Outliving this Day and Coming Safe Home

A friend one related that when in London, England sometime in the 1970s, he and his wife boarded one of the double-decker Roadmaster buses. For some reason his wife thought the conductor who took their fare behaved rudely toward them. No shrinking violet, she upbraided the conductor by telling him “you’re no gentleman” to which he replied, “I never said I was.”

Unlike the current euphemistic speech habits in this country, where “gentleman” once denominated a courteous, well-mannered man, but nowadays tends to be applied to all males including members of Congress and tattooed criminals of suspect hygiene, in England it signifies a social rank that is based upon birth, not behavior.

This story epitomizes the class consciousness that once permeated British society, and, indeed, most of the world. Unfortunately, outside of the United States, and perhaps Canada and a few, much smaller, nations, it still does. Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, social class means a lot less in the United Kingdom than it once did. It has pretty much went the way of the Roadmaster. The London buses in use today, still double-decker, only have a driver; no conductor.

The Great Chain of Being I described in an earlier post (see this link) described a mindset that every thing and person has an immutable place in a universal hierarchy dictated by creation or birth. This in one form or another has been the human conception of the universe for a long time. It was systematically described by Aristotle in the Fourth Century B.C., and refined by philosophers in Medieval Europe. It has existed, to some degree, in every civilization.

Recall, I wrote class consciousness, not class itself. We are kidding ourselves if we believe social class does not exist. Here in the in the U.S., we just do not pay attention, and there is no legal sanction for it.

Notwithstanding, sociologists do pay some attention to social class. They have generally denominated it by wealth and occupation. Frequently we read of the upper class, middle class, and lower class, and occasionally some sub-classifications. To wit:

Upper Class = generally, anyone with an immediate family net worth of $25,000,000 or more though celebrity entertainers and athletes tend to be excluded.

Upper Middle Class = those with incomes of over $100,000 who have a professional, executive, or managerial occupation; generally college educated.

Middle Middle Class = Self employed merchants and skilled tradesmen. Middle management and clerical workers.

Lower Middle Class = Journeymen trades and minor clerical workers. Semiskilled laborers.

Lower Class = Unskilled laborers and chronically unemployed without a skill.

(One may quibble with these descriptions, particularly at the margins, but they seem to be generally accepted. Charles Murray in his recent book Coming Apart argues that two classes, based on occupation, cultural preferences, and relative wealth have emerged in America. In the United States, class has somewhat been a function of ethnicity, at least for a generation or two post immigration. Prior to the civil rights revolution in the mid-to-late Twentieth Century, race definitely denominated social class. All of this is very interesting, but I do not intend to discuss it further at this time.)

While there may be class in America, outside of the black-white racial divide (and that has been  diminishing for the past forty years), there has not been much class consciousness. When asked what they are, most Americans, even those who are clearly upper or lower, would say they are “middle class.” It has been an aspiration of those at the lower end of the economic spectrum to join the middle class, and to consider themselves there even if objectively they haven’t quite made it yet. One of the most frequent appeals politicians now make is concern for the interests of the middle class. The villains in these appeals are “the rich,” whose definition changes depending on its usefulness. If, however, nearly everyone believes they are middle class, then we have a classless society.

Great Britain has been different. The Great Chain of Being, originally applied to an agrarian society, adapted to the industrial era in the Nineteenth Century. The social classes as they became defined, were the aristocracy or titled nobility, the gentry (“gentlemen”), the middle class, and working class. One is born into a class, and generally is made aware early in life which one she belong to. Social mobility is not expected, and is actually disfavored. If one aspires to better himself, it might be to join the gentry, which used to mean owning land, but certainly not the middle class. “Middle class” has been often a term of derision, even scorn, especially among the working class. The bogeyman for Karl Marx and his disciples was not the aristocracy so much as it was the bourgeoisie; that is, the merchants, the manufacturers, the professionals. Wanting to be in the middle class would make one a traitor to his class.

An important difference between the concept of social class in Great Britain and the United States is, in America, one’s occupation is largely determinative, while in Britain it is not. This accounts for mobility. One can change his occupation, but not her parents.

Under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, Britain made a quantum departure from its prior class consciousness. Thatcher, daughter of a greengrocer, educated as a chemist and a lawyer, was distinctly British middle class. She despised the whole concept of social class and made no bones about it. Her attitude was equally critical of the upper class “toffs” as she was of those who gloried in being working class. She was not so toward individuals – she revered upward mobility – but rather toward the idea of class, and class consciousness. Thatcher was one of the few politicians who was genuinely anti-collectivist.

Prior to Thatcher’s three terms years as Prime Minister, and since the end of World War II, Britain had become a socialist country. Nearly every major manufacturing, utility, and transport facility had been nationalized and was run by the government. Wealth redistribution through confiscatory taxation had driven creative entrepreneurs away. The “one for you nineteen for me” in the Beatles’s song “Taxman” was not hyperbole. When I was in graduate school in the early 1970s studying history, one professor, who inclined to the center-right, unusual in the professoriat, opined that socialism in Britain would not last because soon there would be no one left to loot, anticipating Thatcher’s that sooner or later the socialists run out of other people’s money. From early mid-sixties until Thatcher’s party’s triumph in 1979, the United Kingdom was a political and economic booby hatch; an insane asylum run by the inmates. It was living proof that Winston Churchill was correct that under socialism, everyone would be equally miserable. Then came the Iron Lady.

Thatcher’s privatization program divested the state of most of the nationalized industries. She broke the power of major unions, who were run more for the benefit of their leaders than that of their members. Thatcher also revived British pride by refusing to allow Argentina to succeed in its attempted conquest of the Falkland Islands, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of those islanders. Most importantly, her invaluable contribution to the Cold War effort together with Ronald Reagan and John Paul II caused the collapse of Soviet Communism. At home, she inspired the revival of entrepreneurial spirit among all levels of Britons. Reg Smythe’s cartoon character Andy Capp no longer epitomized the British worker. While she came under severe criticism for opposing Britain joining the Euro zone, recent events bear out the wisdom of avoiding that common currency.

The unifying principle of Thatcher’s successful agenda was to eschew collectivism and promote individual initiative and self-reliance. If it was to succeed, the hidebound class consciousness had to go. Mind you, it still exists, but its remaining adherents, are reduced to those pitiful wastrels swilling booze in the street celebrating Thatcher’s passing, and an aging crone, once a fine actor, ranting in Parliament about her perceived misdeeds. Note that I use the word passing deliberately. Rather than die, she passed into immortality in the sense that she will be remembered a thousand years from now. No one will recall the current revelers.

A successive Labour government under Tony Blair, did nothing to reverse Thatcher’s reforms. In fact, it supported many of them and extended some. That in itself speaks loudly to their worth. Si monumentum eam requiris, circumspice. Margaret Thatcher needs no other.

Choosing our best (and worst) Presidents is somewhat of a fool’s errand. This is because different time and situations demand different skills and traits in a leader. Also, crises tend to bring out the best (or worst) in leaders, and the absence of a crisis leaves untested one who might be a great leader, or abject failure. For example, in the United States, Presidents like James Monroe, the so-called Gilded Age Presidents, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge held the office in generally placid times. I’m sure there are some historians who would find a point of disagreement on this last point, but we are talking about relativity here. Author Steven Vincent Benet wrote an interesting short story “The Curfew Tolls” speculating about the fate of a well known historic figure who was born twenty years before his actual time. Nevertheless, because the human condition and environment is so dynamic and unpredictable, most nations and societies have at least minor crises throughout their existence, so some valid comparisons can be made. Occasionally, grave situations arise which demand great response.

Since the Norman Conquest, England, which became the lead entity of the United Kingdom including Wales, Scotland, and Ireland (all or part), had monarchs and prime ministers who were the leaders of the realm. The monarch, though at least since the Magna Carta never entirely absolute, was the acknowledged chief executive. This changed with the accession of the Hanoverians in 1714, the first one of which never learned to speak English. Since George I’s reign, the prime ministers, officially styled First Lord of the Treasury, have been the executive authority. The misdeeds of George III recited in our Declaration of Independence were the result of polices suggested by the Prime Ministers who served during that time. The monarchs and PMs have been a mixed lot as far as competence and opportunities to respond to crises go. Because of the near catastrophic consequences they faced, three stand out above the rest. Two of whom are women.

I am writing about Queen Elizabeth I, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher.

Elizabeth reigned for the 45 years between 1558 and 1603. She inherited a country that was fractured by religious strife, economic and social ills, and beset by foreign powers, notably Spain, France, and the French clients in Scotland. In an era where women were hardly given credit for any ability, the Queen defused the religious strife, presided over new prosperity, and defeated the mighty Spanish war machine. She cleverly brought the Scots into permanent alliance, and unification into Great Britain a century later, by naming her cousin, King James of Scotland as her successor. The supreme historical irony is that her father Henry VIII nearly tore England apart in order to have a male heir because he feared chaos would ensue if a mere woman succeeded to the throne.

As for Winston Churchill, no one has summed it up better than New York Times journalist C. L. Sulzberger “Remember him, for he saved you all.” For now, enough said.

With her death yesterday, Margaret Thatcher is officially in the pantheon of great leaders. I can hardly write anything about her that won’t be written by better hands than mine over the next several days – over and over again. It is fitting in a sense that the monarch she served is also named Elizabeth. Emerging from a real winter of discontent, the lioness roared. After three decades of decline, Britain became Great again.

If a cherished dog is negligently killed, can a dollar value be placed on the owner’s heartfelt affection? May a bereaved dog owner recover emotion-based damages for loss? In 1891, the Texas Supreme Court said no. Pet dogs are personal property for whose loss non-economic damages cannot be recovered. In 2011, a Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, basing its ruling on changing times and attitudes, said yes.

Now the Texas Supreme Court has again considered the issue – and said no, affirming its 122 year old precedent. See Strickland v. Medlen, No. 12-0047, (Tex. April 5, 2013).

Justice Don Willett acknowledged that “Texans love their dogs. Throughout the Lone Star State, canine companions are treated—and treasured—not as mere personal property but as beloved friends and confidants, even family members. Given the richness that companion animals add to our everyday lives, losing ‘man’s best friend’ is undoubtedly sorrowful. Even the gruffest among us tears up (every time) at the end of Old Yeller.” Nevertheless damages for anything but the economic value may not be recovered. One might recover thousands of dollars for the loss of a best of show Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, but nary a cent for that faithful old mutt of undetermined parentage. All dogs are not created equal.

Tell that to a cat.

In a number of my posts I have quoted or referred to Ferdinand Lundberg’s The Rich and the Super Rich, a tome that he published in 1968. I’m sure Mr. Lundberg, now deceased, could not have imagined how things would turn out over the forty-five years since, so in many respects his book is dated. It is generally unavailable, although the Dallas Public Library has a non-circulating copy or two. Amazon.com has a few copies for sale at exorbitant prices. My own yellowing copy is held together with Scotch tape.

Quite a bit of this work, however remains true, and probably always will be valid. One of Lundberg’s theses, is that America is controlled by sixty families, all inheritors, and essentially those who pull the strings are rich widows and their gigolos. Whatever its validity at the time, that does not appear to be the case today, at least for the most part.

One point remains generally valid was the subject of Scott Burns’s column in Sunday’s Dallas Morning News. Regular readers will recognize Burns as the author of a personal financial advice column for the News. He is known for giving sage insights and analysis. I was gratified to see that he knew Lundberg’s work, and considered it apropos for his subject. That is, how to determine wealth and who is rich.

Burns quotes Lundberg: “For my part, I would say that anyone who does not own a fairly substantial amount of income-producing property or who does not receive an unearned income sufficiently large to make substantial regular savings or does not hold a well-paid securely tenured job is poor. He may be healthy, handsome and a delight to his friends – but he is poor.”

In other words, conspicuous consumption is not the hallmark of wealth; property and investments that produce a sufficient return to meet one’s recurring needs and reasonable caprices is.

Another way of looking at it is, if one is susceptible to losing their ability to actively produce income and that loss will quickly result in their ability to obtain food, clothing, shelter, and other goods and services to the extent of which they have become accustomed and dependent upon, they are not wealthy.

I’m not sure that I buy Lundberg’s definition of poverty. After all, “poverty” and “poor” can be loaded terms. Nowadays, it seems be fashionable among certain segments of our society to automatically assume that someone living in poverty is virtuous, does not deserve his situation, and it is our collective moral duty to relieve that state, even when the sufferer is culpable and at the risk of jeopardizing one’s own well-being. That’s nonsense. Of course, the converse is true; wealth does not imbue virtue. Nevertheless, being rich is good; poverty sucks.

　

Here is the test that Burns divines from Lundberg’s analysis:

(1) do you make payments on your house or car? Assuming you have those items, if you answer no you may well be rich. If you answer yes, probably not. Especially if your car interest loan has an interest rate greater than the rate of inflation. As far as the mortgage interest deduction goes, I’d rather have the cash.

(2) Does your interest income, exceed what you pay in interest? If you carry a credit card balance, the answer to this question is doubtless no. Thus, you are not rich, unless you’re also rather inattentive to your financial affairs (which many rich people, especially those who inherited or otherwise were gifted a great deal of money are).

(3) Can you keep what you have without actually working? Burns believes that if you answer yes to this question, you probably are close to being wealthy. If not, you may be poor.

(4) You are at a cocktail party and a stranger asks: “What do you do?” Burns states that if this is answered with any “known occupation” you are not wealthy, and probably a workaholic. I take exception to this. In our culture, there are quite a few people who continue to work even if they could quit tomorrow because they love the fray. I know a few people like that. (I generally try to evade that question. When I was a police officer, I would hear a complaint about a traffic ticket; now as a lawyer, I’m asked to give gratuitous legal advice.)

There are the four questions that might test your wealth. The next question is, if being wealthy is desirable, how do we get there. To that, I’m afraid, there is no simple answer. The easiest way of course is to inherit money, but few of us ever do, or if we do it’s hardly enough to do more at the time received to buy a bauble or two. Become qualified in a high paid profession or other occupation such as engineering. That requires education, and not a little hard work.

A fairly sure key seems to be prescience, in the sense of the ability to delay gratification. What follows from that is investment. Now, that term takes on a number of meanings. A bank savings account is one. It does not pay much of a return, but it’s a start. And if interest is compounded, say, monthly, and regular additions are made, even if small, it can add up to an impressive sum in a couple of decades. Somewhat more risky, but with a better return, are stocks and other equity instruments. Blue chips are safe, for the most part. Investing in start ups and new businesses are riskier, but there can be serious return. You’ve doubtless heard of start up businesses who offered their employees stock in the company if they would work for minimum wage during some hard times. Many employees said “no way” and quit. Some stayed, and became overnight millionaires when the company went public. Obviously, that doesn’t happen most of the time. but it can. That’s why any investment portfolio should be diversified. Both to reduce risk but leave open the possibility of a bonanza.

One might complain that “But I have a family that I have to support and I cannot afford to make any investments. I live paycheck to paycheck as it is.” There are two things I would say to that. First of all, prescience would lead one to delay taking on commitments to support others until they’re firmly established supporting themselves. It is true, however, that there are those who don’t realize that until they already have the made the commitment and acquire the responsibility. Those will have to make do with less immediate gratification, in order to start investing. That might bring discomfort, both to that person and to the dependents, but I invoke the aphorism “that doesn’t what kill you makes you stronger.” No doubt catastrophes do occur, but when you observe and stop and think about it, those are rare. If we all ordered our lives around the possibility of a catastrophe, we would not get very far. Anyway, this is my opinion and analysis and it is based on a lifetime of observing. Many make it, if not to unambiguous wealth, at least to moderate comfort. Some don’t. I say, let’s all try for success, and not celebrate, or wallow, in failure.

There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny; the three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer.
                              — King Henry VI. Part II. Act IV, Scene 2.

Jack Cade was undoubtably referring to the watery beer produced in 15^th-century England for consumption by the peasants, and not necessarily to the smaller producers. In 21^st-century Texas, small craft breweries have been hampered, some would say invidiously discriminated against, because they could not sell their beer on premises where they were produced.

Two bills designed to encourage the production of craft beers were passed this week by the Texas Senate. A historic victory for small beer.

The legislation would allow brewpubs to sell a limited amount through distributors and will let craft breweries sell their product to consumers on-site, which they are not presently permitted to do. The bill passed the Senate 31-0.

Major distributors claim to be supportive of the legislation, which is somewhat amazing in itself.

There are some excellent craft beers here in Texas, and the state wine industry has come a long way in the past quarter century. And it is now possible to purchase beer and wine any part of the City of Dallas, under law approved by a local option election a year ago. We have come a long way from the time that beer, wine, and whiskey were considered universally to be the work of the devil.

“Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” — G.K. Chesterton

Revisionist history has been trendy over the past half century. It generally seems to be practiced by left wing professors who seek to prove that individualism and capitalism as it has evolved in America is evil, socialism is good, those who founded the United States were slavers, oppressors, and venal people, and that poverty and/or possession of a darker shade of complexion imbues one with superior moral worth.

Most revisionism does not unearth new facts. It just emphasizes and puts a spin on events and occurrences to serve a point of view, usually that of the practitioner. Since history professors are usually liberal Democrats, as the center-left professor C. Vann Woodward once pointed out, we can usually expect the spin to be counter-clockwise.

Occasionally, however, revisionism serves the good guys; to wit, the following:

On the evening of May 4, 1886 in Chicago, there was an incident known to history as the “Haymarket Affair.” Near the corner of Desplaines and Randolph Streets, an area known as the “haymarket,” a bomb was thrown into the midst of policemen arriving ostensibly to break up a rally of anarchists protesting the shooting of strikers at the McCormick Reaper factory the day before. Seven police officers were killed outright or died of their wounds and twenty-three were injured gravely enough to be disabled. Three participants or bystanders were killed and an unknown, but doubtless significant number of others suffered gunshot wounds. Eight anarchists were arrested, brought to trial, and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. One committed suicide in his cell while awaiting execution; four were hanged. The three others were later pardoned a decade later by a new Illinois governor, John Peter Altgeld, who believed a miscarriage of justice had occurred and the convictions were wrongful.

The anarchists became martyrs to the labor movement in the United States, and the Haymarket Affair, along with the Homestead Strike in 1892, were celebrated by the left in a manner akin to the Alamo in Texas or any number of other real or imagined atrocities that solidified support for movements and revolutions throughout history. This continued into the 20^th Century where Sacco and Vanzetti, Alger Hiss, and the Rosenbergs became part of the hagiology of the left. Late in the tumultuous 1960s, Haymarket became a rallying point such that radical Bill Ayers and another Weather Underground member bombed a statue at the location that honored the fallen police officers.

It has been settled belief among historians for a century and a quarter that there was no evidence to connect the defendants with the bombing and there was no anarchist conspiracy. The police raid on a peaceful rally was an act of oppression and blatant offense against freedom of speech and assembly. The popular attitude toward the attempts of labor to organize in the so-called Gilded Age was generally negative. Furthermore, most of the anarchists in Chicago at the time were German immigrants, and racial or ethnic prejudice was cited as a reason for the eight defendants’ conviction (and the later pardon of the survivors by the German-American Altgeld). Those defendants had been charged by prosecutors bowing to pressure brought by industrialists, and convicted by a biased jury.

But what was the real story? Was the conviction of eight, and execution of four, anarchists wrongful? Or was it justified? One problem was the actual bomb-thrower was never brought to trial, and his identity was said to be unknown or at least not proven. When the actual doer of the deed is not among those charged, it tends to diminish the responsibility of those who merely planned it. Also, many anarchists and their sympathizers at the time suggested it was a police agent provocateur who threw the bomb, although even left-leaning historians discounted that notion. This hypothesis was revived in the 1960s. It has been popularized by the late Howard Zinn, who repeated it in his cut and paste screed The People’s History of the United States, even though there was not a scrap of new evidence.

Standard works on Haymarket, including Henry David’s History of the Haymarket Affair published in 1936, and Paul Avrich’s The Haymarket Tragedy of 1984, accept the miscarriage of justice theory. Recently, however, professor Timothy Messer-Kruse of Bowling Green (Ohio) State University culminated a decade long research and writing project on the incident, using primary sources, including the actual trial transcripts, maintained by the Chicago Historical Society. Messer-Kruse says his project was prompted by a student who asked him in class “if what it says in our textbook is true, that there was ‘no evidence whatsoever connecting them with the bombing,’ then what did they talk about in the courtroom for six weeks?” He decided to find out.

After painstaking research, Messer-Kruse produced a number of articles and two books that concluded (1) there was indeed an anarchist conspiracy to create havoc and attempt taking over parts of the city on that date; (2) while the eight defendants were not equally involved in the planning of the actions of May 4, 1986, among them there were those who knew of the plot beforehand and they all committed acts that contributed to the violence; and (3) the preponderance of the evidence points to an indicted anarchist, closely associated with the defendants, who went on the lam and was never brought to trial as the bomb thrower.

Messer-Kruse acknowledges that the trial may not have comported with what we today believe due process requires, at least in the search and seizure methods of evidence gathering. By the standards of the day, however, it was fair, even scrupulously so. Many of the defendants’ problems at trial were a result of their lawyers trying to make political and ideological points. The defense botched many of the procedural opportunities it had. The death penalty imposed was carried out rather quickly. It took our government nearly six years to execute our recent domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh; the Haymarket anarchists went to the gallows within six months.

All told, the Haymarket Affairs and the trial of the perpetrators, far from being an atrocity amounting to judicial murder, amounted to no more or no less than one of many growing pains suffered by an emerging nation and industrial economy. For those involved, of course, it was a profound misfortune. That is the lot of humankind, and nature, and will continue to be so. One of the facts of life, as Al Capp might have said.

For a brief, but illuminating discussion of late 19^th Century anarchism, see Barbara Tuchman, The Proud Tower; A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (1966). Professor Messer-Kruse’s books are The Haymarket Conspiracy: Transatlantic Anarchist Networks (2012) and The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists: Terrorism and Justice in the Gilded Age (2011).

An interesting local connection is Albert Parsons, the defendant who was not a German immigrant, was a former Confederate solider, born in Alabama and raised in Tyler and Johnson County, Texas, and educated at Waco (now Baylor) University. Parsons’ wife Lucy was of Mexican and Indian, and probably African, descent, which is probably one of the reasons he moved to the Midwest. Parsons left Chicago immediately after Haymarket, but gave himself up to the Illinois authorities later, supposedly to make a political statement about anarchism. For his pains, he was tried with the others and hanged.

“Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” — G.K. Chesterton

The New York Times has a series on gun violence whose intent appears to keep before the public horror stories where some madman, criminal, or just plain jerk uses a firearm as his tool of terror. It is unfortunate that these stories appears on the news rather than the editorial pages, given that the slant is obvious. For those who believe that facts cannot be presented in a literally truthful way in a misleading manner, I tell them there are many of my colleagues who do just than on a daily basis and make a good living at it. For the most part, the NYT is preaching to the converted, but its past reputation for journalistic impartiality and excellence still give it some credibility among those who can be persuaded.

The most recent article displaying such bias is entitled “In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection” see this link. This story reported a case where in the State of Washington, one Corey Holten threatened his ex-wife Stephanie by threatening to shoot her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” Stephanie went to the court and obtained a protective order that required Corey to stay at least two blocks away from her home and included a number of other restrictions. It did not require him to surrender his guns. Those who appreciate the Dixie Chicks’ song Goodbye, Earl, where the culprit “walked right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care, understand how effective a piece of paper can be. Disregarding the protective order, Corey wen to Stephanie’s home and terrorized her with a rifle, yelling over and over again he was going to kill her. She managed to call 911, the police arrived quickly, and Corey surrendered. Fortunately, Stephanie wasn’t put in intensive care, though she would probably benefit from some counseling post the incident.

The NYT, and to be sure others, decry the NRA and other gun rights organizations for blocking state laws requiring that persons subject to domestic violence and other protective orders to surrender their firearms. Now, come on, would one deranged enough to ignore a court order to stay away from his ex-wife obey an order or even a law to surrender his gun? Anyone who thinks so would be a good prospect for the next scammer who sends them and e-mail asking for their bank account number in which to deposit a million dollars.

The NYT claims to have performed a statistical analysis of domestic violence crimes involving guns, especially those occurring in the face of domestic protective orders. It found that within the last decade, there were at least five instances in Washington where women were shot to death less than a month after obtaining protective orders. This of course, only proves that there were five estranged partners who were nuts enough to kill after having been spurned. The NYT admits that laws mandating the surrender of firearms might have done nothing to prevent an attack. It qualifies that admission by stating, without a shred of back up evidence, that “[I]n many cases, upon close scrutiny, stricter laws governing protective order and firearms might very well have made a difference.” Pure speculation. All of the “mights” add up, and prove absolutely nothing.

On the way downtown this morning, I caught part of the Diane Rehm Show on NPR where a panel, which included one Jennifer Fiore, vice president of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and others, discussed the gun debate in Congress. Ms. Fiore adamantly expressed her opinion that guns should be strictly regulated and even banned except in limited circumstances. A caller named Barbara from Panama City, Florida had this to say. “I find if interesting that as a mother of three and a member of the NRA and also a 16-year survivor of a 16-year domestic abuse relationship that Jennifer has nothing to say to me as a member of the NRA. It’s interesting also that my domestic abuse ended when I became a member of the NRA and learned to become a responsible gun owner. My ex-husband suddenly changed his demeanor and realized that I have a brain, I have a backbone, and that if he touched me and put me in the hospital one more time or touched any one of my three children, he would end up six feet under.”

Or end up like Earl: “a missing person who nobody missed at all.”

Our local newspaper in a front page story today described the new Pope Francis as the first Hispanic Pope. Well, either they do not believe people from Spain qualify as “Hispanic” or their news staff is historically challenged. The latter explanation would not be surprising in today’s brave new world. Pope Alexander VI, nee Rodrigo Borgia, although he was far from an exemplar of papal virtue, was Spanish. I have not delved into the ethnic or national backgrounds of anywhere near all of the 266 pontiffs, but I suspect there are probably others who hailed from the Iberian Peninsula, known as “Hispania” to the ancients.

But, so what? Francis, the son of immigrants from Italy, could also probably qualify as Italian, which might mollify the churchmen from that country who had the papacy to themselves for over 500 years, but have been excluded for the last 35 or so.

In some ways it is more significant that Francis is a Jesuit. No member of that order has previously been Pope. In fact St. Ignatius Loyola, who founded the Society of Jesus, didn’t believe members of his order should even become bishops; members of the order were from the beginning sworn to be directly obedient and responsible to the Pope. Loyola was aware that so many bishops in early modern Europe were political hacks first, and ministers of the Gospel second, or even further down the line. As a former soldier, and scholar trained at the University of Paris, he organized the Jesuits along military lines with corresponding discipline, and committed its members to intellectual rigor. Those attributes, together with their missionary zeal, they helped reform and revitalize the Church, which was badly in need of such given the venality of Borgia, the Medicis, and at least three other Renaissance popes who provoked Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others to leave the Church altogether. (See Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly (1984)) Jesuits, though vowing to be obedient to the Pope, were not timid souls or hidebound traditionalists in non-theological matters. They occasionally became crossways with the powers that be in many European countries, and elsewhere, to the point of being expelled. Even the papacy suppressed the order from 1773 through 1814. Not content with only preaching the Gospel, the Society of Jesus has produced scientists and scholars of every stripe. Given this history, I suspect there could be some serious reforms in the present day Catholic Church under Francis. Whether this would include ending the requirement of celibacy for priests or the ordination of women, I don’t venture to speculate. Since these are essentially organizational and non-doctrinal, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if the first Jesuit Pope would make these changes. But hope springs eternal.

I don’t know whether to make much of the political ramifications of choosing an Argentinian. It was not unexpected that a non-European would be elected. The Americas, Africa, and now Asia are far outstripping Europe in the number of members of the Roman Catholic Church, and for that matter, in Christians of all denominations. Keeping the papacy in the hands of Europeans seems anomalous given that reality. Having over one billion people professing at least nominal allegiance to the Catholic Church and the Pope, is bound to have some political effect. But it appears that the days of having a man who is supposedly God’s viceroy on earth in the political pocket of a great power or superpower are gone for good. Unless, of course, there is a wholesale conversion of Chinese (which could happen) and the Holy See moves to Beijing. Popes as Mandarins? Who would have thought?

Apparently there is pushback from some airlines, interest groups, and ordinary citizens over the new TSA policy to allow passengers to carry their pocket-knives, golf clubs, etc. on board flights. At first glance, that seems counter-intuitive. Box cutters were the weapons the 9/11 hijackers used to take over the four airplanes. After more careful consideration, it seems to make sense. Today, with reinforced doors, the cockpits are much more secure and a knife of nearly any size is unlikely to cut through one. Also, 9/11 succeeded because passengers and crew were conditioned to let a hijacking run its course, let the little men make their statement and fly to a “non-imperialist” country, everything would turn out all right in the end. Subsequently, the attempted hijackings since 9/11 were thwarted by passengers and flight attendants. The shoe bomber and underwear bomber come to mind. (Too bad the passengers didn’t kill the shoe bomber when they had the chance – a Swiss Army knife would have done the job– so we wouldn’t have to support him in prison for the next several decades.) One writer complained that he didn’t want to be in fear that his seat-mate would have a knife that could put out his eye or do other damage. Wonder if he has the same fear at the ball park, where fans can get really upset if their team is losing and don’t have to submit to full body scans to get in. The TSA’s purpose is to use reasonable measures to prevent hijackings, not to make the passengers perfectly safe from another passenger who might be a madman. I once heard of an air traveler who wigged out and, for no reason other than he was nuts, bit the tip of his seat mate’s nose off. Can’t make everyone who boards a plane wear a Hannibal Lecter mask.

All of these blanket security searches and prohibitions make air travel a monumental hassle. The TSA seems to be heading toward more of a risk assessment rather than a one-size fits all ban on certain items that conceivably might be used as a weapon. That seems to a step in the right direction. What the TSA needs to do next is to start doing reasonable profiling. If it means taking in to account a passenger’s cultural, ethnic, age, etc., so be it. Our cowardly political correctness need to end. The Israelis aren’t bashful about profiling and regarding Middle-Eastern, males, between the ages of 18 and 35 who affect Muslim accouterments, with increased suspicion. While El Al has been for decades a prime target of Israel’s enemies, I am unaware of any successful hijacking of its airplanes.

Where am I wrong?

“Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” — G.K. Chesterton

At the beginning of his narrative of the last decades of Imperial Russia Nicholas and Alexandra, historian Robert K Massie relates the theme of scores of Russian fairy tales: If those in distress are able to get to Moscow for an audience with the Czar, he will cure their troubles, whatever they may be, so they can live happily ever after. Given the number of “Czars” the current administration has installed in the White House, that appeared to becoming an American fairytale, with a somewhat less Kremlinesque setting, as well.

Perhaps no more.

Our high drama President Obama lost little time last week when the White House announced tours of the presidential mansion were being curtailed as a result of the Sequester. Part of the reason, I have heard, was that there were not enough Secret Service agents to provide appropriate security as a result of forced budget cuts. I suppose that may well be true seeing as that the President spends a lot of his time gallivanting around the country seeking to drum up support for his agenda. That travel, legitimately, requires an entourage of bodyguards to guard against assassins and other madmen. But is there really not enough funds to allow tours of the People’s House? Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal columnist, believes so, and in expressing her opinion writes an entertaining essay entitled “Jumping the Sequester” in the March 8, 2013 issue. 

Ms. Strassel learned that the cancellations of White House tours saves approximately $18,000 per week. That equals approximately 2 hours of operating Air Force One. She further reports that the government gave a $3700 grant to build a miniature street in West Virginia out of Legos, a $500,000 support for research on specially shampoo products for cats and dogs (I’ve shampooed my cats and can testify they won’t like it regardless of how well the product works, but then they don’t vote), and $340 million for 894 conferences last year each costing more than $100,000. The White House itself employs three calligraphers who together earn $277,000 in year. You’ll have to read the article to see the rest of the outrages.

All of this shows that the more things change the more they stay the same. It is reminiscent of the late Senator William Proxmire (1915 – 2005) efforts several decades earlier. Senator Proxmire (D-Wisconsin 1957 – 1989) instituted what he called the “Golden Fleece Awards” that demonstrated the more egregious wastes of public funds by Congress. Beginning in 1975 and continuing until he left the Senate, Proxmire announced these awards in monthly press releases. They include the following:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded project by psychologist Harris Rubin for $121,000, on developing “some objective evidence concerning marijuana’s effect on sexual arousal by exposing groups of male pot-smokers to pornographic films and measuring their responses by means of sensors attached to their penises. (Known as plethysmographs, PPGs, or, less formally as peter-meters, See this link.
The NSF for spending $103,000 to compare aggressiveness in sun fish that drink tequila as opposed to gin.
National Institute for Mental Health for spending $97,000 to study, among other things, the social pecking order [pun intended, I suppose] in a Peruvian brothel; the researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy. (Ya think?)
Office of Education for spending $219,592 in a “curriculum package” to teach college students how to watch television.
Unite States Department of the Army for a 1981 study on how to buy Worcestershire sauce.
United States Department of Defense for a $3,000 study to determine if people in the military should carry umbrellas in the rain. (That was a no-no when I was in the Army. Always wondered why, but not for $3,000)
United States Department of Justice for conducting a study on why prisoners want to escape.
United States Postal Service for spending over $4 million on an advertisement campaign to make Americans write more letters to one another. (This was long before e-mail and text messaging).

The list goes on and on. See it at the Wisconsin Historical Society

Though Proxmire continued his list for nearly 15 years, the only demonstrable result was proving the impossibility of shaming legislators who have influential constituents with their hands out.

There is only one reason why all this abuse continues to occur. We the people, or enough of us, don’t pay attention to what’s going on. Talk about transfer of wealth? Most of the transferees are those who get grants to do absurd research projects which turn out to be mostly pleasure trips. I suppose, however, certain Peruvian prostitutes are big fans of our Congress.

 I wonder if I wonder if any of them lived happily ever.