Cliven Bundy & Sovreign Citizens

What is the explanation for the Bundy family and their gang of so-called militia buddies getting off with no convictions?

In the United States, ranchers generally use land that they do not own for the grazing of their cattle. For the privilege of using this public land they pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or to private landowners. There is more than one opinion on whether fees are too high or too low, but the bottom line is that ranchers who don't own enough land for their cattle must lease grazing land from somebody, and many choose to lease from the federal government; i.e. the Bureau of Land Management.

Over twenty-five years ago Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees while continuing to graze his cattle on public land. Bundy is one of those people who not only don't recognize the authority of the federal government to set grazing fees, but don't recognize that the federal government legally exists. He says that he recognizes the authority of the State of Nevada (an independent sovereign state according to Bundy) and Clark County, but I suppose he'd stop recognizing them too if push came to shove.

When the BLM tired of working with Bundy (one-sided certainly) toward a negotiated settlement they started confiscating his cattle. Bundy naturally objected and called in supporters, not only from Nevada but surrounding states who staged a standoff with federal authorities. There are numerous images of Bundy supporters pointing weapons at federal law enforcement officers and several of them on the record claiming that they would fire on the BLM officers if necessary. The government backed off, but later arrested Bundy and several of his supporters. They were all released due to a mistrial. A new trial is unlikely to be convened.

So, what's the lesson to be learned here? You can refuse to pay your fees if you refuse long enough?  If you're white? If you have armed supporters? If we're going to send military-equipped police into city neighborhoods to keep protesters in line, why aren't we taking similar action against armed insurrectionists? 

Bundy's central argument is that if a state doesn't have 100% control over its territory and resources, then it's not really a state, but a subdivision, a district or a province. He argues that being a "state" implies 100% sovereignty. He claims that if we just "read the Constitution", his position will be vindicated. Like the Bible, one can read a lot into the Constitution. Let's look at practical matters.

Sovereign citizens, like anarchists, believe that government is inherently a bad thing, something that restricts our freedoms. Oftentimes this seems to be the case, the government takes our money, makes rules that we don't agree with, makes decisions that negatively affect us. But what these people don't realize is that the maxim "nature abhors a vacuum" applies here. If for some reason every government disappeared or ceased to function tomorrow morning, what would happen? Would we all exist in some post-governmental utopia, every man and woman free to pursue their dreams? The producers thriving and the takers, like the people on welfare, dying off? I would argue that this is a delusion.

Wherever there has been a breakdown in a government, like in Somalia, Zaire, Syria and Sudan, someone steps in to take control. Those with weapons and enough followers for an army will step in, sometimes supplying the services that the absent government used to supply, sometimes to simply loot, rape and terrorize. Usually we refer to to those who, generally with violence, take over the rule of a region, as warlords. This implies a certain illegitimacy. But follow the history of any nation back far enough and you'll find some kind of warlord, although in retrospect we call the kings. After enough time as passed, the brutal warlike nature is glossed over. Even in our own country, as the frontiers of white settlement were pushed farther west, organized "legitimate" government often didn't exist, and the gap was filled with those who could impose their will. In some areas gangs have more power than the government, south of the border narcocriminals are the effective government. In Syria for a time ISIS stepped in to administer the territory that they captured.

The point is that these sovereign citizens, who believe that they have the right to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the federal government, are living a fantasy. A fantasy that our current administration appears to be fostering and encouraging.

Police

Somewhere along the line the job of the police morphed from "serve and protect" to that of an occupying army. Maybe it's always been that way. As a white guy who grew up in a white neighborhood and then moved to another white neighborhood, perhaps I've been shielded from extreme actions of police. And other than a collection of speeding tickets I haven't broken any laws that  might draw the attention of the police. But over the last few years the media, abetted by the ubiquity of cell phone cameras, has shed a spotlight on incidents of police misconduct, including violence. Some of it is tied to racism, with many of the police shooting done by white officers on black men. But racism isn't the complete story, there have been incidents of black and Hispanic officers, and even one Muslim officer, shooting unarmed people in what seems, to those of us who aren't in law enforcement, totally unnecessary.

I first became aware of what I considered overkill by police during the Occupy Movement of several years ago. While there were no shootings (that I recall) associated with police action against these demonstrators, images from that time show SWAT teams assaulting the encampments as if attacking an opposing army. Arrests of the largely nonviolent protesters involved forcing arrestees face down on the pavement with the hands cuffed or zip-tied behind their backs. Surely these people could have been just as effectively restrained sitting down. It seemed like restraint to prevent flight was not the aim, but humiliation of the protesters. Even here in Lincoln, the Occupy group at Centennial Mall was invaded by a SWAT team in the middle of the night, with cameras of the few witnesses confiscated.

But a bigger problem was made manifest when incidents of unarmed  black men and boys being shot and killed by the police gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement. Let me make clear that I am not addressing situations where those who were shot pointed weapons at police, or attempted to grab their weapon, or even attacked them with a knife. I'm not even addressing the times when fleeing suspects were shot.

I am not minimizing the risk to life and limb that is part of the job of a law enforcement officer. It's an extremely difficult job. I am also not minimizing the split-second nature of some of the scenarios that they encounter. Hesitating at the wrong time can cost an officer his life.

But I also question the training and acculturation that prioritizes the life and safety of the officer over the life and safety of innocent, law-abiding citizens. There's a saying that I've heard is common among police officers: "I'd rather be tried by  twelve than carried by six" - in other words, shoot first and ask questions later. This might sound logical within the bubble of the law enforcement community, where there is often a certainty that the people with whom they are dealing are "bad guys", but what about the innocent person who "looks suspicious", or panics because they have a bag of pot in their car and runs, or makes the wrong move? In the many publicized situations where police shot and killed unarmed and law-abiding people, the officer "feared for his life" or interpreted an innocuous move as dangerous. In all of these cases the police apologists rationalized the action, believing that the officers took appropriate action to protect themselves. Very seldom is the fact that the person who was killed was completely innocent of any wrongdoing brought up as a problem. It shouldn't be okay for a person to die because law enforcement got nervous, or misinterpreted  a movement. 

The police are not an occupying army, they are an organization that is tasked with protecting the community. They should not have a kill or be killed ethos.

DACA & The Wall

Imagine that one day, planning to enroll in the local community college, or you're heading down to the DMV to take the test for your learner's permit  and you ask your parents if you can have your birth certificate and your social security card, since you know that they'll ask you for identification. Your parents look uncomfortably at each other before admitting that such documentation does not exist. They tell you that you were born in another country and that the three of you came to the United States when you were 6 months old. This is news to you; you don't speak the language of the country of your birth, you don't know anything about it. You feel American - you play baseball, root for all the local sports teams, you do all the things that real Americans do....except...technically...you're not an American, you're an undocumented immigrant, an "illegal". If you were in this situation would you even know it? Granted, some people who came here as children do know it, because their life has been one of hiding, of keeping their heads down, remaining as invisible as possible. But if you met one of these people, would you know it, unless they told you? The United States is the only country, the only culture that they have ever known, and on all points, other than the fact that their parents brought them here illegally, they are Americans.

The Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals was an executive action by President Obama begun in June 2012. Since it was not a legislative action, it was subject to rescission by future Presidents; President Trump rescinded it in 2017, asking Congress to take permanent action by March 2018. DACA stipulates that undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, and meet certain other guidelines. On several occasions bills were brought before the House or Senate but failed to pass.

The arguments against permanently legalizing the status of the "Dreamers" (beneficiaries of DACA) usually boil down to some variation on "What part of illegal don't you understand?", while arguments for it focus on humanitarian concerns. My view is that these people did not make the decision to come here, their parents did and that they should no more be held responsible, or considered "illegal" than a child born here of undocumented parents. The overwhelming majority of these Dreamers hold jobs or attend college (one or the other is required) and have not have brushes with the law, some have served in our military. There is no reason to subject them to deportation other than an unthinking, black-and-white view of immigration.

When President Trump, who had previously expressed support for normalizing the status of Dreamers, rescinded the executive order that instituted DACA, it was widely believed that he was doing so as a bargaining chip to get funding for The Wall, you know, the one Mexico will be paying for. In budget meetings recently he seemed to be saying that he was in favor of legislation to enshrine DACA in law, but quickly backtracked; as usual it's difficult to say what his actual position is.

Now DACA has become entangled in the recent government shutdown. Senate Democrats initially withheld votes unless a DACA regularization was included in the continuing resolution, but agreed to vote for the resolution if McConnell agreed to bring DACA to a vote before the continuing resolution expired.

Whatever your position on immigration is, legal or illegal, whatever your position on terrorism, or immigrants stealing our jobs, the bad guys aren't these Dreamers,  and they should have the shadow of deportation to countries that they've never known removed from them.






 

Gov't Shutdown

There were a whole list of Trump-related issues that I had on the tee, ready to discuss, but there's this government shutdown, so here we go:

First of all, why is such a thing even possible? The various agencies and departments of the federal government can only spend money that they have been authorized, by Congress, to spend. It is irrelevant whether there is actually any money in the national checking accounts; it is illegal to spend money that there hasn't been a law authorizing it and an appropriation bill directing that the money go to its intended department.  The way it's supposed to work is that a budget is submitted by the President and Congress approves it or changes it, then approves it. If there is less money coming in from taxes, then the government borrows to make up the difference. The difference is called "the deficit". But two things come together to get us to the point where we have shutdowns. One is that Congress hasn't passed a budget in I can't remember when. They pass "continuing resolutions" that authorize funding the government at current levels with any changes that they can squeeze in. The other issue is that Congress has imposed a limit to how much debt that we, as a nation, can accumulate. Periodically that limit is reached and Congress has to raise the limit. These situations require that Congress take some kind of action or the government's non-essential functions shut down and most of the essential employees, including the military, are called into work, but don't see their paychecks until the shutdown ends. Some paychecks go out since they are Constitutionally required; ironically the President and Congress are among this group.

Usually various factions within Congress use these moments to try to get something that they want from the other side, reasoning that the majority won't risk a shutdown over whatever the matter is that they are negotiating over. Sometimes they are mistaken.

In the current crisis the Democrats are using the issue of legalizing the status of the so-called Dreamers, beneficiaries of DACA as a negotiating tool. President Trump is using the wall that he promised in his campaign for the same purpose. Republicans threw in a 30 day re-authorization of CHIP to try to make it difficult for the Democrats to vote against a continuing resolution. Trump and the Republicans are painting the Democrats as prioritizing illegal immigration over our military (armed forces would not receive paychecks during a shutdown, but would continue to serve; the Border Patrol and other immigration control agencies have the same status.

Here's how I see it. Out of nowhere, President Trump cancelled the DACA program, giving it an expiration date of March of this year. There seems to be support in both parties to permanently legalize the DACA program and give the Dreamers a path to citizenship. Currently DACA exists because of President Obama's executive action, not legislation.  Democrats, rightly in my opinion, do not want to wait until March to enshrine DACA in law, suspecting that Trump will pull the rug out from under them if they wait; they see this shutdown as an opportunity to negotiate for what they want when the other side, for once, needs their votes.

There has been bipartisan negotiating and several bipartisan compromises, even one that funded Trump's Wall, but they have been shot down each time by the President and Congressional leadership. The Democrats are absolutely correct to take this opportunity to take care of the people who, while not technically Americans, are in every meaningful sense of the word, constructive, contributing members of their communities...they know no other country...they're Americans.

Trump has been tweeting hard, even giving up his usual three-day golf weekend to berate the Democrats for putting the nation in danger and not caring about the military. He's trying to shame the Democrats by trotting his faux concern for "the troops". Meanwhile every compromise is shot down, including a stand-alone bill to pay the military during the shutdown.

Hopefully the Democrats will stand firm.

Update:
Apparently the Democrats aren't standing firm. Enough Senate Democrats agreed to vote to extend funding the government through February 8 if McConnell pledged to bring DACA to a vote before then. I disagree with this for several reasons: we don't know if the House of Representatives leadership will agree to the same thing and we don't know if McConnell will keep his word and Trump is so unpredictable on anything regarding immigration that we don't know if he'll sign anything regarding DACA. So, we'll be going through this again in a few weeks. 

Trump and the Stock Market

What is "the stock market"? Simply, it's the aggregate of all of the buying and selling of stocks. A stock is basically a partial ownership, or at least a financial stake, in a given company. The price of a stock, while influenced by how profitable a company is, can also be influenced by outside events that have nothing to do with the actual running of a company. The main determinant of a company's stock price is supply and demand. High demand for any stock will cause the price to rise while low demand will push the price down, just like a physical commodity. One of the factors that contributes to increased demand for a stock is the perception that things will get better: ideally that the company will become more profitable and the future price of the stock will increase when the buyer decides to become the seller. Some consider it gambling!

Some of the reasons that investors are optimistic can be attributed to President Trump; one is his antipathy to regulations that, in his estimation, cost companies money. Another is the tax bill that was just passed, which was extremely favorable to large corporations, at the expense of middle income Americans. Investors are betting that these changes will result in more profits which will in turn spur more demand and therefore higher resale prices down the road. The other side of the story is that the stock market has been rising steadily since 2008, so a portion of this increase in stock valuation can be attributed to an eight-year, now nine-year, upward trend. In fact first year percentage increase was greater under President Obama, despite the fireworks of record after record.

But what exactly is "up", when we say "the stock market" is up? The Dow Industrial average is a weighted average on 30 stocks. Yes, just 30. And as I mentioned, it's a weighted average. Weighted by what? Price. Stocks that are higher priced are weighted more heavily than lower priced stocks, which skews the average. For example, Boeing's stock, the most expensive, increased by 50%, contributing to 25% of the increase in the Dow average. As you can see from the chart, four companies contributed to 60% of the increase!

Another thing to consider is that the increased stock valuation of the Dow, or even of just individual stocks, is just paper profits. If you hold a stock certificate you don't actually have any money in the bank. You may have 100 shares of stock worth $1000 each, but all that means is that if someone buys that stock from you for $100,000, you have $100,000. It is entirely possible that some event will cause the stock valuation to plummet and your stock will be worth nothing. Even assuming that the value goes up, you're just moving money around. You're often not even contributing operating capital to the underlying company unless it's an initial public offering. Wealth isn't really being created, it's just being moved around.

So, while a rising "stock market" isn't necessarily a bad thing, it doesn't actually tell us as much as some people think it is.

Crazy as a...well, just crazy

Trump statements, working back from about an hour ago:

• Tells us to watch Sean Hannity
• Announces that next Monday at 5:00PM he will be announcing "dishonest & corrupt media awards" (yes, another announcement that he will be making an announcement)
• Responds to Kin Jong-Un's statement that he had a nuclear button on his desk by claiming that his nuclear button on his  desk was bigger
• Complains (again) about giving foreign aid to Pakistan & the Palestinian Authority
• Claims that since "we took Jerusalem (the toughest part of the negotiation) off the table, the Palestinians should be ready to sign a peace treaty with Israel
• Complains that the Democrats aren't doing anything about DACA, which he cancelled and which he  is holding hostage until he gets his big, beautiful Wall
• Congratulates the new New York Times Publisher while insulting their reporting and calling them dishonest
• Took credit for no commercial airline deaths in 2017 because he "was very strict" about it
• Claims that sanctions are working on North Korea despite his derision of previous presidents who did nothing but talk, his statement that we would not tolerate a nuclear North Korea even though they apparently have nuclear weapons now
• Claimed that they handful of companies who gave their employees bonuses was due to the tax bill that had not gone into effect yet
• Claimed that Huma Abedin should be in jail for sloppy security in the never-ending email saga

And that's just today

Don't forget Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation!