There she sat, surrounded by warring political armies.  Behind her were six of her seven children and her siblings.  Serene, unflappable and respectful through 4 days of hearings, she was clearly the smartest person in the room.

According to one side, she would be a deciding vote to declare the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) unconstitutional, to overturn the abortion holding in Roe v. Wade and to decide the presidential election in the favor of her sponsor, President Donald Trump.  The Senate Minority Leader, Charles Schumer of New York, called it “… the least legitimate nomination to the Supreme Court in our nation’s history.”

One of the most interesting comments came from Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate change activist, who was Time’s Person of the Year in 2019.  She called Barrett a “flat earther” apparently in the belief that the Supreme Court has the ability to decide the pros and cons of global warming.

To the Republican side, she was impeccably credentialed, respectful of precedent and judicial restraint and, because of that, was not to be feared.

When asked about her positions on issues that would come before the Court, she invoked the “Ginsburg rule” articulated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own 1993 confirmation hearing:  “No hints, no previews no forecasts.”  The “Ginsburg rule” has been cited repeatedly by other nominees who did not care to preview their positions on controversial issues.

The Darth Vader in the hearing (besides Trump) was the ghost of the deceased Justice Antonin Scalia for whom Barrett had been a clerk after law school.  Scalia had been a proponent of an “originalist” theory of interpreting the Constitution which, in a nutshell, means that the words of the document are to take precedence over what we would now like them to mean.  Barrett agrees with Scalia on this.  Scalia was approved without a dissenting vote when he was confirmed in 1987. 

Commentators have taken to the opinion pages of the New York Times and the Atlantic (to name just two) to decry the “originalist” theory of constitutional interpretation, most saying that the world has changed since 1798 and, accordingly, the original document is not relevant to many current problems before the Court.  

Of course, the Constitution also has changed materially since 1798 with the adoption of 27 amendments including the 1791 Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 granting free speech, religious liberty, due process of law to name just a few), the Civil War Amendments (Amendments 13-15) granting former slaves rights previously denied and Amendment 19 giving women the right to vote. 

The critics of the “originalist” theory rarely point out that the amendments have materially changed the original document.  For example, the Civil War amendments granted newly freed slaves the right of citizens whereas the original document had only counted them as 3/5 of a person for the sole purpose of enhancing the electoral power of slave states.  

The most important was the 14^th Amendment which guaranteed not only the freed slaves but every citizen the rights of due process and equal protection against state attempts to limit these rights.  The 14^th Amendment has turned out to be the greatest restraint on state government and state laws and, as such, completely turned the 1789 Constitution on its head as that document and the 1791 Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government not the states.  Indeed, all powers not enumerated to the Federal government were to reside with the states (Amendment 10).  The 14^th Amendment gave citizens constitutional rights against the states.  

In 1954 the Court decided Brown v. Board of Education which held that state racial segregations of public schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment.  In relatively quick succession the Court applied almost all of the individual Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) to the states.

Suffice it to say such restraint on state power would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers and would have produced numerous hissy fits.

Critics of Scalia and Barrett seem to freeze them like an insect in amber into the year 1789 when the Constitution was ratified.  But the Constitution has grown organically and in response to numerous challenges.  To accuse them of being stuck in 1789 is both silly and wrong.   “Originalists” first concentrate on the word of a document whether it be the word of the 1789 document or the words of the amendments to the document.  That seems to be an entirely appropriate way to proceed.

The Democrats obviously decided that the Barrett hearing was an opportunity to make points for the upcoming election.  Unable to stop the Republican steamrolling of her nomination, they went “all in” by suggesting that she would be a vote to declare Obamacare unconstitutional in a case now on the Supreme Court docket.  

So, on the first day, every Democratic senator displayed a picture of a constituent with a “pre-existing condition” who would be adversely affected if Obamacare was struck down.  On the day of the committee vote, the Democrats boycotted the vote but placed a picture of the affected constituent at their seat.  Apparently, the “focus groups” had agreed that healthcare and “pre-existing conditions” were electoral gold.  

The only television visual more powerful than the constituents with pre-existing conditions was probably Barrett holding up her “notes” during the hearing – a blank piece of paper.

So is Barrett likely to declare Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment unconstitutional, particularly since it has been in the crosshairs of Trump since Day One?  The first casualty in political warfare is usually the truth.  The Democrats’ concentration on Obamacare was good politics but the case before the Supreme Court is unlikely to result in Obamacare being declared unconstitutional.  The reason is the legal doctrine of “severability” which means that a judge will always attempt to uphold the rest of a statute even if a portion of the statute is unconstitutional.  Chief Justice Roberts has already “saved” Obamacare once and the then offending provision (financial penalty for not purchasing insurance) is no longer operative.  I think the doctrine of “severability” will result in a decision in favor of Obamacare that may be as great as 9-0 but, maybe more likely, 7-2 with Barrett in the majority.  Wouldn’t it be fitting if Chief Justice Roberts assigned Barrett to write that majority opinion?

A friend asked me what I thought about Judge Barrett. I replied that I hoped for the following: “That Barrett be confirmed and that Trump be ousted in an historic landslide.”

One down; one to go.

Do your part.

Her name was Valerie Obenstine and she was the owner of a “Gentlemen’s Club” known as “Bottoms Up”.  She was a tall woman, remarkably well endowed and, though her 20s were well behind her, she was very attractive at 45.  She never carried a purse but instead tucked her driver’s license, lipstick, cash and children’s pictures in her ample cleavage.

In her 20s, when she herself was an exotic dancer, she could have been the lady in the Raymond Chandler novel, Farewell My Lovely: “It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window”.

They say that there are certain inflection points in everybody’s life and meeting Valerie was one of mine.

I first met her on March 16, 1980 at a party after the Baltimore St. Patrick’s Day Parade. St. Patrick’s Day was a High Holyday in our house due to my Irish wife and the Parade was a must attend.  In 1980, I marched dressed as Uncle Sam with two daughters dressed in their bright green Irish dancing outfits and our 5 year old son dressed as a leprechaun.  After the Parade, there was a party at the Parade Chairman’s home which Valerie attended.  Valerie’s son was a classmate of the Chair’s son at a selective and expensive Catholic high school.  Valerie knew there would be politicians galore at that party and she needed politicians.

At this juncture, I was a budding lobbyist in the Maryland General Assembly and Valerie also was seeking a lobbyist.  Her need for a lobbyist and politicians was because of a Bill pending in the General Assembly.  On St. Patrick’s Day, it had already passed the Maryland Senate and was well on its way to passage in the House of Delegates.  It was supported by the Mayor of Baltimore, the legendary William Donald Schaefer, who would later become Governor of Maryland. 

The Bill allowed certain clubs to remain open until 4 AM as opposed to the normal closing time of 2 AM.  The 18 favored clubs were on “The Block,” a 3 street strip in Baltimore’s central city which was adjacent to City Hall and Police Headquarters. The Bill was explained as an inducement to tourism which was pretty laughable given the seedy nature of “The Block”.

Valerie’s problem with the Bill was simple. “Bottoms Up” was not included and she wanted “in” or everybody “out”.

If Valerie was open and gregarious, her husband, Frank Siciliano, was the polar opposite.  At least 3 inches shorter than Valerie and reed thin, Frank spoke in whispers and rarely showed emotion.  As it would turn out, Frank had a lot of fire in his belly, but it would be a few years before that appeared.

The hearings on the Bill were right out of central casting. The proponents of the Bill could’ve been Don Corleone’s men from The Godfather, most dressed in three-quarter length leather coats. They showed respect to Valerie who, after all, was the female version of them. However, as to me in my suit and tie, their looks were chilling. They said to me:  “you are Luca Brasi and you will soon be swimming with the fishes”.

Perhaps I over-dramatized their glares but that was before the death threat and the rifle shot that would come a few weeks later.

The Bill was controversial in the Baltimore City House Delegation and only passed by a vote of 15 to 14 when the Speaker of the House, a Baltimore City Delegate, cast the 15th vote. This was the first and only time in the 1980 Session that the Speaker had attended a City Delegation meeting.

At that point, there were heavy odds favoring passage of the Bill because of a rule of legislative courtesy. The rule was this:  Local liquor bills affecting a single jurisdiction were the decision of that jurisdiction and all other jurisdictions would honor that decision when the bill was presented to the full House of Delegates. A second rule was: when the Speaker of the House wanted a bill, the Speaker’s wish was to be granted.

But then the unthinkable happened. The “Indians” rose up against the “Chiefs”.  It would not have been possible without the unrest in the Baltimore City Delegation as witnessed by the 15 to 14 vote. It turns out that the 14 began lobbying members of other Delegations to oppose the Bill and to ignore the legislative courtesy rule. 

One of the first casualties in political warfare is the truth.  While proponents argued that the Bill was necessary for tourism, opponents – particularly liberal female Delegates from Montgomery County ‒ argued that the Bill degraded women.  Sitting in the spectators’ gallery, Valerie and I signaled the 1980 equivalent of “You go girl!”

After an hour long debate, the Bill died at noon on Good Friday, April 4th by a vote of 55-52 with 34 not voting.  The “non-voters” apparently decided that a non-vote would both help the cause and not infuriate the Speaker and they were right.

After the vote, the House adjourned for lunch and many went to Harry Browne’s, a restaurant directly across the street from the State House.  Harry Browne’s had only been open for less than four months and its owner was 21-year-old Rusty Romo.  Soon, the place was packed including our table which was in the center of the room.

At that point, we were drinking celebratory toasts and not thinking too much about lunch.  Many of the delegates were offering congratulations and then the box arrived.  It was a box from the local florist located just doors away from Harry Browne’s.  Inside the box was a single red rose tied with a black velvet ribbon along with a pale pink but unsigned sympathy card.  My Italian friend sitting next to me gasped and said “this is the Mafia symbol of death.” Another person at the table asked me where my kids went to school and got up to call the state police to arrange for protection.

I was a little shaken but not as much as my tablemates.  I decided to go to the florist to find out who had sent the box.  As I turned out the door of Harry Browne’s on my way to the florist a shot rang out and I fell face first on the pavement only to later realize that a liquor delivery truck had backfired about 50 feet away.

The delivery of the box caused quite a stir in Harry Browne’s, so much so that a number of Delegates left, preferring to get lunch somewhere else. Word spread quickly and then a reporter arrived. The drama surrounding the Bill was well known and the delivery of the box was icing on the cake. The next day the Baltimore News American’s front page banner headline was “A Strange Defeat of The Block Bar Bill”.  The News American story noted that “Schwartz’s anonymously sent rose was the last act Friday in what became the strangest side show … [in] the state legislature this year”.

The News American story referred to the “fashionable” Harry Browne’s and that word was catnip to Rusty Romo.  40 years later, Harry Browne’s is indeed “fashionable” and probably the best white tablecloth restaurant in Annapolis; in 1980, not so much.

Rusty was so enamored of the story that he has a handsomely framed replica.  His mother had a different take after reading the story: “Rusty, what kind of people are you serving in the restaurant?”

The News American story certainly didn’t hurt my career.  It cemented my friendship with Rusty who, a few years later, named a luncheon sandwich after me.  The initial sandwich was something I had never eaten and I have had no input on the 5 or 6 iterations since then.

And what about Valerie?  I would last speak to her when she called my house and my, about-to-be, 10-year-old daughter sprang up to answer the phone during Easter dinner and returned to announce that “Daddy, Darling is on the phone”.  Valerie called everyone Darling, pronounced “Dahhling”.

While I did not speak with her after that, a few years later I learned of her death.  It seemed that husband Frank, infuriated with her and her boyfriend, had driven his car through the wall of a bar on the Eastern Shore of Maryland crushing them both.

I guess Rusty’s mom had been right after all.

I have a friend from law school who spent his entire professional life in Northern Virginia working as a lawyer for a federal agency.  Upon retirement, he and his wife became “reverse snowbirds” opting not to go south to the sun-kissed beaches of Florida but rather to move to Vermont.  Apparently, the lure of five grandchildren outweighed the warmth of one of God’s most popular waiting rooms.

I don’t know if my friend is a supporter of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  In my immediate family, Bernie is either hailed as the second Messiah or as a whack-a-doodle.  But even those who do not “feel the Bern” know that even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.  The “nut” in this case is Senator Sanders’ proposal to allow the U.S. Post Office to operate as a bank.  Since he is joined in this proposal by Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the proposal is a nonstarter in the current political environment.  But it is a good idea and one with historical precedent.

The current political kerfuffle over the Post Office has nothing to do with the bank idea but rather with President Trump’s appointment of a Postmaster General who has banned “overtime” in the interest of financial probity.  It will insure that mail delivery is slowed at a time when many people will be voting by mail.  This will allow the President to continue to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming November election. 

The President continues to insist that the Post Office is “under-charging” Amazon for parcel delivery (should raise prices 4x).  Perhaps if Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos, knew what a great deal he had with the Post Office, he would abandon his plan to use Amazon’s fleet of trucks (60,000 with 100,000 more now on order) to deliver almost all its packages and end virtually any reliance on FedEx or the Post Office.  The real reason for the “under-charging” argument is that Bezos owns the Washington Post, a purveyor of “fake news,” including the Post’s running tally of the President’s lies or misstatements which now are well north of 20,000.

The Constitution gave the Federal government specific “enumerated powers” and reserved all other powers to the states.  The Federal government has grown like Topsy in the last hundred years so it does not appear to be a limited government at all.  One of the “enumerated powers” was to establish a postal system which was done with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General.  The United States Post Office is a very popular, if not the most popular, federal agency with 90% of Americans giving it very high marks in poll after a poll.

Now about that bank.  It is no secret that it cost a lot of money to be poor.  Take, for instance, payday lending.  There are more payday lenders in the United States than McDonald’s restaurants and this is true even though 12 states outlaw payday lending altogether.

Payday lending works this way.  Say someone needs $100 until their next two week paycheck.  The charge for this two week loan is $15 which is a simple interest rate of 15% but an annualized rate of over 400%.  If the borrower renews the $100 loan every 2 weeks for a year their cost would be $390 for that $100 loan.  According to the Pew Trust, the average borrower is on the hook for a $395 loan five times in the year and pays $530 in fees for that loan.

Payday lenders argue that their service is the only way for certain people to receive cash advances.  The payday lender will advance money almost immediately – without a credit check ‒ as long as there is proof of a paying job and access to the borrower’s bank account.

Payday lenders are correct that they fill a real need.  Most Americans have virtually no savings and live check to check.  Moreover, they argue that if payday lending is banned, their customers will find another way to get cash and that other way will not be regulated at all.

What payday lenders do not say is that payday lending is extraordinarily profitable.  This accounts for their overwhelming presence in every poor and working class neighborhood.

Now suppose the Post Office bank makes the same loan but at a simple interest rate of 5% which is an annualized rate of approximately 130%.  This is still usurious but the borrower will save over $200 a year.  And, if the borrower took the average loan of $395 five times in the year, their yearly savings would be $260.  Remember that the average credit card interest rate on an annualized basis is about 29%.  And, what if the Post Office bank charged not 160% but 36% as is the law in many states that allow payday lending but cap the APR at 36%?

Every developed country provides for postal banks.  The United States had postal banking from 1911 to 1966.  While originally proposed for the under banked areas of the South and West, it turned out that the principal customers were recent immigrants in urban areas who had confidence in the government but no confidence in banks.  If immigrants did not trust the banks, it is also clear that the banks didn’t trust the immigrants or see them as reliable customers.  Fast forward to 1947 when deposits in postal banks reached $3.4 billion with 4 million customers banking at the post office.  For a concise history of the United States postal bank, see Slate article.

A rebirth of postal banks will, no doubt, be fought by the banking industry and your average payday lender.  There should be a little sympathy for the banks which abandoned poor areas starting in the 1970s leaving them to payday lenders and check cashing services.  But it would be a boon to those poor people who are now captive to payday lenders.

Critics will also complain that the Post Office is losing billions of dollars and should not be entrusted with a new responsibility such as a bank.  It is true that the Post Office has lost money for years, revenue dropping as a result of the sharp decline in first class mail brought on by the use of email.  However, on the expense side, every time the Post Office tries to save money (mail five days a week rather than six; closing inefficient post offices), Congress passes a law to forbid it.  

However, the Post Office’s real burden results from a congressional law in 2006, which required the Post Office to set aside billions of dollars for retirees’ future health care costs.  This is required of no other Federal agency.  One of my college classmates, who is a Professor of Business at Notre Dame, has written an explanation for this which can be found at Notre Dame News.

Of course, there will be the argument that a government agency should not be allowed to compete with “private enterprise” and that this is a step to “socialism.”

The Bernie/AOC proposal would be a postal bank on steroids.  One doesn’t have to go that far and it seems better to stay small and focused.  Suppose, for instance, the new postal banks offer basic checking accounts, savings accounts, loans up to $500 and continue to sell other financial instruments like money orders. 

Will this solve the growing wealth inequity between the rich and the poor?  No, but it might be a small solution.  Like the immigrants, the poor would have an outlet to deposit their savings and to take out a small loans necessary to pay the rent or buy groceries.

All in all, I am “feeling the Bern” on the subject of postal banks.  If that makes me a socialist, so be it.

In the Roman Catholic Latin Mass there is a prayer that occurs just before communion known as the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).  In Latin it is “Agnus Dei qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.” This prayer is repeated three times with a slightly different ending in the third iteration. The English translation is: “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”

In Catholic belief, the Lamb of God is Christ who “takes away” (tolis) the “sins of the world” (peccata mundi) by His suffering and death, thus reuniting man to God.

And, boy, are the sins of the world ever present each and every day.   Until COVID-19 struck, we would hear about other events including:

• The intentional killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Syria leading to millions of refugees;
• the “reeducation” camps for 1 million Muslims in China;
• the sexual abuse of children by priests, scoutmasters and teachers;
• daily murders, rape, robberies and the like in our own communities.

In the Tulsa massacre of 1921, 40 square blocks of the Black neighborhood known as Greenwood were burned to the ground by white vigilantes. But, perhaps, the worst emblem of that event was the blind, double amputee black man who sold pencils on the street and who was chained to the back of a convertible and dragged down the street until he died.

In a few hours, Greenwood was gone and, so too, were 1,000 homes, five hotels, a hospital, a dozen churches and 31 restaurants.  The National Guard was called in to secure peace but, instead of rounding up the white vigilantes, the Guard placed black men defending their homes in detention.

In my parents’ generation, 6 million Jews, Gypsies and other “intolerables” were gassed to death and 5 million Ukrainians and Kazakhs were starved to death by Stalin and his henchmen because the Ukrainian harvest fell dramatically short of the quota set by the first Soviet “5 year plan”.

How to explain such evil? The major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism) are in accord on one great teaching:  human beings are immortal. Their spirits come from an eternal or divine world and may eventually return there. All these religions hold that the way people have conducted themselves on earth will greatly influence their souls’ destinies upon death. 

For Christianity, evil is a problem to be overcome in the material world. The classic explanation is by Saint Augustine in The City of God.  In sum, there is a City of God and a City of Man.  For those who live a righteous life in the City of Man, there will be a reward in the City of God.

Archaeologists tell us that even Neanderthals buried their dead with tools, food and weapons presumably to assist in the next life.

To a great degree we are now living in a “post religious” world or even an anti-religious world.  The “post religious” world may best be summed up by the lyrics of the John Lennon song, “Imagine”.

(Verse 1)

Imagine there’s no heaven

It’s easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us, only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today

(Verse 2)

Imagine there’s no countries

it isn’t hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

(Verse 3)

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

There are many who believe in Lennon’s lyrics. For obvious reasons, this was not the soundtrack for the movie Hotel Rwanda which recounted the genocidal massacre where Hutus slaughtered between 500,000 to 1,000,000 million Tutsis in Rwanda in 3 months in 1994.

Whatever one thinks about religion, it is clear that the major religions have been a unifying and civilizing force in urging proper behavior and respect for others.

However, religious belief is not self-evident and cannot be proven. The prominent commentator David Brooks has recently said that religious belief is a difficult thing and that one would be lucky to wake up 3 days out of 10 having “faith.”  The notion of a next or eternal life requires a leap of faith, one which our ancestors have usually made whether they were Neanderthals, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.

But what if you’re not willing to make that leap of faith? Perhaps you do not believe in God and think he or she is a construct created by man and that worshipping him or her is as silly as the mythical indigenous tribe which worshiped a Coke bottle which had fallen from the sky.

The only nontheistic system which has taken hold and currently holds sway is communism. It explicitly disavows a belief in God and in the eternal world and, instead, proposes to organize the material world in such a way that, in effect, it can create heaven on earth. The only problem is that the overseers of that system have repeatedly committed “peccata mundi.” whether that be a gulag in Siberia or a cleansing “cultural revolution” in China. Mass detentions and mass murders have regularly been ordered, all in the name of preserving the purity of the “revolution” and the dominance of the State.

Then, of course, there is the single individual who just doesn’t believe in God or an eternal life. He or she tries to do their best to live appropriately as that is defined in their particular time.

Gratefully, there is much more in our world than its “sins.” There are also wonderful things like love, generosity, empathy, decency, compassion, courage, honesty, selflessness, heroism, wisdom and all the creations of the human mind in art, literature and music.

A number of years ago, sitting in the Istanbul airport after spending 5 days in Jerusalem, I asked my friend why he was a believing Catholic. His reply was simple: Catholicism had been given to him by his parents and they hadn’t steered him wrong on anything else. At the time, I thought that was an odd response, one that could’ve been given by a good Jewish son, a good Muslim son, a good Hindu son, a good Buddhist son or, for that matter, the good son of an atheist.

However, upon reflection, I believe that there is great insight in that response in that it acknowledges the wisdom conveyed by all previous generations. It doesn’t settle the question of religious belief but it certainly frames it properly.

In wartime, they say that there are no atheists in foxholes. The same is true for most older people who are keenly aware of their approaching expiration date. Death is not only the great leveler but it pretty much demands that you sit up and take notice. In some cases, an older person’s newly found religion may be the equivalent of the sailor who sets an anchor to windward in the event of an unlikely but possible storm.

My meditation ends here. This is what I believe (at least today) and this seems to be a distillation of all that has been passed on to us by preceding generations. Human beings have an eternal or divine spark or soul and this demands that we behave appropriately and avoid “peccata mundi.” We will be rewarded for this. This is the accumulated wisdom handed on to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist children by their parents.

As my friend said, his parents hadn’t steered him wrong on anything else.

Cultivate your garden. That never disappoints. By Roger Cohen, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times, June 26, 2020

Meanwhile, in other news, Maurice, the most famous rooster in France, is dead.

I know, there’s been a lot to think about. Keeping six feet apart, losing jobs, living in rectangular Zoom boxes, learning new unhappy forms of greeting, dealing with bored children, making payroll, getting used to the deprivations of a virtual life. It’s not been easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, as Maurice might have put it.

The crowing coq from Oléron, a small island off France’s western coast, became a national hero last year when he and his owner were sued by second-home neighbors who wanted Maurice removed for making too much noise and waking them up on their vacation.

A great French fight pitting rural tradition and terroir (that ineffable mix of soil, sun and moisture that define a place and a person’s immemorial connection to it) against tourism and modernity was engaged.

This was a case of deep France versus globalization, heritage versus holidays, the rooted chicken owner versus the rootless urban dweller, a parable of our times. A cockerel in a culture war is a formidable thing.

About 140,000 people signed a petition supporting a rooster’s right to make a noise. (The crowing Gallic coq is of course an eternal symbol of France.) Last September, a judge ruled in Maurice’s favor and his lawyer, Julien Papineau, pronounced a great truth: “This rooster was not being unbearable. He was just being himself.”

Now Maurice is no more. Perhaps the stress got to him. Corinne Fesseau, his owner, announced last week that he had died in May of coryza — a respiratory infection common to chickens — and she had buried him in her garden. She waited to divulge the news because France was in crisis and “Covid-19 was more important than my cockerel.”

Maurice, whom my colleague Adam Nossiter memorably described as “a cantankerous fowl with a magnificent puffed-out coat,” was 6 years old. Fesseau offered this epitaph: “Maurice was an emblem, a symbol of rural life and a hero.”

She did not allude to Maurice’s last will and testament, but a neighbor in St.-Pierre-d’Oléron, where the rooster lived and died, sent it along to me:

“I am not a hero. That’s an overused word. I spoke my own truth. I did what came naturally to me. Many things change but the essential things do not.

The sun sets. The sun rises. Shaking my wattles, raising my head, I had to greet the morning. I could never resist, and why should I have? I had to crow. This was my particular joy, my particular thing. Each of us has one. Honor it.

I am sorry to have caused a fuss. I never wanted to annoy anyone. Those neighbors from Limoges, with their busy city lives, I know they wanted their peace. They had been saving for their summer vacation. Perhaps what they missed is that a sound, like my crowing or a ship’s foghorn or a train whistle, may form part of the peace of a place.

A little more patience, a little less agitation, never did any harm. I never went anywhere, and I was happy. There’s more to a coop than meets the eye. There’s more to any place if you look long enough.

I was content to have three hens as companions. They kept me busy. Contentment, for me, was being attuned to the rhythms and cycles of life. The chicken and the egg.

This is a strange season to be ending my days on this small planet. Human beings, so restless, seem fearful. I hear there is a virus. I am not sure exactly what the virus is. I think the virus is many things. It always lurks, and it will pass, and some other scourge will appear. Keep your eye on the sunrise.

My countrymen are angry. What else is new? It’s always too much or too little in France but, my God, what a country of boundless pleasures! Bastille Day is coming along. Off with their heads, out with the old, in with the new! We French are revolution specialists. The world needs a good revolution now and then.

Even if everything changes so that everything can stay the same. Cultivate your garden. That never disappoints.

I bequeath the 1,000 euros the judge awarded me to the establishment of an online (yes!) audio museum of rural sounds. Lest this hectic world forget.

I will miss Corinne. I will miss strutting about. I will miss puffing out my plumage and making heads turn (yes, I admit it, I noticed that). I will miss emptying my lungs in the dawn, such a perfect feeling. I will miss the little familiar sounds that offer comfort.

May peace spread across the earth, but please do not confuse peace with silence.”

Maurice the Rooster

We live in earnest, sensitive and literal times, so I had better specify that I made that up. There’s a lot to be said for make-believe. Especially when you are living in a socially distanced box.

The Book of Revelation is the final text of the New Testament and contains one apocalyptic passage after another, none more famous than the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Revelation ‒ because of its almost exclusive use of symbols ‒ is one of the most commented upon books of the New Testament and engenders multiple and differing interpretations.  The Eastern Orthodox Church remains skeptical about Revelation and does not read from it during the church year, a position that strikes me as prudent given the nonsense that is regularly bandied about concerning Revelation’s “symbols.”  For example, there are many who identify the “Harlot” or the “Whore of Babylon” riding the “Beast” as the Roman Catholic Church.  Those individuals apparently have no knowledge of geography.  When Revelation was written, the author understood that the City of Babylon had existed in present day Iraq and that St. Peter’s Rome was, even then, in Italy.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are often identified as Pestilence, War, Famine and Death.  The Four Horsemen are standard features of religious dispute (who is the First Horseman ‒ Christ or the Antichrist?).  They even once appeared in what may be the best lede in American sports writing history (reprinted at end).

Most of us are now “sheltering in place” because both Pestilence and Death have arrived – not only at our doorstep – but at the world’s doorstep.  The world has not seen anything like the present Covid-19 pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1918.  Because of the omnipresence of television and the Internet, the details of COVID-19 are better known than was the case with the Spanish flu.  The naming of the 1918 pandemic did not accurately identify the original source of the virus which may have been an embarkation site for World War I troops at Fort Riley, Kansas, where the first case was reported.  From there, it was likely introduced into Europe by American soldiers joining World War I.

Why the “Spanish flu” instead of the “Kansas flu”?  This probably occurred because Spanish journalists first reported on it as Spain was a neutral nation in World War I and its journalists were not censored.

Even given the grim current death toll and future prognostications with respect to COVID-19, society’s ability to deal with this virus is considerably improved over what was available in 1918.  However, both then and now, there was not a protective vaccine.

Over 675,000 Americans died as a result of the Spanish flu and the worldwide death toll was 20-50 million, greatly in excess of those killed in World War I.  To place this in perspective, the American population in 1918 was 30% of its current number.  Hence, if COVID-19 were to kill the same percentage of Americans as the Spanish flu did, the death count would be more than 2,000,000 people. 

A short while ago, it was estimated that 100,000 to 200,000 Americans would die from Covid-19 but the current projection is 60,000.  This is still a staggering number and the numbers do not tell the pain and suffering caused by a single death to friends and family left behind.

In the midst of it all, what are we to do?  We are saturated with news on COVID-19.  Every daily newspaper story relates to it; the networks and cable stations are consumed by it; the Internet is filled with do’s and don’ts.  Normally, in times like these, we turn to the “experts” to learn how to muddle through.  But what if the experts either don’t know or change their minds?

In the New York Times of April 7, 2020, Ross Douthat published an opinion piece entitled “In the Fog of Coronavirus, There Are No Experts”.  The gist of the column was that the “experts” have not been reliable ‒ ranging from the World Health Organization (WHO), which was politically motivated in providing false and misleading information ‒ to our own Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which seems to have had more misses than hits.  Given this, Douthat wrote that each person was on his or her own, although it was clear that quarantines were the only thing that seemed to work both now and in the past.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, has been a consistent voice of reason to the American public.  He has tamped down expectations for the immediate delivery of the vaccine and has cautioned that, while the administration of anti-malarial medicine may help, it comes with risks and has not been adequately tested.  Dr. Fauci received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, from President George W. Bush in 2008 as witness to his exemplary life (see Fauci for a picture of the ceremony and the President’s words.)

What worked in the past?  When the Spanish flu hit, there was no Dr. Fauci.  Antibiotics did not exist.  It would not be until the 1930s that a microscope could “see” a virus.  There were no pharmaceutical interventions.  So tried and true methods going back centuries had to be employed:  masks, banning large gatherings, closing places of public accommodation, quarantines.  Unlike COVID-19, there was no gestation period.  A healthy young person would experience a first symptom like a cough and be dead within 24 hours.  In October 1918 alone, 185,000 Americans died and a disproportionate number were young healthy people.

The national response was misleading and was informed by the support for the war effort which discouraged “bad news.”  While there was not censorship, the press pretty much fell into line as did the public health leaders who indicated that it was just a common form of influenza.  Surgeon General Rupert Blue said “there is no cause for alarm if proper precautions are observed.” 

The proactive responses were local and haphazard.  St. Louis experienced a death rate many times less than Philadelphia.  The difference:  St. Louis immediately outlawed gatherings of more than 20 and closed public venues within two days of its first death.  Philadelphia did this as well but not until much later in the game and not until a patriotic parade attended by 200,000 people had occurred.  St. Louis suffered 1/8 of the deaths which occurred in Philadelphia.  San Francisco required the use of masks and its death rates were substantially less that other cities. Seattle required masks as well (1918 pandemic).

So, in sum, non-pharmaceutical responses slowed the spread of the virus.  World War I ended on November 11, 1918 and, as everyone returned home, the Spanish flu lost its carriers.  Then, sometime in 1919, it was gone as those infected had either died or developed immunity.

The lessons from 1918 seem to be the same that we are hearing daily.  Wash your hands, wear a mask, avoid gatherings in public venues, self-quarantine and the like.  A hundred years later, we are well ahead of the game because of the advances in medical treatment.

But as serious as it is, it is sobering to contemplate that COVID-19 is not remotely close to what the world faced with the Spanish flu.

“The Four Horsemen” by Grantland Rice

Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again.  In dramatic lore they are known as Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death.  These are only aliases.  Their real names are Stuhldreher, Miller, Crowley and Layden.  They formed the crest of the South Bend cyclone before which another fighting Army football team was swept over the precipice at the Polo Grounds yesterday afternoon as 55,000 spectators peered down on the bewildering panorama spread on the green plain below.

New York Herald Tribune, 18 October 1924

Art Linkletter, who died in 2010, popularized the television talk show known as “Kids Say The Darndest Things.”  One of his favorites was when he asked a young boy what his mother did.  The reply:  “She does a little housework but then spends most of the day reading the racing form.”

For 41 years, I lobbied in the Maryland General Assembly and I think it’s safe to say that it’s not only kids who say and do the darndest things.  For those unfamiliar with the activities of state legislatures, let this be a short primer.  Most state legislatures meet during the winter months and Maryland is no exception.  Its Session starts on the second Wednesday of January and ends 90 consecutive calendar days thereafter which means that it sometimes ends near Easter (Easter can occur anywhere from March 22 until April 25 and, for those interested about the timing of Easter, it is explained at the end of this post).

In the years I lobbied, anywhere from 2500 to 3500 individual items of legislation were filed each year.  On most days there were committee hearings to consider the bills and the hearings would normally start at 1:00 PM and could last until midnight, although that was atypical.  For almost every bill there were proponents and opponents who would appear to testify.  From a people watching point of view, there is nothing like the legislature as hundreds of people, even thousands, appear on any particular day to hold rallies, press conferences and the like.  It really is better than the circus and just as entertaining.

I think it is fair to say that there was more entertainment in my “early” years as the legislature had far more colorful characters than now.  The present crew tends to be deadly serious, convinced of its own importance and really not much fun.  Gratefully, there are notable exceptions.  But most everything recounted here occurred during the 1980s.

The Arrest of The Easter Bunny

One year the General Assembly Session was ending near Easter, and a Delegate convinced a man dressed up as the Easter Bunny to join a session of the House of Delegates and distribute candy to the 141 members.  The Delegate had discovered the Easter Bunny on a nearby street as he had been hired by a local business to encourage pedestrians to step inside the store.

The Easter Bunny proceeded to enter the chamber but without the knowledge of the House Speaker who was infuriated by the prank.  He banged the gavel repeatedly and demanded that the state troopers arrest the Easter Bunny who was then arrested and would plead that he was only doing what a duly elected representative asked him to do.

The Case of the Missing Bill

In the late 1970s through the 1980s, there was a very successful lobbyist for the service station dealers of Maryland.  His name was Vic Rasheed.  Australian by birth, he was so successful in Maryland that he was selected for the national job in Washington DC.

At that time, the national oil companies were the enemies of many which made Rasheed’s job all the easier.  He had commanding majorities in each committee which considered his bills although he had a few enemies as well.  There can be a certain arrogance when delivered with an Australian accent and, in Rasheed, it was on full display.  Rasheed seemed to believe that his success was all about him without acknowledging that he was just riding a wave.

Sometime in the early 1980s, Rasheed was in the process of passing yet another bill.  The last day is called “Sine Die” and consists of round-the-clock voting on hundreds of bills.  Any bill which does not receive a final vote by midnight on “Sine Die” does not take effect.

Rasheed’s bill had received a technical amendment in the House of Delegates at approximately 8:00 PM on “Sine Die.”  The Senate was waiting for a perfunctory approval vote on the amendment but then the bill “got lost.”  An anti-Rasheed Delegate had approached the House desk officer who was in charge of sending the bill to the Senate and asked if he could assist as he was on his way to the Senate anyway.  The desk officer agreed and the Delegate then proceeded toward the Senate but stopped and sat down in an office in the hallway between the House and Senate chambers.  Underneath him was Rasheed’s bill.

The parliamentary rule is that the bill must be physically in the chamber before it could be voted on and Rasheed’s bill was not in the Senate chamber.  This did not occur to either the Senate sponsor of the bill or Rasheed until approximately 10:00 PM as the delay was ascribed to the normal pandemonium of “Sine Die” when hundreds of bills are struggling to survive by midnight.

By 10:00 PM, both the Senate sponsor of the bill and Rasheed were pacing the hallway between the House of Delegates and the Senate trying to find the bill.  The House Clerk could only tell them that her record showed that the bill passed and had been dispatched to the Senate.  After midnight at some point, Rasheed spied his legislative opponent sitting in the office off the hallway.  An infuriated Rasheed screamed at the Delegate:  “Smith, who are you screwing in the clerk’s office.”  Smith – with a Cheshire cat grin ‒ stood up, held the bill up to Rasheed’s face and said: “Only you Rasheed, only you!”

Bills to Protect Minorities

Today, there are any number of bills to protect members of discrete and insular minorities ranging from people of color to LBGTQ individuals.

In the 1980s, certain idiosyncratic groups and individuals were more typically targeted.

Randy Newman sang a top 10 song called “Short People” which infuriated a height challenged delegate from Baltimore who filed a bill making the playing of that song illegal in Maryland.

And then there was the bill declaring that Clayton Moore was the “true” Lone Ranger.  This was after Moore had been replaced in the popular television show.

Both bills received national press.  In spite of the notoriety – including a conference call appearance by Clayton Moore for the benefit of the press ‒ neither bill was successful.

The Pinkertons

One of the funniest things to ever happen occurred during a hearing before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.  On this particular day, the Maryland National Guard was defending the appropriation made to it in the Governor’s budget.  Representing the Guard was the commanding general and a number of bird colonels, all outfitted in resplendent military uniforms.  The Maryland National Guard personnel were not accustomed to legislative hearings but they had a staunch ally in one senator who also served in the Guard and was a member of the Budget Committee.

This was a time when there was talk of “privatizing” State functions.  During this particular hearing, a young senator from Montgomery County asked the general what exactly did the Guard do and was it possible to privatize its functions so that, for instance, a group like the “Pinkertons” could replace the Guard.  The senator’s question left the general dumbfounded.  

When the hearing was over, the general and the bird colonels repaired to the anteroom to confer with their senatorial ally.  To say that the general was apoplectic is a tremendous understatement.  “Raymond, who is that boy? How could he ask a question like that?”  The senator replied: “General we’ll get him in line so don’t worry about it.”  The general was unimpressed:  “Raymond, that boy is a fool.  How can such a person ever be properly schooled?”

Well this exchange was ongoing.  One of the bird colonels kept trying to get the general’s attention.  The general was having none of it and kept gesturing to the colonel to mind his own business.  But the bird colonel was not to be dissuaded.

Finally, the general said “What do you want?”  The colonel, seeing his opening, then told the general and the senator what he thought was the most convincing argument:  “General and Senator, one thing that was never mentioned is that them Pinkertons don’t have no fucking tanks!”

Apparently, the colonel’s argument may have been successful as the Committee voted to approve the Guard’s budget.

Easter falls on the first Sunday subsequent to the first full moon after the vernal or spring equinox (always March 21^st).  If the full moon after the equinox falls on a Sunday, Easter follows a week later.  This rule was established in the 8^th Century as church fathers wanted to assure that Easter fell on a Sunday.

A hundred years ago in the aftermath of the then unspeakable carnage of World War I, William Butler Yeats published a frightening poem known as “The Second Coming.”  A portion reads:

Do not these lines reflect where we are today? “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”  If I could change the world, I would ban Twitter.  It seems like every politician, every athlete, every Hollywood celebrity has a Twitter account and inflicts 160 character diatribes which are faithfully reported by the political and celebrity press.  It is hard to “love your neighbor” when your neighbor turns out to be a nasty, angry, bullying and ill-informed brute with a Twitter account.  There should be informed and spirited discussion with respect given to our adversaries but now – in the memorable phrase of one of my classmates – we experience only “drive by shouting.” 

The current state of American politics is, at best, disarming.  The Democratic Party veers left while the Republican Party is in the thrall of Donald Trump.  The national media prefers one over the other and, while there are repeated calls for bipartisanship, none appears.  Maybe it is time for a new party.

I believe the “center” desires that new party.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats have political insights that are valid but both are captured by their extremes.  What will the new party look like and what might it espouse? 

It seems to me that there are a number of issues that may command a majority.  They include a commitment to environmental stewardship, a return to financial probity, policies to address income inequality and bolster the middle class, a foreign policy commitment to democratic ideals backed up by military readiness, a reasonable immigration policy and a reassertion of the rights of individuals against the demands of government.

These are my ideas to start a discussion.  Others will disagree and have different ideas.  The point is to listen to one another.  If you plow through this overly long post, please share your thoughts. 

Environmental Stewardship:  One current political characterization is that Trump supporters are climate deniers and captives of the fossil fuel industry.  How then to square the comments of one of the president’s staunchest supporters in the impeachment drama who explained that he did not come to Congress to argue with a thermometer?  I think most people are convinced that global warming is real and needs to be addressed.

Of course, every weather event is now attributed to “global warming” which does not explain the various weather events of the last thousand years. 

Both Germany and Japan have sworn off nuclear reactors while France remains fully committed (I understand Japan with its tortured history starting in 1945 but am completely flummoxed by Germany which has given in to its Green Party).  It is hard to understand the objection to nuclear reactors as a solution to global warming because they are a solution.  40% of the electricity in the Baltimore area is delivered by a nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs Maryland.  Hence, coal, gas and oil are not burned for that 40%.  This is not to say that there are not issues with nuclear power, the principal one being the disposal of the fuel.  However, scientists now believe that the nuclear fuel can be recycled and used in future “breeder” reactors.  This surely seems a path worth pursuing. 

Another solution would be trees and more trees to ingest the CO₂.  Here, I’m talking about trillions of trees to be planted around the world.  In the United States, why not a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) such as created by FDR during the New Deal?  One can envision any number of young people willing to give a year or two to this tree nurturing enterprise particularly if their student loans could be diminished.

And imagine if the Chinese government decided to flex its totalitarian muscle (again) and require the planting of trees.  Say each person is required to plant and nurture 5 trees under pain of going to “re-education camps.”  Result:  8 trillion trees.

For all of the criticism of fossil fuels, I think they are necessary if we are to see an increase in living standards throughout the world.  What if the global warming CO₂ emissions could be captured and rendered harmless?  Craig Venter, who was one of the first to map the human genome, has isolated bacteria found in the sea which “eats” CO₂.  We need to think about and develop technical fixes so that fossil fuels can remain productive.

Financial Probity:  The failure of the federal government to properly order its fiscal affairs is alarming.  The national debt now exceeds $22 trillion which is 107% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.  As a share of the economy, the Gross National Debt is higher than it has been since 1947 in the aftermath of World War II.  And the numbers are expected to get worse as the Congressional Budget Office currently estimates that over the next decade the country will add another $12.2 trillion in debt.  That will make each person’s share well in excess of $100,000.

The Democrats were always being accused of “tax and spend.”  The Republicans who issued that warning have adopted the mantra of “borrow and spend.”  Not only is the federal budget completely out of whack but Social Security and Medicare are also woefully underfunded.  We didn’t get here overnight so it seems reasonable that we should begin a long gradual path to restore fiscal sanity.  Say we begin a 30 year program to bring things back to where they should be.  Everybody needs to give a little and it won’t be painless but our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be the better for it.

In Maryland, there is a group called the Spending Affordability Committee, which meets prior to each legislative session, and determines the percentage amount that the state budget can be increased.  The budget committees comply with this spending limit.  Maryland ‒ like most states ‒ has a requirement that the state budget be “balanced.”  Those two ideas, if adopted on the federal level, would restrain the spending impulses of Congress which now have no limit.   Maryland has a coveted AAA bond rating and still has robust spending on needed programs.

A major redesign of the tax code will make the return to balanced budgets easier.  There is no reason that Warren Buffett’s secretary should pay taxes at a greater rate than he does.  The principal reason for this is the favorable treatment given to capital gain income as opposed to wage income.  This, of course, contributes to the wealth inequality in our society since it is the wealthy that are most favored by this tax rate.  If we tax income then all income should be taxed no matter how earned.

There are “sacred cows” in our tax code that need to be sacrificed.  They include the home interest deduction and charitable deductions.  If we were to take away these “deductions” (and countless others), we could increase revenue.  Already, these deductions are less valuable than a few years ago since the recent tax bill significantly raised the “standard deduction” so the advantage of itemizing is greatly diminished as the “standard deduction” is a better deal.  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the number of “itemizers” will fall from 46.5 million to 18 million.

There are any number of possible “fixes” to both the revenue and spending side of the budget but, first, there must be a shared commitment to move to a balanced budget by 2050.

Individual v. Government:  Almost immediately after the ratification of the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights was added to the document.  These “rights” are contained in 10 Amendments, which are a series of protections granted citizens from the intrusion of the new federal government.  They include freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, the right to assembly and to bear arms, protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.  Each person’s life, liberty and property is protected and criminally accused persons are granted procedural rights.  So that nothing was left to chance, the 9th and the 10th amendments state that any rights not explicitly specified remain with the people or the states and are not the province of the federal government.

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the case of Rowe v. Wade which held that the “right to privacy” allowed a woman the absolute right to have an abortion in the first three months of her pregnancy with restrictions allowed after three months.  This issue has effectively divided the two major parties, with the Democratic Party being in favor of the “choice” position and the Republican Party in favor of the “right to life” position.

I agree with the opinion of the legal scholar John Hart Ely who wrote in the Yale Law Journal that Rowe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”  Today, such an opinion ‒ no matter how well founded ‒ would be an automatic disqualification to serve on the Supreme Court.  The only safe testimony is to say either (1) that you agree with Rowe or (2) Rowe is settled law and you won’t overturn well established precedent.

How to settle this divide?  The first thing we do is ignore the proponents on either side and attempt to discuss the issue without the waving placards.  We should all start the discussion by first reading an article in The Atlantic (December 2019) by Caitlin Flanagan entitled “The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate.”  It is a failure of our current politics that one party takes the pro-abortion side and one takes the anti-abortion side.  There are many “right to life” Democrats and an equal number of “choice” Republicans.  We need to make this discussion nonpartisan and to approach it with the respect it deserves.

And what about other privacy issues?  Should we not be concerned with the rights given to the federal government to monitor telephone conversations and emails as a result of the 9/11 tragedy?  In the end, we need to remember that the authors of the Bill of Rights were concerned about the new federal government.  They never foresaw the size and extent of the current federal government but the spirit which animated the Bill of Rights should be rediscovered by us as we deal with our federal government.

Immigration Policy:  It was abundantly clear 30 years ago that immigration rules needed to change.  The first indication was that ‒ in almost every business from Walmart to Home Depot ‒ signs were written in both English and Spanish.  Indeed, in the late 1980s there was a spate of generally unsuccessful bills filed in state legislatures requiring English to be the recognized language.  A very long time ago, Walmart and Home Depot knew better and so did most road construction contractors who hired supervisors who could speak Spanish. 

The current nonsense about building a wall will, hopefully, end with the presidency of Donald Trump.  Still, there has to be a coherent immigration policy because the people are coming and, moreover, we need most of them.  The notion that only “educated” people should be admitted is shortsighted.

For those already here, we need to create a path to citizenship.  The first step would be a path for a person brought here illegally as a child.  This includes the industrious, friendly and helpful proprietor of my local dry cleaner.  He arrived at 14, is now 26, married and a dad of two girls who, of course, are U.S. citizens.  He would welcome that pathway.

For those not here, we need to secure our borders but we need to admit those who will be productive.  Perhaps, a rule that no new admitee can qualify for governmental benefits for 5 years even though they will be required to pay all taxes.  Such a rule will, at least, keep the ACLU busy.

We need to return to an attitude of welcoming immigrants.  That is not to say that there are no rules, but it is to say that it is hard to be an immigrant; one has to be very motivated to leave home, family and friends.  With such motivation, it should come as no surprise that most immigrants succeed here.

CAN THE CENTER HOLD?

The optimist in me says yes; the pessimist in me says no when considering the current state of political discussion.  But if we give up “drive by shouting” and return to reasoned, but still animated discussion, then I think there is a chance.

In Maryland, a group called the Kirwan Commission has recommended a $4 billion dollar a year improvement in the Maryland public education system.  The gist of the Kirwan Report  is that Maryland has a “mediocre” educational system despite being the fifth wealthiest State in the nation.  Moreover, it is a “mediocre” system within the United States which itself is “mediocre” on an international basis.  Major corrections are needed to develop a “world class” educational system.

The Maryland State Department of Education has released information indicating that 53% of kindergarten students are not academically or socially prepared for kindergarten.  For those of you who thought that kindergarten was the introduction to school for children, think again.  While Kirwan endorses many other changes, its solution to the “kindergarten problem” is a voluntary “full day” pre-K to adequately “prepare” 4 year-olds for their 5 year-old experience in kindergarten and “full day” pre, pre-K for economically disadvantaged 3 year-olds.

Where to start?  What sort of test is used to determine the social skills of a 5 year-old?  Not too long ago, having proper social skills meant the ability to play with other kids or your cousins without a call to 911.  Skeptics might say that the average 4 year-old probably doesn’t need a full day of “school.”  Some play, a snack, a nap and maybe an hour of Sesame Street should do.  However, there is considerable sentiment for full day pre-K which parents may like because it solves many child care issues.

Despite the gloom and doom of the Kirwan Report, less than 10 years ago Maryland was ranked as having the #1 public education system (K-12) in the country for three years in a row.  How it went from #1 to “mediocre” in such a short period is nowhere explained. 

The Kirwan recommendations have been embraced by the Democratic leadership of the Maryland General Assembly for passage in the upcoming 2020 General Assembly.  Republican Governor Larry Hogan is opposing the $4 billion price tag which he maintains will lead to substantial tax increases.  Hogan was elected on an anti-tax message in light of tax increases initiated and passed by his Democratic gubernatorial predecessor to pay for an earlier round of public educational enhancements enacted (2002) as the result of the Thornton Commission which – among other things – established compulsory full day kindergarten for all 5 year-olds.

The State Teachers Union made its first television ad buy saying that passing the recommendations are crucial for Maryland’s children.  Advocates are criticizing Hogan for raising “dark money” to oppose these recommendations.  Unions supporting Kirwan are suggesting new taxes on corporations and, of course, on millionaires.

Lost in the political rhetoric, is an examination of the pre-K component.  They say that the “devil is in the details” and the details indicate that the Teachers Union is intent on making sure that the pre-K education occurs in public schools so that the new teachers can become dues paying members.  

Presently, the pre-K world is run by private entities.  Kirwan changes that model.  While the recommendations call for the pre-K education to include non-public schools, those schools must have a similar “quality” as the public schools. 

My sister just retired from her 34 year career as a “pre-K” teacher.  By all accounts, she was remarkable with her students.  However, she would not qualify under the Kirwan plan as a “lead teacher” (bachelor’s degree and a “certification” in early childhood education) and neither would her school if she remained employed.

Does this matter?  Well, of course it does.  My sister’s students paid to attend her school.  Kirwan provides that a family of four making $77,250 or less would attend the new pre-K schools for free (with the state shelling out $12K a year per child) and families making less than $154,500 would receive a subsidy for attending the new pre-K schools.  Meanwhile, my sister’s school would not receive any “free” or “subsidized” students until a properly certified teacher was in place.  Net effect:  Some schools may be up against the wall and their students may be going elsewhere threatening their financial viability.

So what’s the problem?  Isn’t it better to have “quality” pre-K schools?  That begs the question of whether a newly minted college graduate with an early childhood education “certification” from the Maryland State Department of Education is a proxy for pre-K “quality.”  I would take my sister anytime as she had far more experience with youngsters.  She raised three sons and, for decades, taught youngsters in beginner swim classes.  She had “kid sense” which – to my mind ‒ is essential for a pre-K teacher.  

And if many private schools will draw the short straw, others will get no straw at all.  The real losers are the home daycare providers who are allowed up to eight kids but provide no substantial educational component.  So a working parent with a 4 year-old (or, in some cases, a 3 year-old) will now have the option of either “free” or “subsidized” pre-K which will be offered, as a practical matter, in a public school.  

So you say: “Is this an anti-union screed?”  Not really, but it is intended to show certain bad effects of public employee unions.  Unlike industrial unions, public employee unions are intimately involved in electing the “management” with whom they bargain.  When the Teachers Union approaches for an increased pension or more pre-K, the legislators who say “yes” are guaranteed an endorsement, PAC money and, in many cases, poll workers in their next election.  In Maryland, unions like SEIU (Service Employees International Union) have been remarkably successful in targeting independent state senators and replacing them with robotic acolytes.

The pre-K component of Kirwan is an $800 million a year expenditure which will require new teachers, all now candidates for union membership.  And for those who say that teachers unions favor “quality” education, that is true only if the “quality” occurs in the monopoly of public schools.  Otherwise “quality” be damned.  Consider the following:

1. Proposals for “charter schools” favored by African-American parents in failing school districts:  The public education establishment led by the state teachers union has undermined them in Maryland at every turn.

• Aid to Catholic elementary schools with excellent academic outcomes for kids in failing school districts:  Absolute opposition.

• Parental school vouchers:  Mass the army in opposition, descend on the Legislature, and tell legislators that their opposition will determine their electoral fate.  God knows the parents aren’t smart enough to determine the best school for their kids.

The political swack of the national teacher unions is nowhere more evident than in the current preening for support by Democratic presidential contenders.  Some are absolutely opposed to charter schools (inner city parents be damned) and even the “moderates” say more constraints are needed.

Sadly, we have poured billions into the public educational system in the last 20 years in initiative after initiative (No Child Left Behind, Race To The Top, the Common Core Standards, the Every Student Succeeds Act) and yet we have not achieved any improvement according to the latest study.

It may be that money is not the real solution.  Training teachers to teach may be one silver bullet.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a standardized test given every two years to measure 4^th and 8^th grade achievement in Reading and Math.  The most recent results show that one State made more progress than any other State.  If you guessed Mississippi (yes, Mississippi!) you would be correct.  “4th graders in Mississippi are now on par with the national average, reading as well or better than pupils in California, Texas, Michigan and 18 other states.”

Maybe it’s time to reassess what we are doing. In doing that reassessment, let’s ask the people in Mississippi first, parents second, working teachers third, all other constituencies next and the unions dead last.

We pretty much have been told the names of the villains in the opioid epidemic.  They are the companies such as Purdue Pharma, Johnson and Johnson and a number of others which pushed doctors to prescribe opioids for pain without disclosing their addictive nature.  They are defendants in thousands of lawsuits brought by states, municipalities and individuals.  By far, the biggest name is Purdue Pharma which is owned by the Sackler family whose original patriarch was Arthur M. Sackler.

Mr. Sackler died 8 years before the opioid, OxyContin, was marketed by Purdue Pharma, a company that was owned by his brothers.  Purdue Pharma is the defendant in numerous lawsuits and is now being taken into bankruptcy as part of a deal with numerous states and municipalities to resolve a majority of those claims.

The Sackler name – once admired – is now the object of derision.  Since 1997, the Louvre’s Collection of Persian and Levantine artifacts has been housed in a wing known as the Sackler Wing of Oriental Antiquities.  The wing was made possible by the donation of $4 million toward construction by Arthur M. Sackler.  The Louvre has now removed the Sackler name from the wing which he built and to which he donated 1,000 objects.  The Louvre apparently believes that the Sacklers should be ashamed of their “dirty” money but it is not now ashamed of taking that money nor has it made an offer to return it.

And the Louvre is not alone.  Numerous museums ‒ in a righteous display of sanctimony ‒ have indicated that they will not take any Sackler money in the future but none are planning to return that already taken.  Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) recently requested that the Smithsonian Institution remove the Sackler name from the Asian Art Museum saying “it has no place in taxpayer-funded public institutions.”  The Senator did not say whether the construction money ($4M) and donated objects (about 1,000) should be returned. 

So the opioid epidemic is laid at the feet of the drug manufacturers and their overly aggressive marketing of opioids.  They are, as a practical matter, the only deep pocket defendants available and they are guilty as charged. 

But are others to blame?  You betcha!  How about doctors who were not attuned to the addiction problem and patients who were given opioids for pain but then continued after the pain was gone because they were either addicted or wanted to stay high.

The “butterfly effect” is the popularization of a theory developed by Edward Lorenz to the effect that a small change in one state of a deterministic non-linear system can result in massive changes thereafter or, as expressed more commonly, the fluttering of a butterfly’s wings in Western Africa can ultimately deliver Katrina to New Orleans. 

The “butterflies” in the opioid epidemic were three groups.  One was the American Pain Society (APS), a professional association of healthcare providers involved in the treatment of pain; another was the U.S. Veterans Administration and – perhaps most importantly – a group called the Joint Commission.  These three groups were just what the doctor ordered for the sales people at Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufacturers. 

In 1995, Dr. James Campbell, in his Presidential Address to the APS, proposed that pain be considered the “fifth vital sign,” the first 4 being temperature, pulse, blood pressure and respiration rate.  Unlike the first 4, there is no objective measurement for pain and so the patient is asked to rate their pain on a 0 to 10 scale.  Dr. Campbell’s proposal was accepted by many in medicine but nowhere was acceptance more important than at Veterans Administration hospitals and at the Joint Commission. 

The Joint Commission published a book in 2000 for purchase by doctors as part of required continuing education seminars, and that book cited studies claiming that there was no evidence that addiction is a significant issue with respect to opioids.  In addition, the Joint Commission published its “Pain Management Standards” in 2001 giving a momentous lift to pain as a fifth vital sign.

What is the Joint Commission?  The Joint Commission is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization that accredits more than 21,000 U.S. health organizations and programs.  The great majority of U.S. state governments recognize Joint Commission accreditation as a condition of licensure for the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements.  All member healthcare organizations and laboratories are surveyed every 2 to 3 years and accreditation is then renewed if justified.  Joint Commission accreditation has been criticized as not actually improving patient outcomes as well as for the fact that accreditation is rarely denied even when there are serious problems.

However, one thing is sure:  Joint Commission accredited institutions follow its rules and standards.  As someone who has been in several hospitals, physician related clinics and rehab facilities plus too many doctor visits to mention in the last five years, I can attest that my “fifth vital sign” has been asked and re-asked about continually.  In hospitals and rehab facilities, the 0 to 10 question on pain is asked at least once a day (and sometimes 3x a day on every shift change).  And, you guessed it, the best medicines for serious intractable pain are opioids.

Opioids were a true breakthrough for patients with intractable and disabling pain.  Their addictive qualities were not originally explained and, for some people, addiction is still worth the relief and improved function they give.  However, for too many people addiction is a very real problem and must be addressed.

Arthur Sackler’s name may be removed from other institutions.  Meanwhile, the Veterans Administration and the Joint Commission continue to chug along although both have been involved in lawsuits over their opioid practices and recommendations.  The APS has filed bankruptcy in order to avoid responsibility in the opioid lawsuits.  While these groups will certainly contribute some monies to settle lawsuits, it will be far and away much less than perhaps merited.  The reality is that these groups set the table for the opioid epidemic.

Finally, back to Paris.  A small demonstration precipitated the Louvre’s action.  Protesters unfurled a sign in front of the iconic glass pyramid reading “Take down the Sackler name.”  This proved too much for the Louvre to resist, once TV cameras captured the “optics” of the Sackler association.  Arthur Sackler’s widow has complained ‒ to no avail ‒ that he was long gone and not involved with the sale of OxyContin.  Perhaps she should stop complaining and be grateful that the French no longer use the guillotine on those who have fallen out of official favor.