victory, the return of the hostages eliminated Israel’s internal opposition to continuing to fight. If Hamas reneges on the rest of the deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netaynahu will have free hand to deal with it as he chooses, and President Donald Trump has said the U. S. will back him.

The Israeli success was multi-factored. The competence of the Mossad and the competence and courage of the Israel Defense Force were two of them. Netanyahu’s resolve in the face of a internal dissent and international disapproval (and condemnation) was another. But Donald Trump, deal maker extraordinary, orchestrated the process. After giving Netanyahu a green light to eliminate Hamas leaders in Iran and control Iranian airspace, Trump delivered the coup de grace and destroyed Iran’s incipient nuclear capability. The combined Israeli – U.S. forces thus neutered Hamas patron. Iran’s proxies Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yeman were also neutralized; Hezbollah leaders decimated by the exploding pagers, dubbed “grim beepers.” Trump publicly urged Netanyahu to seek a peace deal, but appeared to privately support whatever Israel did. When Netanyahu bombed the Hamas leaders in Doha, Trump publicly expressed disdain, but this act appears to have had the President’s tacit acquiescence to the deed. In any event it seems to have motivated the Qatari rulers to force Hamas to the table.

After the combatants agreed to the cease fire, Donald Trump went to Jerusalem to address the Knesset.⁴ He was greeted with a standing ovation and a trumpet fanfare. Benjamin Netanyahu was similarly, if not as ostentatiously, honored. There is no report that the fanfare was based on Handel’s Judas Maccabaeus choral anthem. How apropos would that have been!

Postscript

While the Second Century B.C. Maccabees ultimately prevailed against the Seleucids, It was slightly less than a century when their erstwhile Roman patrons under General Pompey, during the conquest of the rest of the Levant, entered Jerusalem and established Rome’s rule over Judea and the rest of what is now the State of Israel. The downstream effect of the Trump-Netanyahu cease-fire, whether soon or distant, is anybody’s guess.

For now we can enjoy Handel’s oratorio, like the rest of his music is, in a word, glorious.

Footnotes

1. Alexander the Great’s empire was partitioned among several factions after his death.
   ↩︎
2. Maccabeus, the spelling varies, was actually killed in the final battle. But the Maccabees fought on.
   ↩︎
3. Mark Twain, The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day (1873) Ch. 47. What was actually stated was in a quote“History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends.” Later writers interpreted it to the shorthand version.
   ↩︎
4. The Israeli parliament. ↩︎

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr gave Jimmy Kimmel’s late night television show a boost to his anemic ratings. The Chairman made a not so veiled threat to use the Commission’s licensing power to discipline media for speech that it determined “not to be in the public interest.” Carr’s statement was eventually to no avail, but Kimmel’s return after a week’s hiatus was bound to increase the number of viewers curious to see what the fuss was all about. Without Carr’s foolish faux pas it would have been a non-story and Kimmel would have remained canceled.

This situation and similar ones have illuminated free speech issues already raging in public discourse. This right, ensconced and protected by the U. S. Constitution, is widely misunderstood. What it means is, with extremely narrow exceptions, that if a person expresses an opinion or interpretation of facts, the government or any state actor may not do something unpleasant to that person. It does not apply to private persons unless they are state actors.¹ There is no permitted legal sanction for so-called “hate” speech nor criticism of government, public officials, or other private persons or groups. An exception is speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and it is likely to incite or produce such action.”² There is also an exception for civil actions for defamation, i.e. slander and libel where a person utters or publishes false facts — not opinions — that are defamatory.

Governments may also enact reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions for expression, so long as they are not based on content. An example is requiring a permit for use of a public street. Certain acts, such as vandalism of public or private property or assault, might also be legally punished.³

The above is a brief overview of the Constitutional and legal aspects of free speech and expression. There are many yards of law library shelves (or today terabytes of electronic storage) that contain law and commentary on the subject.

Of note is the current issue of private “self censorship” enforced by social disapproval of an individual’s peer group, or by economic boycotts, formal or otherwise, of business activities. That might be worth another post.

Of interest is Tunku Varadarajan’s summary of his interview with Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer who describes himself as a “liberal libertarian” in today’s Wall Street Journal (9/27/2025). Silverglate, along with Alan Charles Kors, a University of Pennsylvania history professor, described as a “conservative libertarian” founded in 1999 the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).⁴ This organization is in the forefront of promoting freedom of speech. Varadarajan’s interview summary is at https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-right-needs-to-conserve-free-speech-14291c81?st=HCcded&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink and is well worth a read.

1. Private employers are generally not state actors, and may restrict speech or expression as a condition or employment.
   ↩︎
2. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
   ↩︎
3. It’s arguable that burning a flag in a public place could be banned on safety grounds. ↩︎
4. The FIRE was originally “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.” Its original purpose was to promote free speech on campuses that were restricted by “speech code” by many colleges and universities. It recently expanded its focus. ↩︎