Category Archives: Politics

Ahmed’s Clock

Irving, TX, Police Dept. photo, via NY Daily News.

Irving, TX, Police Dept. photo, via NY Daily News.

Ahmed Mohammed is a bright 14-year-old student in Irving Texas.  He made the digital clock shown above in a pencil case, and this week brought it to school.  He showed it to one teacher who was impressed.  He then put it away in his backpack, but it started beeping during another class.

The other teacher apparently believed that bright kids shouldn’t bring unusual looking things to school.  The principal was called, and then the police were called.  Ahmed was arrested for having what someone believed to be a “hoax bomb.”

Nobody thought it was a real bomb.  Ahmed didn’t think it was a hoax bomb.  It was a clock, and it presumably told time.  He told the police that it was a clock.  He didn’t elaborate any further, because there was nothing to elaborate about.  He could have said that it told time, but presumably the cops in Irving, Texas, already knew that clocks told time.  But because he didn’t elaborate further, he was arrested.

Last month, I posted on this site the digital clock shown below in a 1975 picture.

1975Scoreboard

As you can see, this clock is just like Ahmed’s, just a lot bigger.  As you can see, there are students in the background, and they don’t appear to be freaking out because there’s a big homemade clock in the room.  The teacher wasn’t alarmed.  The principal wasn’t alarmed.  The police weren’t alarmed.  They realized that it was a homemade clock, built from plans in a magazine.  And even though it presumably had a much greater explosive potential than Ahmed’s clock, nobody was concerned.

In 1975, there was nothing wrong with a kid making something unusual and bringing it to school.  Today, a kid might get arrested for doing the same thing.  And it’s a damn shame.

Stop it, people.  Use a little bit of common sense for a change.

Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon



Ronald “Dutch” Reagan, WHO Radio, 1934

1934ReaganIn 1932, Ronald “Dutch” Reagan walked into WOC Radio in Davenport, Iowa, looking for a job as a sports announcer. He was given an audition at the conclusion of which he was told, “you get five dollars and bus fare to Iowa City. You’re doing the Iowa-Minnesota game.” (Minnesota won 21-6.)

WOC was co-channel with WHO in Des Moines, and the two stations were under the same ownership. When attempts at synchronous broadcasting proved unfruitful, WHO’s power was increased to 50,000 watts and operations took place from Des Moines. Reagan was transferred there in 1933, and worked for the station until 1937, eventually becoming sports director.

Here, Reagan’s photo and brief biography are as they appeared in the April 1934 issue of Radio Stars magazine.

References



America Needs You, Harry Truman/Mister, We Could Use a Man Like Herbert Hoover Again

Seventy years ago today, President Harry Truman sent this handwritten letter to former president Herbert Hoover, inviting him to come to the White House to discuss the brewing humanitarian crisis in Europe.  With the war in Europe over, the population would need to be fed.

As Hoover would put it the next year, “we do not want the American flag flying over nationwide Buchenwalds,”

In making this invitation, Truman set aside partisan differences to seek out the man with a proven record in fighting wartime hunger.  Both during and after the First World War, he had headed American relief efforts.  They started in 1914 assisting Americans who had found themselves stranded in Europe at the outbreak of war.  From his own resources, he made loans and cashed checks for Americans.  He went on to save millions of lives, first in Belgium, and then elsewhere in Europe at the war’s end.

It was a welcome change.  In the days following Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had summoned adviser Bernard Baruch and asked who was best fit to organize the home front.  Baruch quickly replied that Hoover would be best suited, but the suggestion was rebuffed.  Since Hoover was a convenient scapegoat throughout Roosevelt’s presidency, Roosevelt reportedly replied, “I’m not Jesus Christ. I’m not raising him from the dead.”

After Truman’s summons, Hoover approached the problem the same way he had approached it during and after the First World War, as an engineering problem.  He set out on a tour of Europe to determined the needs and resources of each country, and saw to it that resources were directed appropriately.

There was a lifetime friendship between the two presidents.  Truman spoke at the dedication of the Hoover presidential library in 1962 and told the crowd, “I feel sure that I am one of his closest friends and that’s the reason I am here.”  Later that year, Hoover wrote to Truman:

Yours has been a friendship which has reached deeper into my life than you know.  I gave up a successful profession in 1914 to enter public service. I served through the First World War and after for a total of about 18 years. When the attack on Pearl Harbor came, I at once supported the President and offered to serve in any useful capacity. Because of my various experiences . . . I thought my services might again be useful, however there was no response. My activities in the Second World War were limited to frequent requests from Congressional committees. When you came to the White House, within a month you opened a door to me to the only profession I know, public service, and you undid some disgraceful action that had been taken in prior years.

Truman had the letter framed and placed on his desk at the Truman library.

Harry, is there something we can do to save the land we love?

References

Read More at Amazon

Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon

 



March 8, 1965: Vietnam War and Civil Rights

MilwJournal030865

Fifty years ago today, it was anything but a slow news day, as shown by the front page of the Milwaukee Journal, March 8, 1965.

In the left column, almost lost in the clutter, is an article with the headline, “US Marines Land at Base in S. Vietnam,” which reported that 3500 U.S. Marines from the Third Marine Division at Okinawa had landed at Da Nang, or were in the process of arriving. This marked a major escalation in U.S. involvement in the war. In 1964, there were about 16,500 American servicemen in Vietnam. The March 2 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks at Pleiku marked the initiation of a three year bombing campaign, and a rapid escalation of U.S. forces on the ground. These 3500 Marines arrived on March 8, marking the beginning of the ground war. At the time, U.S. public opinion overwhelmingly supported their deployment. By the end of 1965, there were 200,000 U.S. servicemen in Vietnam.

"Bloody Sunday" in Selma, AL, March 7, 1965. Wikipedia photo.

“Bloody Sunday” in Selma, AL, March 7, 1965. Wikipedia photo.

But the escalation of the war was dwarfed by other news. The photo shows not fighting in Vietnam, but on the streets of Selma, Alabama. According to the caption of the UPI photo, it shows “charging Alabama state troopers passing fallen Negroes on the median strip after the troopers, acting on orders of Gov. George Wallace, broke up a march with clubs and tear gas. The Negroes had planned to march to the state capitol.” The article notes that the march consisted of “600 praying Negroes” and had been “broken up by Alabama state troopers and deputies who used clubs, whips, ropes and tear gas. Sixty-seven Negroes were injured.” An FBI agent filming the troopers was also injured after being attacked by a group of white civilians.

The paper reported that the National Council of Churches had called upon Christians throughout the nation to join the demonstrators in another march scheduled for the following day. Catholic authorities were conferring on a plea from Rev. Martin Luther King and promised a statement as well. Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations also announced that he planned to attend the march.

A number of race-related decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court were announced in the paper. The banner headline went to announcing the decision in Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965). Louisiana had vested in its election registrars virtually unbridled discretion in administering an “interpretation test” to prospective voters. Under the state law, in order to register, a voter was required to read, “be able to understand” and “give a reasonable interpretation” of any section of the state of federal constitution. According to the Court, there was ample evidence that the provision was used as a ruse to deprive otherwise eligible African-American voters of the right to vote. The court noted that “colored people, even some with the most advanced education and scholarship, were declared by voting registrars with less education to have an unsatisfactory understanding of the Constitution of Louisiana or of the United States. This is not a test but a trap, sufficient to stop even the most brilliant man on his way to the voting booth.”

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the district court’s striking down of this provision.

The front page also contained an editorial stressing the importance of voting in a school board primary to be held the following day. To drive home the importance, the front page cartoon shows a stereotypical southern politician addressing a group of African-Americans protesting for voting rights. He’s telling them: “What you all fussin’ for? Lots of white folks up north don’t think voting’s important.” And he was probably right. The paper notes that only 11% of registered voters bothered going to the polls in the 1963 primary.

Finally, the paper reported that President Johnson had asked congress for help in the “War on Crime.” He asked for a ban on mail-order firearms, tighter control over drugs, and for provisions to “strengthen safety in the streets” with “development and testing of experimental methods of crime control.”



Fare For All: A Nonprofit that Makes Cents

Review of Fare For All

For those of you who were following me during the SNAP Challenge, you recall that I ate for a week with less than $31.50 per week in groceries, the average amount received by SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamp) recipients.  It wasn’t particularly difficult, but you undoubtedly noticed that I didn’t have much in the way of meat, and I didn’t have any fresh produce.   This year, that was even more true, since I relied almost entirely on foods that could be used for emergency food storage.  But even the previous year, when I had the run of the supermarket, these items were mostly lacking, simply because they were too expensive.  People having to feed themselves on a tight budget often can’t afford these items.

FareForAllI recently became aware, however, of a non-profit organization called Fare for All.  They are part of The Food Group,  formerly known as Emergency Foodshelf Network.  But Fare for All is not a foodshelf.  They are more like a cooperative that purchases food wholesale and sells it to the public.  They rely on volunteers, and they have distribution locations at neighborhood locations such as churches and community centers.  Each month, they put together pre-packaged baskets of food which they sell at a fixed price.  The exact contents of these baskets vary from month to month.  They have two main products.  The first is a produce package consisting of fresh fruits and vegetables, which sells for $10.    The second is a meat package consisting of about four meat and fish items, which sells for $11.  If someone buys both packages together, the total price is discounted to $20.

Here are the two packages that were for sale this month.  First, here is the $10 produce package:

20150217_161854

I didn’t price this at the supermarket, but it seems like it would cost considerably more than $10.  (The large loaf of bread shown to the right is also included for those purchasing both packages together.)

The $11 meat package is shown below.  It consists of turkey sausage (about 13 ounces), frozen fish, chicken breasts, and frozen meatballs.

20150217_161132

Some months, additional items are available.  For example, in November and December, they have holiday packages containing a turkey or ham, as well as other items, for $30.  They apparently had some left over, and were selling them this month for $27.  In addition to the ham, they included a whole chicken and some other items.

20150217_162404

I decided to check them out today, so I visited one of their distribution sites to buy some of their food.  Of course, I was already thinking the question that they probably get asked a lot, since it’s on their FAQ’s:

Q: If I purchase food through this program, am I taking away food from someone else who may need it more than I do?

A: Absolutely not. The more people who participate in Fare For All, the more purchasing power the program has. This means that greater savings will be passed onto our customers.

Emboldened by this reassurance, I decided to give them a try.  I purchased the items shown above:  One produce pack, one meat pack, and one holiday pack.  The total was $47.

The process is quite simple.  Their website lists their sites and gives the dates and times.  Most of the locations are open one day a month for about two hours.  Most are during the day, but some are evenings.  They have about 30 sites in the Twin Cities and outlying areas.  The closest one to me was Real Life Church in Roseville, although there are others that are conveniently located in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and suburbs.  That church appears to be affiliated with the Assemblies of God, but the distribution event was not in any way geared toward proselytizing.   In fact, the volunteer I spoke with wasn’t affiliated with the church himself.  The church appears to serve mostly as a location for the distribution.

The event began at 3:00, and I arrived at about 3:30.  There was a short line, but I only had to wait about five minutes.  Samples and photos of the various baskets are displayed, and you pick out which package(s) you want.  At the end of the line, you pay, and you’re given a ticket which you hand to another volunteer.  (They accept cash, credit and debit cards, and EBT cards.)  The volunteer then loads up your cart, and another volunteer helps you take it to your car.

You get your food in a sealed box, so I was slightly skeptical that the produce inside might be blemished somehow.  But it wasn’t, as you can see from the photos above.  They look like the same ones I would have picked out from the display at the supermarket.  The only difference seems to be the price.

On the way out, those making a purchase above a certain amount pick out a free loaf of bread.

Overall, this program performs a very real service to the community:  It makes high-quality food available to all at a reasonable price.  Furthermore, I’ve only been able to find one negative thing said about Fare For All.  A 2012 Pioneer Press article contains reports from a few naysayers who believe that this is unfair competition to retailers.  They don’t mind poor people buying food from a nonprofit, but they think that people should have to qualify by being poor enough.

I don’t think that criticism is well founded.  Fare for All does have a clear price advantage.  But retailers can still compete easily, because of wider selection, more convenient hours, and any other advantage they can think of.  For-profit corporations are quick to point out that a nonprofit such as Fare For All is tax exempt.  However, a for-profit corporation pays income taxes only on its profits.  If a cooperative organization voluntarily decides to operate on a non-profit basis, there are no profits to tax.  Grocery stores pay property taxes, but since Fare For All is operating from its locations only a few hours a month, any lost property tax revenue is minuscule.

It seems to me that there are some great advantages of having this program open to everyone, regardless of need.  First of all, there is absolutely no stigma associated with it.  I have no idea whether the other people in line were low income persons who desperately needed the food, or whether they are simply taking advantage of the reasonable price.  I assume most were in the latter category.

And more importantly, having the program open to all makes the program more economical for everyone.  As the Fare For All website points out, the additional buying power benefits everyone.  If nonprofits were required to “stick to helping the needy,” as one critic said they should, this would actually add more costs, as the nonprofit would have to verify need.  The end result would be that the truly needy would receive less and pay more.

With its current model, it seems to me that Fare For All is a win-win situation for all.

 

Samaritan Ministries: An Alternative to Obamacare

Joining the Ranks of the Uninsured

My wife was recently informed that as of January 1, she will no longer have health coverage through work. Ironically enough, she works for a hospital. We were instead encouraged to go to the MnSure website (Minnesota’s brand of Obamacare) to purchase coverage there.

What Obamacare Has To Offer

Healthcare.govLogoThe least expensive policy there has a $589.40 monthly premium for a UCare plan with a $10,000 deductible and $13,200 maximum out of pocket. While a handful of preventitive services would be covered at no cost, with the $10,000 deductible, it’s unlikely that we would ever make a claim. In other words, in addition to paying over $7000 per year in insurance premiums, we would still have to pay whatever medical bills we incurred throughout the year (unless, of course, we were “lucky” enough to have more than $10,000 in medical bills). In short, this is no different from a traditional major medical policy, other than the premiums being an order of magnitude higher.

The plan with the lowest deductible of $0, but with a maximum out of pocket of $12,000, from BlueCross BlueShield, had a monthly premium of $1183.81. Presumably, by paying over $14,000 in premiums in the course of a year, most bills would be covered, but there’s still the possibility of having to pay an additional $12,000 out of pocket.

Neither option is “affordable.” Therefore, as of January 1, my family will no longer have health insurance coverage. As a direct result of the so-called Affordable Care Act, my family can’t afford health insurance.

Exploring the Exemptions:  Becoming a Hardship Case

PowerMeterFortunately, there’s a silver lining, since this allowed us to explore other options. There are exemptions to the Affordable Care Act.  For example, you’re not liable for the penalty if you can come up with a disconnection notice from a utility company. This could be arranged with little difficulty, although it’s problematic for a couple of reasons. First of all, the exemption appears to be available only for the “month of the hardship” as well as the months before and after. So to take full advantage of this loophole, I would need to pay the electric bill in such a way as to receive a total of four disconnection notices over the course of a year.  This would entail a lot of careful planning, as well as hoping that the friendly electric utility would send the required disconnection notice on time.  If I accidentally paid the electric bill on time, we would be liable to the penalty for not having insurance.  And it seems unfair to the electric company to make them do this additional work in order to satisfy the requirements of the health insurance industry.

But most importantly, even though we might avoid the fine, we would still be without health coverage. So taking advantage of the hardship exemption doesn’t seem like a very good plan.

A Better Alternative: A Health Sharing Ministry

CrossClipartA more prudent exemption is for “a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry.” More background information about this option can be found at the following links:

Under the Affordable Care Act, for this exemption to apply, the organization must have been in existence since at least December 31, 1999, and the members must share common ethical or religious beliefs. Because of this requirement, it’s apparently impossible for a new health care sharing ministry to be formed. All of the existing ones appear to be Christian organizations.

Why This is Unfair to Other Faiths

StarOfDavidClipartFrankly, this is unfair to members of other faiths. It seems to me that persons of faiths other than Christianity ought to be able to participate in such an organization. Unfortunately, none exist.  The remedy, it seems to me, is to eliminate the December 31, 1999, requirement, so that members of other faiths can form such organizations if they desire to do so.  For that reason, I would strongly support a change in the law to remove this requirement. But as far as I know, the only ministries that were established as of the magic date of December 31, 1999, were Christian. Fortunately, we happen to be Christian, and were thus eligible to join any of the existing ministries.

The Three Eligible Ministries and How They Work

The only three eligible organizations appear to be:

Each of these organizations has a statement of faith expressed in general enough terms that a member of any Christian denomination should be able to subscribe in good conscience.

All of these organizations operate under the same general principles. First, they all go to great lengths to stress the fact that they do not offer insurance. And, indeed, they do not. Instead, they operate on the principle under which insurance was originally based: The members agree to assist the other members in time of need, both spiritually and materially. If someone gets sick, the other members are asked to pray for that person. And the other members are also asked to help them pay their medical bills.

Premiums are not collected up front, as in the case of insurance. Instead, when someone has a medical need, they submit it to the other members. And then the other members contribute money to meet that need, in addition to offering prayers and encouragement. As far as I can tell, the other members have no legal obligation to help with the need. Instead, the members of the ministry simply rely upon the other members, knowing that those other members will turn to them in their own time of need.

How Samaritan Works

SamaritanLogoAfter studying these organizations, we decided to join Samaritan Ministries, and our membership takes effect on January 1, the day after our insurance ends.  The different organizations work somewhat differently, but here is how Samaritan Ministries works:

If you’re sick, you simply go to the doctor and explain that you’ll be paying yourself, and you make payment arrangements, whether that is cash at the time of service, charging it to a credit card, or making payment arrangements. Because no insurance company will be involved in the process, it is up to the patient to shop around for a reasonable price. (Assistance in that regard is offered, however, if needed.)

For small medical bills (basically, under $300 per incident) that’s the end of it. In other words, if I have a cold and decide to go to the doctor, I’ll make an appointment at the doctor of my choice, see him or her, and pay the bill. Perhaps I’ll pay $50 for the visit. If I’m quoted a price that’s too high, then I’ll go elsewhere.

In other words, it’s similar to what would happen if I had the $589.40 per month plan. I go to the doctor and pay the full bill. The only difference is that if I have the $589.40 per month plan, I probably don’t have any opportunity to negotiate. Perhaps UCare negotiated a better deal, and I would only have to pay $40 if I showed my UCare card. If that’s the case, then I’m out $10 for not forking over my $589.40.

On the other hand, perhaps UCare didn’t negotiate a better price. Perhaps they negotiated a price of $60 for the visit. If that’s the case, then my $589.40 per month premium actually results in my paying $10 more at the time of service.  Either way, for small medical needs, I’m not getting much if any value from my $589.40 premium.

Of course, I would be better off if I had signed up for the $1183.81 per month plan from BlueCross. If I had that plan (assuming I showed up at the right clinic, of course), then I wouldn’t have to worry about paying $50 for my cold. But it seems to me that I’m probably not going to have enough colds in any given month to cover the $1183.81 premium. Even if I have one cold per month, I’m still out $1133.81.

If my bill for a particular episode is $300 or less, that’s how it works. I don’t submit any claims anywhere; I simply pay them. While paying $300 wouldn’t be pleasant, this will not bankrupt me. What would bankrupt me would be paying the $1183.81 in an effort to avoid paying the $300.

If my bill hits $300, this is where Samaritan Ministries will help me. So instead of a cold, let’s assume that I have a heart attack. I assume that the going price for treating a heart is more than $300.

Once again, I tell the doctor that I’m a self-pay customer and that he or she should send me a bill.  (Or, more likely, the people who rush me to the hospital share this information.)  When I get home, I receive the bill for $100,000, an amount that would bankrupt me. Since I’m busy recuperating from my heart attack, I call Samaritan and ask them to help me deal with it. At that point, they do two things. First of all, they help me negotiate the bill down if appropriate. Then, they send my name and address to one or more other members, and ask those members to pray for me and send me $99,700 ($100,000, minus my $300 responsibility, minus anything they negotiated off the bill). The maximum amount paid by any given member is $405 per month. So in this hypothetical, I’ll receive more than 246 individual checks, payable to me, with a grand total of $99,700. As far as I can tell, the minor annoyance of having to deposit all of those individual checks is about the only downside of this approach. And it seems to me that this minor annoyance is offset by the knowledge that these 246 people are also praying for my speedy recovery.

More likely, any use we make of this service will be for more modest amounts. For example, if we have a medical bill of $1000, and Samaritan is able to negotiate it down to $800, then we will get $700 from fellow members and be responsible for $100 ourselves. Had we signed up for the $1183.81 per month plan, we would not have had to pay this $100 (assuming, of course, that we showed up at the right clinic). If we had signed up for the $589.40 per month plan, then we would have to pay the full $1000 out of pocket.

In short, given almost any plausible scenario, we’re way ahead of the game by using Samaritan. While we didn’t explore them as deeply, it appears that we would have similar savings with one of the other two ministries.

In return for this, we agree to pay up to $405 per month to other members. Once per year, this money is instead sent to Samaritan’s administrative office, meaning that they take 1/12 (about 8%) to cover administrative expenses. I suspect that this is far below the administrative expenses of any insurance company. Other months, we’ll be given the name and address of one or more other members, and will be instructed to send our $405 directly to them, along with our prayers and encouragement. For the last two months, medical needs have apparently been lower than expected, so for the last two months, members have actually sent less than the normal $405 per month. Apparently, the monthly amount used to be $355 but recently increased to $405. But in the last two months, there was, in effect, a discount on what members had to pay, and they did not pay the full $405.

This basic plan covers medical needs of up to $250,000. For amounts in excess of that, there is an option to participate in another program. Members are asked to set aside another amount (about $400 per year) and share that amount in case another member experiences a catastrophic need in excess of the basic $250,000. We opted to participate in that program as well.

How Much It Costs

The basic membership in our case, for a family of three or more, is a commitment of $405 per month. Most months, we will expect to send that amount to other members (although some months, such as the last two, the actual amount will be less). For a single person, the monthly share is $180. For a couple, it is $360. For a single parent and child(ren), it is $250. Rates are slightly lower for young adults under 25 years of age.

In addition to these fees, there is a $200 initial membership fee, and a $15 annual fee for participation in the over $250,000 plan.

If we’re lucky, we’ll spend $405 per month, and never be reimbursed for any of our own medical needs. But if we do have a medical need, what Samaritan offers seems vastly superior to anything that MNSure has to offer. I will periodically update as to our experiences with Samaritan Ministries. All of the reviews I’ve read from other members have been positive. Even though it is not insurance, what Samaritan Ministries offers is more like what insurance was originally intended to be, before people realized that they could make a profit by selling it.

Asking a Favor of You

Finally, if you do decide to sign up for Samaritan Ministries, I would appreciate if you would indicate on your application form  that I referred you. There’s a box where you can check how you learned about Samaritan. If my information proved helpful, I would appreciate if you would include my name, Richard Clem. On the first page, you can check the box “Friend/referral (somebody told me)” and/or “Internet,” and write in my name. In the interest of full disclosure, if you do include my name as a referral, then I will receive a credit of $180.

And if one of the other ministries fits your needs better, then I encourage you to join them.  The other two could very well work out better for some people.  Do your homework and join the one that best meets your needs.  But if Samaritan is the one for you, then I would appreciate if you would list me as having referred you.

Before making a decision, I encourage you to carefully read Samaritan’s website, and ask them any questions you might have. If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask. Since our membership doesn’t take effect until January 1, we don’t yet have any personal experience. But I will update this page with the good and the bad. But for now, I see very little bad, and this does seem to be a good option for those who are truly concerned with health care being affordable.


Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon



Happy Franksgiving!

Today is the 75th anniversary of the first Franksgiving, November 23, 1939.  The following week, November 30, was Thanksgiving. Since Lincoln, Presidents had declared the last Thursday of November as Thanksgiving. Believing that the short span between Thanksgiving and Christmas would harm retail sales, President Franklin Roosevelt on October 31, 1939, declared that November 23 would be Thanksgiving. The battle lines were drawn. Democrats favored the switch, 52% to 48%. Republicans opposed it 79% to 21%. It was up to state governments to set the actual day during which state employees would be off work, and the actual holiday varied throughout the country. Franklin Roosevelt’s new holiday was quickly dubbed Franksgiving.

Fortunately for the nation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that the nation’s turkey crop was “the largest crop in turkey history.” For those families, such as the one shown here, who wished to be non-partisan and celebrate both days, the bounty of the harvest would be able to provide. The caption of this photo notes that “to the children in the household, two Thanksgivings spell double delight, perhaps two turkeys, and tables loaded with cranberries, pies and fruits.”

 


Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon



Is Reporter Jay Kolls a Racist?

Minneapolis mayor either "flashing a known gang sign" or "pointing." KSTP photo.

Minneapolis mayor either “flashing a known gang sign” or “pointing.” KSTP photo.

By now, we have all seen KSTP reporter Jay Kolls story about “a photo of Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges posing with a convicted felon while flashing a known gang sign.”

The conventional wisdom is that the mayor was  merely pointing at the person, and I tend to agree with that interpretation of the picture. And since the convicted felon in question is African-American, the conventional wisdom, is also that Kolls and KSTP are racist.

Before we decide whether Jay Kolls is racist, we need to first figure out whether you and I are racist.  I’m a white Republican, so presumably, I’m the last person who can provide good information about racism. On top of that, I have the distinction of having gone through 13 years of the Minneapolis Public Schools during a time in which I encountered exactly one (1) fellow student who was African-American. And it turns out she was adopted. In short, I’m the kind of person one can probably count upon to be racist.

It turns out I am a racist. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen to me, because you’re probably a racist too.

When I say that I’m a racist, I guess it’s important to give a little bit of definition. It can mean two things. It can mean that I am hateful toward certain people because of their race. That definition doesn’t fit me, and it probably doesn’t fit you. There are a handful of people who fit that definition, and anything I say or anything you say won’t make much difference. Fortunately, in my experience, there are very few people who fit into that category. They’re probably a lost cause, and there’s not much you and I can do to change them.

I’m not that kind of racist, and neither are you. But I do make judgments about people based on their race, and so do you. I’ve come to realize this over the last few years in my business as a Continuing Legal Education provider. Lawyers in most states need a certain number of hours of continuing legal education per year, and I provide those classes. In Minnesota, attorneys need two credits of “elimination of bias,” a subject I assumed that I was completely unqualified to teach. But I kept getting requests, since those were the credits that Minnesota attorneys needed. Finally, I put together a course, and I was hard pressed to fill up one hour with meaningful content. I found some reports prepared by the Minnesota Supreme Court, and we talked about them. Over the years of presenting this course, it has grown, and I can now easily discuss the subject for well over two hours. Everyone gets their full credit and they go away happy. And it turns out that they actually learn something in the process. But I probably learned more than they did.  learned that I’m a racist, and so are you.

This is a natural effect of my background, and it’s also a natural effect of your background. As noted above, I went through 13 years of school without encountering very many black students. I don’t remember the incident, but the first black person I met was apparently an emergency room physician when I was about four years old. I got my head cracked open (which some say explains many things), and I was rushed to the emergency room to have it stitched back together. The doctor faced with the task of sewing me back together was black. My parents were horrified. They weren’t horrified because the doctor was black; they were horrified that I would blurt out something embarrassing, because I had never seen a black person before.  We didn’t have black people where we lived.

It turns out that I didn’t blurt out anything embarassing, and I apparently didn’t even notice. I was apparently too concerned with my injuries to notice the skin color of they guy sewing me back together. (I have reflected over the years that it was somewhat remarkable that a black man was a doctor in 1965. This took place in Indiana, and it was later explained to me that the doctor was probably from the South and went to school in the South, but had to move to Indiana in order to work as a doctor.)

My first real interaction with a black person was with my seventh grade math teacher. He was a pretty good teacher, and as I recall, he was one of my favorite teachers. And he was black. This was not a big deal to me at all, since I had been instructed, quite correctly, over the previous six years that I should not judge people by the color of their skin. But up until that point, a “black person” was a theoretical concept. I had seen black people on TV, but they were usually on TV only because they were black. They typically weren’t on TV for other reasons.  I remember a school assembly, which was probably in 1968, where our white teachers talked about a black man named Martin Luther King. They explained that he was a great man who got shot because he was black. I understood this at a theoretical level, and I knew that there was nothing wrong with black people, even though some people apparently thought that there was.

But until seventh grade, I never had any interaction with a black adult, and I had met only one other black student. I did learn that there were a handful of people who were hateful toward people of other races. One day, when another student was  annoyed with something the teacher had done, I heard her mutter under her breath, “dumb n—-.” I was shocked, because I had been told for six years that this was wrong.  I knew that there was one nutcase in Memphis who hated people because of the color of their skin, but it was rather shocking to know that one existed in person.  But that was the exception.  I’ve never met too many people like that.  Unfortunately, they’re probably a lost cause.

Even though I went to an all-white school in an all-white neighborhood, other than this single example, I never encountered a single person who was hateful toward other people because of the color of their skin. I’m sure there were other examples. And I’ve later heard of other examples right in my old neighborhood. But these were the exception. Most people didn’t hate other people. I certainly didn’t.  And I doubt if you do.

But I just told you that I was a racist and that you’re a racist. How to I reconcile this contradiction?

One of the lawyers who took my CLE program related a story about what happened to him in court, and I think it illustrates perfectly why I am a racist. He was in court before a judge, and I think he would attest to the fact that the judge in the case was not racist, in the sense of having any hateful attitudes toward anyone. But she did something that I’m quite certain was motivated by the same racism that I have and that you probably have.

Not surprisingly, in court proceedings, tempers can occasionally flare. When they do, the judge typically gets things back on track by sternly admonishing the people involved. If things get really out of hand, then the judge might impose some sanctions. But generally, a scolding does the trick. This lawyer described an incident that’s not particularly extraordinary. The opposing lawyer was questioning a witness, didn’t like the answers he was getting, and was getting angry. At one point, he reached across the table and grabbed the papers that the witness was consulting. Needless to say, this isn’t the correct procedure. The attorney I know reacted by standing up and shouting something, and probably grabbing for the papers to give back to his client.

The judge’s life experience probably included many situations where two angry lawyers were arguing with each other. Normally, she probably would have done something like say, “gentlemen, stop that!” If it was particularly bad, perhaps she would have held one of them in contempt and leveled a fine. She would have known what to do, because she’s seen angry lawyers before, and knows what to do in order to cool them off.  That’s just part of her life experience.

But this wasn’t an ordinary case of two men being angry. It was a case of two angry black men. And to make matters worse, it was two big angry black men. And everyone else in the room was black.

She had probably never encountered this situation before: Two angry black men shouting at each other in a room where she was the only white person. Or even worse, she did have experience (perhaps just from watching TV) with angry black people shouting at each other. From her experience, she knew that this sort of thing usually turned violent. That’s a perfectly logical conclusion: Every time she has seen angry black people before, it turned violent. She had previously seen angry white people calm down.  She had never seen an angry black person calm down.

So she did exactly what I probably would have done. She did the racist thing. She pushed the “panic button” and quickly exited the room. Armed bailiffs quickly took her place and restored order.  She wouldn’t have pushed the panic button on two white lawyers.  So she must be racist, just like me.

She made a judgment based on her experience, and her judgment was probably the same one I would have made. After all, she is racist, and so am I. I don’t have much experience with angry black people, other than what I see on TV. After all, I spent the first 18 years of my life not having any black peers. I had two black teachers, but teachers don’t shout at one another. So I have absolutely no experience with how black people calm down after being angry. I simply don’t have a large enough data set to make any meaningful conclusions. I have to resort to the very limited experience I have. So if I were the judge and two angry big black lawyers were shouting at one another, I would press the panic button. But since I have a lot of experience with angry white people, I wouldn’t push the button. In my experience, angry white people rarely resort to violence.

So we can safely conclude that the judge in that case was racist, and we can safely conclude that I am a racist. I’m not a hateful person, and I doubt if the judge was either. We simply make judgments based on what we observe, and based upon our personal experiences.

We now turn to the photo of the mayor of Minneapolis and an African-American man. After giving the matter a little thought, I have come to the conclusion that the two are engaged in a behavior known as “pointing at one another.” I have noticed that politicians like to point at people. For example, when I saw Sen. Dave Thompson at the State Fair, I waved at him. Since he’s a politician, he did what politicians often do:  He pointed at me. Other politicians have pointed at me, and I’ve seen politicians point at other people. If a photographer had captured a picture of Sen. Thompson and me, there would be little doubt about what was going on. Everyone would agree that he was pointing at me. It wouldn’t be particularly newsworthy, because we’re all used to seeing white people point at other white people.

But when I first saw the picture of the mayor pointing at an anonymous black person, that wasn’t my first reaction. My first reaction was, indeed, that she was foolishly “flashing a gang sign.” I had this reaction because I was a racist, in the sense that I have no experience (certainly no experience in the first 18 years of my life) of black people pointing at one another. My only experience with black people using hand gestures is what I’ve seen on TV. So I used my experience to judge the situation, and I quickly came to the conclusion that she was “flashing a gang sign,” probably after having been goaded into doing so.

It turns out I was wrong, but that was my initial reaction. I thought it was a gang sign, because I’m racist. I would have pushed the panic button in the courtroom, because I’m racist. So it is indeed a correct conclusion if you say that the judge was racist, or that KSTP was racist, or that Jay Kolls was racist, or that I am racist.

But it’s a big mistake to stop there. Because it’s safe to say that you are also racist. You have your own life experiences, and you also use those life experiences to make judgments. Usually, those judgments are correct, but sometimes they are wrong. And because your experiences are skewed toward those of your one race, this means that some of your judgments are racist. You’re not evil and you’re not hateful. But you are racist. Therefore, very little is accomplished by simply branding me, or KSTP, or Jay Kolls as being racist. Very little is accomplished by lumping us in with the guy who shot Martin Luther King or even the kid who muttered “dumb n—–” about the teacher.

If you want to hear more, feel free to download the podcasts of my “elimination of bias” CLE program. If you’re a lawyer, you can get 2 CLE credits for $20. But there’s no cost to listen to the podcast.


Can You Vote Before Your 18th Birthday? Maybe

Wisconsin teen Zachary Ziolkowski won’t be allowed to allowed to vote Tuesday, since his 18th birthday is Wednesday. Most comments that I’ve seen online have been critical of the teen for even trying, and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board ruled against him. But he has a credible argument.

The 27th Amendment states that “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” And Wisconsin Statute 6.02 provides that “every U.S. citizen age 18 or older who has resided in an election district or ward for 28 consecutive days before any election where the citizen offers to vote is an eligible elector.” Section 6.05 goes on to say that this means “any person who will be 18 years old on or before election.

But, you say, Mr. Ziolkowski doesn’t “turn 18” until the day after the election. After all, he won’t get a birthday cake until Wednesday, November 5, and his birth certificate apparently says that he came into the world on November 5, 1996.

Of course, the matter is further complicated by the fact that most people are not born at the stroke of midnight. If someone was born at 12:01 AM on November 4, 1996, then there is no question that they are 18 years old on election day. If the polls open at 8:00, then they are 18 years and 7 hours old, clearly old enough to vote. But what about the prospective voter who was born at 11:59 PM? That person, even if they show up at closing time, has not been around for eighteen years. They are only 17 years, 364 days, and 20 hours old.

Most people would recognize that the kid born at 11:59 PM has the right to vote. Mathematically, that person is not 18 years old. But we need to draw the line somewhere, and most people assume that we draw the line with the birthday: When you wake up on your 18th birthday, you are 18 years old. That’s where the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board decided to draw the line.

But Mr. Ziolkowski has a pretty credible argument that the line should be drawn elsewhere. And the Social Security Administration, among others, agreed with him when it was called upon to decide whether a girl was entitled to social security benefits for the month of November 1962. The girl was born on December 1, 1944, and “turned 18,” under the common parlance, on December 1, 1962. She was collecting death benefits until 18. She was 17 years old the entire month of November, so one would think that she should collect benefits for that month. But the Social Security Administration ruled against her. It held that “a person attains a given age on the day before his corresponding birthday, i.e., the anniversary of his birth corresponding to that age.” In this case, the girl attained the age of 18 on November 30, the day before her birthday. Therefore, she was not entitled to benefits for November.  (Lest you think the government was being heartless to the poor girl, they recognized that the same rule should apply for the more common situation of calculating when benefits start, which they noted would be the day before the retiree’s 62nd birthday.)

The Social Security Administration noted that this rule “has been applied consistently by the courts.” It also noted that the rule was cited by both Blackstone and Kent. Interestingly, Blackstone’s phraseology is somewhat ambiguous:

So that full age in male or female is twenty-one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniversary of a person’s birth, who till that time is an infant, and so styled in law.

Blackstone’s Commentaries, page 92 (1915 edition)

Kent puts it this way: “The age of twenty-one is the period of majority … and that age is completed on the beginning of the day preceeding the anniversary of the person’s birth.”
Kent’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, page 265 (1860 edition).  Kent cites four cases for this proposition, two British cases and two American cases:

Anon. 1 Salk. 44. 1 Ld. Raym. 480, Sir Robert Howard’s case, 2 Salk. Rep.. 625, Hamlin v. Stevenson, 4 Dana’s Kentucky Rep. 597, and State v. Clarke, 3 Harr. Del. R. 557.

I didn’t find the full text of any of these cases online, but there is a nice summary of the Hamlin v. Stevenson case available here:

Stevenson owed Hamlin a sum of money which he refused to pay. Hamlin who was still an infant started this action against Stevenson to recover the debt. Stevenson had no real defense on the suit and so filed a dilatory defense to the effect that Hamlin was an infant and therefore ought to bring suit by a “next friend” according to the requirements of the court. It happened that Stevenson made this plea on the day preceding Hamlin’s twenty-first birthday and this was also the day of the trial. The question at issue was whether Hamlin had reached his majority on that day. Chief Justice Robertson gave the opinion of the Court: “It is the common law that a person is twentyone years old on the day preceding the twenty-first anniversary of his birth. Therefore, Hamlin was of age on the day when the plea was filed, and when the issue upon it was tried. Consequently he had the right to prosecute the suit in his own name without the intervention of a friend.

The Social Security Administration’s decision also cited two American cases, both of which are available online, United States v. Wright, 197 Fed. 297 (8th Cir. 1912), and Frost v. State, 45 So. 203 (Ala. 1907).  The Wright case states the rule very clearly, “an infant becomes of full age the first moment of the day before his twenty-first anniversary.”

It’s not surprising that Mr. Ziolkowski’s father happens to be an attorney. But according to the news item, he learned about the old common-law rule ” in his high school business law class.” At it certainly looks like he’s absolutely right.

The Wisconsin Legislature could have used the word “birthday” in the election statutes but did not do so. Elsewhere in the Wisconsin Statutes, the Legislature does use the word “birthday.” For example, under Wisconsin Statutes 938.18, a juvenile can be tried as an adult in certain cases when the offense took place “on or after the juvenile’s 15th birthday.” There’s a strong argument to be made that the phrase “age 18 or older” in the statute should be interpreted under the common law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has stated:

A statute does not change the common law unless the legislative purpose to do so is clearly expressed in the language of the statute. Id. To accomplish a change in the common law, the language of the statute must be clear, unambiguous, and peremptory.

Fuchsgruber v. Custom Accessories, Inc., 244 Wis.2d 758, 2001 WI 81, 628 N.W.2d 833 (2001).

Also, this isn’t really an issue of Wisconsin state law. As noted above, 18 year olds have the right to vote under the federal constitution. So the federal interpretation, such as that made by the Social Security Administration, seems compelling.

I’ll be an election judge in Minnesota on Tuesday. If you were born on November 5, 1996, and you walk into my precinct, this is above my pay grade. I’m going to call the county before I hand you a ballot. But I hope they say yes.

For further complications involving people who cross the International Date Line, there is a fictional case discussing the subject.  I believe it was in the book More Uncommon Law, but it might have been in the first volume, Uncommon Law: Being 66 Misleading Cases.



Debt Collection Firm Messerli & Kramer Gives $1000 to Rep. Alice Hausman

This 1833 Democratic cartoon shows Democrat Andrew Jackson destroying the Devil's Bank. Times have changed. Wikipedia Illustration.

This 1833 Democratic cartoon shows Democrat Andrew Jackson destroying the Devil’s Bank. Times have changed. Wikipedia Illustration.

Even though I’ve always been a Republican, I always believed that most Democrats want to “stand up for the little guy.”  Their policies actually hurt the little guy, but at least their heart is in the right place, and their motives are pure. Or so I used to believe.

Maybe that’s still true of some Democrats, but it’s becoming less and less common. I first realized this when I started to see how many ties there were between big business and the Democrats. At first, I dismissed this as “country club liberalism.” So the argument goes, the wealthy feel guilty about their ill-gotten lucre, and to atone for their sins, they support liberal causes. But then, I started to notice that it’s generally the biggest of the big that benefit from Democratic policies. If you’re a large bank or a large insurance company, or even a large polluter, you’re well capitalized, and you can bear the regulatory burdens as a cost of doing business, and then simply pass those costs on to your customers.

But if you’re a small bank, or a small insurance company, or even a small polluter, you don’t have sufficient capital to bear those regulatory burdens. As a result, you go out of business. Or, if you’re lucky, one of your well capitalized competitors buys you out. To your former competitors, the regulatory burdens are a non-issue. They simply pass those costs along to their customers. And now, as an added bonus, they don’t have to worry about competition.

This point was driven home to me when I recently happened to look at the Campaign Finance reports filed this year by my legislator, Rep. Alice Hausman. I happened to be looking at those reports because of an address mix-up, as I previously reported on this blog.

According to Rep. Hausman’s campaign website, the legislator believes in “investing in hard-working families and middle-class Minnesotans.” She believes in a livable wage, affordable housing, and, ironically enough, relieving the burden of debt on college students.  Her legislative website contains a press release about fighting financial scams.

In short, she has concern for the little person, she recognizes the burden of debt, and she’s worried about financial scams.  But one incongruous name kept showing up on her campaign finance reports, that of law firm Messerli & Kramer. In 2014, she received a contribution of $250 from Messerli & Kramer lobbyist John Apitz. During 2013, Apitz had also contributed another $250, and Messerli & Kramer lobbyist Ross E. Kramer contributed $250. In addition, the Messerli & Kramer Political Action Committee had donated  $250 to her campaign coffers. So in just over 18 months, the law firm was responsible for a thousand dollars in the legislator’s war chest.

A lot of little people probably recognize the name Messerli & Kramer.  They’re very likely to recognize that name if they are worried about financial scams or the burden of debt, because Messerli & Kramer is one of the state’s largest debt collectors.  And they’ve been called on the carpet many times for their practices in collecting those debts.

Like any other business, Messerli & Kramer  has a right to give money to politicians. The Citizens United case makes clear that they have that right.  But the name stands out like a sore thumb in support of someone who supposedly supports the little guy.

Messerli & Kramer is a prestigious law firm with offices in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Milwaukee.  Most little people don’t know the names of prestigious law firms, but anyone in Minnesota who has gotten behind on a car payment or a credit card bill probably knows the name Messerli & Kramer, since the firm’s Plymouth office operates a high-volume debt collection practice. In fact, because the firm does such a high volume of business, it has resorted to outsourcing to a company in Birmingham, Alabama, simply to mail out the huge volume of correspondence.  They send out so many collection letters that their own office can’t handle the volume.

My personal involvement with Messerli & Kramer dates back to 2002 when I was hired by a woman who needed to sort out a mess involving her Discover Credit Card. She was being sued in Anoka County, and Discover was represented by that friend of the little guy, Messerli & Kramer. I was appalled by the tactics employed by Messerli & Kramer. Messerli and Kramer attorneys made false statements in an affidavit in order to obtain a default judgment. I had to go to court and get the default judgment set aside. Then, Messerli & Kramer failed to properly respond to discovery.  The judge in the case, District Judge Sharon Hall, found that the plaintiff offered an affidavit containing false statements, failed to comply with court rules, and failed to cooperate in the discovery process.

Judge Hall set aside the default judgment, and held that the firm’s misconduct was so egregious as to warrant simply tossing out the plaintiff’s case. She also awarded my attorney fees.

Dissatisfied with this turn of events, Messerli & Kramer took the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and awarded my attorney fees on appeal.

In 2007, the Minnesota Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Messerli and Kramer. The state’s 38-page complaint referred to my earlier case, as well as numerous other cases of misconduct by the law firm in its collection activities. That complaint noted that Messerli & Kramer is involved in the collection of student loan debt, the very burden that Rep. Hausman’s website professes concern.

Banks, credit card companies, and student loan lenders are entitled to legal representation. But Messerli & Kramer has a documented history of abuses in carrying out those representations.

Many middle-class Minnesotans instantly recognize the name of Messerli & Kramer. And if they live in Roseville, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, and St. Paul, they’re probably represented in the legislature by Rep. Alice Hausman. Can they turn to their legislator for support when abuses occur? Can they turn to the legislator who accepted a thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the very firm that is hounding them?

Unfortunately, voters in other districts encounter the same problem, and it doesn’t matter whether your representative is a Republican or a Democrat.  The Messerli and Kramer cash flows freely, and they’re happy to give money to Republicans as well as Democrats.  Messerli and Kramer’s political contributions can be found at FollowTheMoney.org,  That site reveals that over the last 18 years, they gave over a quarter of a million dollars to politicians, with little regard for the politician’s views.  Democrats seem to have received a slim majority of their cash, but Republicans are well represented as well.  In 2002, they gave to Republican Tim Pawlenty.  In 2014, they once again had the checkbook out, this time giving to Democrat incumbent Mark Dayton.

Not too surprisingly, back in 2002 (about the same time they were filing false affidavits in Anoka County), they also donated to Democrat Roger Moe, who was running against Pawlenty.  That same year, they donated to Rep. Rich Stanek, a Republican, who currently serves as the Hennepin County Sheriff, the guy who needs to execute the writs against the people that Messerli and Kramer is suing.

In 2006, they gave to ultra-conservative Republican Jim Abeler.  But political ideology didn’t stop them from giving.  The same year, they also donated to ultra-liberal Democrat Ellen Anderson.

Nobody has done anything illegal.  The Citizens United case gives them the right to give money to Representative Hausman, or to another politician with opposing views.  It even gives them the right to donate to both sides, which appears to be exactly what they are doing.  But the voters ought to know about it and decide in the polling place whether this is just plain wrong.

This post expresses the opinions of the author, Richard P. Clem, who prepared and paid for it.  This post is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.