Remembering The Presidency: No. 11, James K. Polk

This series was begun on Facebook, but was starting to feel too big for that platform. We will continue to copy posts to FB, but we're temporarily re-establishing Vox Populi for the remainder of the series.

 

 

 

James K. Polk was president from 1845 to 1849. For a one-term president Polk brought much change to the United States. Doing so risked war with two other nations.

Polk supported the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, the idea that America was destined to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Oregon Territory, which comprised what are now the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and parts of Wyoming and Montana, was jointly occupied by the United States and Great Britain, and Polk risked conflict with Britain by annexing the territory. Negotiations between the nations finally resulted in splitting the territory at the 49th parallel, establishing the southern boundary of Canada.

Polk also moved to annex Texas, which led to the Mexican War. When Mexico was defeated the terms of the treaty required that country to cede not only Texas, but also the territory that is now California, and parts of Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Colorado.

 

Polk's term was politically controversial, but he achieved all his goals and set in motion events that would ultimately add ten states to the union. Not bad for a dark horse candidate from Tennessee.

 

 

Quod Scripsi Scripsi

What I could write I have written.

What I could say I have said.

What I could do I have done.

What I could endure I have endured.

It's someone else's turn.

--- Diogenes, 3 June 2021

Decoration Day

Here it is, Memorial Day weekend. 

Have you been anticipating the long weekend? Making plans? Let's see--so much to do: Break out the grill, brats, and beer; go to the beach; have the gang over for a cookout; take a weekend vacation; tune in the National Memorial Day Concert; go someplace to get a good seat at a fireworks show; go shopping for holiday deals; take the kids to a favorite theme park; get started on that big outdoor project you've been planning for months; go camping; settle in front of the TV to watch racing from Indy, Charlotte, or Santa Anita; go to the cemetery.

Huh? Wait--what?

You do get the word "Memorial" that gives this day its meaning, right?

Memorial Day, as designated by Congress, is the last Monday in May. The day is set aside specifically as a time to remember and honor deceased members of this country's armed forces who gave their lives in defense of the Constitution.

At this time, when the very foundation of the United States of America is under attack by domestic forces inimical to democracy, it is important to remember that members of the armed services, like all federal officers, take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

From the Revolutionary War to the continuing actions in the Middle East, approximately 1,264,493 Americans have given their lives to defend this nation "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." 

To the end of her days my grandmother called this day Decoration Day because that was its name when she was a girl. It was proclaimed and so named in 1868 by General John Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic as a day “for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion [Civil War], and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land.”

Perhaps we should revert to the original name. It would provide a somewhat more concrete notion of what the day is about than the rather ephemeral "memorial." The act of decorating would help us remember and honor our dead.

Then maybe we could move that visit to the cemetery to the top of our list.

 --- Diogenes, 29 May 2021

QED

QED is the abbreviation for the Latin term Quod Erat Demonstrandum, which roughly translates as "Thus it is shown." The term has historically been used by mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers to indicate that an argument has been proved.

It's a pretentious way of saying "So there!"

I am neither a mathematician nor a philosopher. I refer to my post of yesterday, May 27, in which I discussed the lengths to which Senate Republicans will go to block passage of any civil rights or democracy-enhancing legislation, specifically the For The People Act.

Today they proved my argument by defeating the bill that would have established a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection. 

QED.

The commission would have investigated the root causes of the insurrection. Of course it would have looked into Republican involvement including that of DJ Trump.

"If they're innocent they have nothing to worry about." How often have you heard that line on television cop shows? Defeating the bill that would have created the investigative commission is clear evidence that Republicans have something to worry about. We all know Trump was the spark that lit the fire and that some Republican congresspeople were complicit.

QED.

What next? Speaker Nancy Pelosi should form a select House committee to look into the insurrection. Such committees have historically been successful in finding the truth behind clandestine activities.

President Biden could create a commission with an executive order. That would be a last-ditch act that would bring accusations of partisanship, but so what? Republicans are nothing if not rabidly partisan. Let them repeat their pot-calling-the-kettle-black arguments. They are, as the Bard said, "a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

Today's vote underlines the importance of continuing to push senators to pass the For The People Act. Call or email them, regardless of party, to let them know they need to pass the act if our society is to remain the land of the free.

Act now. Time is short.

--- Diogenes, 28 May 2021

 

Of, By, And For Whom?

Senate Republicans lack a conscience. Senate Democrats appear to lack cojones.

There is one--precisely and only one--bill that should be at the top of the Senate Democrats' agenda. It is called S. 1, aka the For The People Act.¹

S. 1 is sweeping legislation that will clean up decades of bad and unfair electoral policies and practices, including racist gerrymandering and voter suppression. It will quash the neo-Jim Crow laws now pouring out of several state legislatures like so much sewage. 

That is if the Democrats show some spine, some gumption, some moxie.

The Republicans are already gearing up to defeat the bill, which has yet to come to the Senate floor. When it does, you can be assured they will be armed with motions to delay, to gut, to filibuster it into the next decade.

The highest hurdle the Democrats have to clear is the filibuster. The practice with the funny name is the GOP's favorite weapon. It's a delaying tactic that allows a senator to hold the floor for as long as she can keep talking. (The subject doesn't have to be legislation. Some filibusterers have read from cookbooks.) This ersatz debate can only be stopped if 60 senators vote to end it.

Because it requires a super majority to close it, the filibuster allows the Republicans to build a wall blocking a floor vote on S. 1, which itself requires only a simple majority to pass.  

The Democrats need to deny the Republicans an opportunity to filibuster it either by making an ad hoc change in the filibuster rules or by voting to do away with the filibuster altogether.

The filibuster is a Senate tradition that has neither constitutional nor legal standing. It was brought about unintentionally in the early 19th century.² Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep it, as it has become an effective and often-used tool of theirs for blocking civil rights legislation

It is imperative that the Democrats mount a rapid and hard-hitting counterattack. A perennial problem with Democrats is they invariably try to play nice: to reach across the aisle, to seek bipartisan consensus, to get their opponents on board.

Have they learned nothing from the past four years? The Republicans care not a bit about fairness or about consensus. They want to kill the bill and crush the opposition. They want to move ever backward to a time when races were divided and anyone not white lived in a second-class world and was not allowed to vote. If some Republicans had their way that lower class would include women.

Democrats, in government and in the public, need to rise up. Leaders of Black organizations must get behind the Democrats and exhort them to action. We the people need to get busy flooding Senate e-mailboxes with polite but firm demands that they listen to their constituency and get that bill passed by any means necessary.

For those who think this is all hyperbole, allow me a simile: Let's say a person has a heart attack while undergoing plastic surgery. The surgeon can drop what he's doing and save the patient's life or continue the scheduled procedure and have a pretty corpse on the table. Is there really a choice?

Our right to vote, to elect our leaders in fair and free elections in which every eligible American participates, is the very emblem and definition of the United States of America. 

If we lose it we lose everything. Congress might as well disband and go home. Without the freedom of universal suffrage America will lose its moral and ethical high ground and any respect it may have in the community of world governments. 

We will make a beautiful corpse.

--- Diogenes, 27 May 2021    

 

¹ From The Brennan Center For Justice, a guide to the act: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-people-act-2021

² Here's a link to a very good and concise history of the filibuster: https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

On Blogitis

Being human, among other things, means we're prone to periodic crises. I confess to a recurring crisis regarding this blog. It's best expressed as "Why the hell do I bother?"

I reach very few people, and I'm grateful for every one of them and for the feedback they provide. But like everyone who writes, plays music, or has a message of any kind, I wish for a larger audience. 

When I was teaching I frequently asked myself why I was disseminating good information that was apparently lost on the majority of my students. The answer I kept coming back to was the biblical parable of throwing seed onto different kinds of soil: some, even if just a small fraction, is likely to flourish.

So it is with this blog. I haven't the time or the resources to make it more than it is, but what I can do is to make it the best it can be. As to why I do it, the answer is I have to. 

I can no more remain silent in the face of social injustice, dirty politics, and public indifference than a rooster can remain silent at dawn. I'm driven to speak because it's the duty of all of us to call out dishonesty and corruption in public offices. We must do this because, to paraphrase: The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good people to remain silent.

And, paraphrasing two poets: I do my best, I know it's not much, . . . I tell the truth [and] I sound my yawp across the internet, hoping for a few syllables to land in ears that will hear.

"I'm back."

--- Diogenes, 24 May 2021

  

On Political Correctness: Sex

I detest political correctness, which should really be called social correctness. It's a form of benign tyranny formulated by people who think they are masters of right speech and behavior, and want us to emulate them. 

It was created in 1807, when siblings Thomas and Henrietta Bowdler published The Family Shakspeare [sic]. Bowdler wrote, “nothing is added to the original text; but those words and expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family.” 

In the 20th century its first use, as "political," appears to have been in Russia following the 1917 revolution, describing speech that followed the Communist Party line.

In our time the first notable appearance of socially correct language came in 1971 with Gloria Steinem's Ms. magazine, which engendered the "Ms" honorific for women regardless of marital status.

Now, 50 years after Ms. hit the newsstands, its homonymous honorific is used almost exclusively in the United States. No language other than English has a construction remotely like it.

Lately the group of personal honorifics has been expanded again with the introduction of Mx. for people who don't want to reveal their gender. I can see it for people with a unisex name, but if you're tagged with something gender specific like Arabella or Oscar, not so much.

But wait--there are some people who claim to have no gender. That's where I start having trouble with social correctness run amok.

I doubt any other generational cohorts have been so obsessive about self labeling: GenX, GenY (aka Millennials) and now GenZ. What's next? The Greek alphabet?

Much of this labeling zaniness extends to sexual identity.

Millennials naturally have different ways and ideas from their predecessors. Having been raised in an always positive "there are no losers" atmosphere by helicopter parents, many of them believe they can do whatever they want in the world and the world will accommodate them.

That includes identifying as any gender they feel like.

The terminology of gender identity has been expanded beyond reason, and certainly beyond science. Some Millennials identify as "cisgender," which simply means identifying as their birth gender--perhaps they feel a need for label equality with transgender people. Then there are the "non-binaries" who feel they don't belong to either gender, and others with other labels who claim to have no gender, or have multiple genders, or have a fluid, or changeable, gender. Really?

The s.c. folks would have us learn a whole new system of honorifics and personal pronouns to accommodate those who want to be different.¹

We're born with some things we can't choose: our race, our parents, our gender, the shape of our ears, genetic traits, our sex, and many other things. Yes, both gender and sex are on that list, and only one, sex, can be changed.

A host of terms surround sex change surgery, which is frequently referred to as sexual "reassignment" or "confirmation" surgery. I find the use of those terms humorous. Who initiated the incorrect assignment? God, maybe?

I suggest these terms are part of the Millennial language shift in which all things must have a positive spin.

Here's the fact: sex is mutable, gender is not.

Surgery and drugs can change outward appearance. Primary and secondary sexual characteristics can be added, removed, and reversed. Gender goes much deeper. One's gender is tied to the psyche, to memories, and infuses us right down to the DNA. It cannot, with current medical technology, be changed.

No matter the sex you might change into, you are always, down in that core DNA, the male or female you were born. The Y chromosome can be neither deleted nor added.

God doesn't make mistakes, science doesn't lie, and there are only two genders.

Lest anyone think me biased, bigoted, or prejudiced, let me say for the record that I concur with the Roman playwright Publius Terentius Afer (c. 190-158 B.C.), who said, "I am a man, and consider nothing human to be alien to me."

--- Diogenes, 4/29/2021

 

¹ Here are two links that go to informational material published independently by two separate American universities. Both concern the use of respectful and socially correct (according to the publishing organization) pronouns and forms of address. 

University of South Carolina at Aiken: https://www.usca.edu/diversity-initiatives/training-resources/guide-to-inclusive-language/inclusive-language-guide/file

University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee: https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

 

The Demon Trump

"Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion,  seeking someone to devour." 1 Peter, 5:8

Peter's warning is timeless and we should pay heed to it. Every society, every time period, every nationality, has its demons that prowl the streets or public transportation or social media, trolling for converts to their dark causes.

In the United States in the first half of the twenty-first century that demon is Donald J. Trump.

He may not be roaring as loud or as publicly as in the past, but he is still out and about, scheming with others of his ilk to find ways to disrupt American society and looking for ways to set us against one another. He delights in chaos and disorder.

The importance of knowing your enemy was first written down by the Chinese tactician Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC--c. 496 BC). Like Peter's warning it is timeless, applicable to all times and all places.

I'm returning to Trump, who was after all the reason this blog came into being, to suggest a means of getting to know him.

There are myriad books in print denouncing Trump. If you read only one, I strongly recommend Michael Cohen's Disloyal, A Memoir. Many publications claim to bring you the real, close-up, personal Trump. Most are by people with axes to grind or who are seeking fame and profit. Many focus on special angles (family, sex, politics) and are therefore suspect.

Cohen was personal attorney to Trump from 2006 until 2018. He had grown up around mafiosi, admiring their power and influence, and found his own chance to act similarly in the Trump Organization. He became a fall guy for Trump, going to prison in 2019 when the law was getting too close to "the Boss."

He knows who the skeletons are and where they're buried. The Republican Party and Bill Barr used violence and coercion trying to keep him from writing Disloyal.

I value the book because it corroborates and validates everything I and other writers have said about Trump. On the flip side it lays bare everything we all knew about Trump that no one in public life would say out loud. 

Remember them, the cowards and toadies? Cohen has a lot to say about them. He uses the word "sycophant" frequently.

Disloyal is neither a pleasant nor an entertaining read. It is, however, remarkably enlightening. We all know that Trump is an excessively nasty man who surrounds himself with others of his kind. But the levels of sleaze, vulgarity and flat-out evil to which he will stoop in order to get ahead, to win, to beat someone just for the sake of beating them at something, are astounding.

Cohen's description of getting sucked into the Trump cult is fascinating. He is clear about the organization being a cult, with Trump using all the classic manipulative tools of tyrants and cult leaders. Consider this first-person description of classic doublethink: 

I actively, rabidly, incessantly, insistently, repeated the lies and innuendo, knowing in my heart that it was wrong--but unable to stop myself. . . . I really and truly had actually taken leave of my senses.¹

Cohen describes it here and there throughout the book, as if he's still trying to figure out just what happened to him.

Interestingly, Cohen points out one way in which Trump differs from most cult leaders: he is not willing to die for his cause. Unlike Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite, who died for their beliefs, Trump will never sacrifice himself for anything or anyone. 

As we learned from the January 6 insurrection, he will drive his followers to extremes, including self-sacrifice, but will keep himself at a safe distance, watching and egging on, never putting himself in harm's way, because he is, like all bullies, a coward.

Cohen discloses that despite his apparent aggressiveness, Trump dislikes confrontation. Although he made the line "You're fired" famous on his execrable "reality" show, he never personally fires anyone, but has a staff member do the deed. That's also why some White House staff learned they had been terminated via Twitter. Trump hasn't the courage to face someone and say it.

Finally there's the relationship with Vladimir Putin. As Cohen puts it, 

Trump loved Putin because the Russian had the balls to take over an entire nation and run it like his personal company . . . an entire society and civilization bent to the will of a single man was how Trump viewed the ideal historical form of government--with him as the man in charge, of course.²

That is the real Donald Trump, and that is the reason we Americans can never let our guard down as long as he is out there roaring and looking for victims.

---Diogenes, 4/24/21

 

The book: Cohen, Michael. Disloyal, A Memoir: The True Story Of The Former Personal Attorney To President Donald J. Trump. Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2020. 

Your public or university library probably has it. It's also available on Kindle. 

¹ Cohen, pp. 118-19.

² Cohen, p. 246.

 

Superfund, Don't Defund

I am writing this the day after the verdict in the case of Derek Chauvin was delivered. It was the right verdict, and the celebration was justified.

It may have been a Pyrrhic victory.

In the period during the trial, from March 29 when opening statements were delivered through April 20 when the verdict was read, a total of 52 Americans--more than two per day--died at the hands of police in 24 states. That number includes at least 21 Blacks and Hispanics and four teens (race and age were unreported in some cases).¹

More civilians are killed annually by police in the United States than in any other country on Earth.² 

How might we deal with that appalling statistic? Defunding was the knee-jerk response several months ago, but that's hardly a solution. An unfortunate fact of human society is its need for policing. Take away that guard against lawlessness and chaos would reign. No, defunding would not be the answer.

I propose superfunding American police agencies. Why do I think I'm qualified to make such a suggestion? Because I am an American civilian who has been on the wrong side of police on occasion and have been roughed up more than once. Because I'm not afraid to speak against bullies, power, and arrogance. Because I know bullshit when I hear it. And because I'm not a politician.

Policing is a state responsibility, and a federal police force would be unconstitutional. Therefore this program would be offered on an opt-in basis to the states. Enrollment would be open, with no penalty for not joining at the outset.

Step One: Scale back or repeal the federal programs through which military equipment has been acquired and require the Department of Defense to buy back all the already-deployed matériel at cost; purely defensive gear, e.g. shields and body armor may be retained. Funds from the buyback should go to a special municipal fund for police strategic support.

Step Two: Through the Department of Justice develop a grant-in-aid program that would provide funding for police recruitment and training up to 250% of the state's current budget for its academy. States and municipalities with their own academies would be invited to apply via a nationally published RFP.

In order to qualify for an award all applicants must:

• Demonstrate that the academy utilizes or will utilize best practices in all phases of training. 
• Require all cadets and returning officers to receive intensive training in sensitivity to matters of race, gender, religion, and domestic violence triggers.
• Demonstrate that all recruits are thoroughly screened for tendencies toward militarism, racism, homophobia, or any other antisocial behavior. Potential candidates from minority communities should be strongly encouraged to apply. It is especially important to have native language speakers policing ethnic communities where a language other than English is spoken.
  
• Provide a plan whereby all police officers in the jurisdiction, regardless of any previous education or training, retake full academy training including the sensitivity training noted above. Any who refuse may be given the choice of moving to administrative duty or of taking retirement at the officer's current rank.
• It is understood that the above requirement could be difficult for large jurisdictions. Accordingly, the DOJ will be flexible in accepting any reasonable plan whereby current officers may be rotated through the training throughout and up to five years after the grant-in-aid expires.

Step Three:

Prior to issuing the RFP, select up to five police departments in jurisdictions that have had recent civil unrest to serve as test beds for specific aspects of the program outlined above.

 

I understand that some of that proposed program may sound impracticable, but I'm not joking. I genuinely believe much of America's police violence problem could be remediated, if not solved, through training and retraining, careful vetting of recruits, and sensitivity to ethnic concerns.

I also understand that this would be a fantastically expensive program. But ask yourself what price we might put on the lives of the 1,021 Americans who were killed by police in 2020.

So if any police professional or politician might be reading this, just ask yourself "What if?"

And think about the value of those 1,021 lives.

 

--- Diogenes, 21 April 2021

 

¹ Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States, Retrieved 21 April 2021. This link leads to monthly lists of police-involved deaths from 2009 to the present. It contains links to news reports about most of the cases.

² Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124039/police-killings-rate-selected-countries/, Retrieved 21 April 2021.

 

Slaves to Nature

Here in our part of Virginia spring has crept up on us as it always seems to do, and has kick-started a preview of summer. That means if we don't want to be overgrown by all manner of weeds, vines, and other pretty but nuisance plants, it's all hands on deck to exercise our dominion and show them their place.

And yes, that means even us nerdy sedentary types. 

Diogenes and I have grabbed our gardening gloves and straw hats and are fighting the good fight. It's always pleasant to get out and work with the earth, but the blog is our true labor and we shan't let it linger long without attention.

We'll be back.

--- Richard Brown, 4/12/2021