“Covfefe” Carrier Jobs

Among emerging definitions of “covfefe,” one is “to be duped in a bargain; to posture without negotiating substance.”

On May 22^nd, the Carrier plant in Indianapolis announced it is laying off more than 600 employees.

Last fall, President Trump struck a deal with Carrier to save many of those jobs, but Carrier’s last week action nullifies that action.

This betrayal recalls Trump’s tweets as president-elect, e.g., “Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!”

In another post, Trump added, "If United Steelworkers 1999 was any good, they would have kept those jobs in Indiana. Spend more time working-less time talking. Reduce dues."

Wrong. And wrong. The real reason that Carrier is moving jobs it promised to keep in Indy? Covfefe. 

Violence at Elections: KKK and Gianforte

We’re a long way from voter intimidation perpetrated by the KKK and White League in the 1870s—but we’re moving in that direction.

First, there is the Trump fraud that voter rolls are padded with three million illegal voters. The immediate point is to undermine the popular vote that Clinton won. But the longer term goal is to suppress votes by blacks and Hispanics.

Now there is the violence piece. Greg Gianforte, as is now widely reported, thuggishly suggested earlier in the campaign that supporters outnumbered reporters. The clear implication was to intimidate reporters with mob violence. 

This follows a pattern established at Trump rallies of putting reporters in a cattle-type pen, a not-so-subtle visual cue aimed at equating the press with animals.

Today—against my objections— my wife tuned in Rush Limbaugh for a look-see. His first caller today waxed eloquent on his wish to donate to any and every candidate for office who physically assaults a reporter. Shame on WDWS for airing what sounded like an echo of Nazi exhortations to assault reporters.

Yes, we’re a long way from the KKK’s voter suppression tactics— but the following account from the Congressional Record in 1873 shows where we are headed. The author of this account is President U.S. Grant:

Prior to, and with a view to the late election in Louisiana, white men associated themselves together in armed bodies called  "White Leagues" and at the same time threats were made in the democratic journals of the State that the election should be carried against the republicans at all hazards very naturally greatly alarmed the colored voters. By section 8 of the act of February 28, 1871, it is made the duty of United States marshals and their deputies, at polls where votes are cast for Representatives in Congress, to keep the peace and prevent any violations of the so-called enforcement acts,…

  

Bravo UIUC: Confederate Flag Removed from Construction Site

 

           

The University of Illinois replied as follows to my formal complaint: “Professor LeRoy, I was just informed that the vehicle will not be onsite any longer.”

In brief, some thoughts:

…             Several other colleagues had reactions like mine. I appreciate hearing from them.

…             One person who handled my complaint referred to my being “offended by the Confederate flag.” No, it’s more. The flag is a symbol of bigotry, white supremacy, segregation, and hate.

…             If the driver parks his truck on a Champaign street (not a campus work site), the driver is perfectly within his rights to display his Confederate flag. That’s America. But these matters are as much about property rights as speech rights, a point that is often lost. Compare to our campus rule against guns, even though there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms.

…             “It’s my heritage.” So, let’s understand what is your heritage, exactly. Here is quote from Mayor Landrieu’s Speech on the Removal of Confederate Monuments in New Orleans (google it, it is outstanding): “The historic record is clear, the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This ‘cult’ had one goal — through monuments and through other means — to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity… It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America. They fought against it. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.”

…             I end with my personal plea to the owner of the truck: Your heritage is my heritage. We are Americans. If you want to display a flag, display the American flag. 

Trump “SNAPs” His Most Supportive State

There are many stories about how Pres. Trump’s budget proposal hurts his base. What makes this brief post different is its statistical focus on West Virginia—by key numbers.

Rank of West Virginia in Support for Trump: #1 (68.7%)

White Population in West Virginia: 1,718,777    (95.0%)

Number of food stamp recipients: 369,249 (19.96%)

The graph is provided by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. Economists at the bank have been tracking SNAP recipients by states. West Virginia (above) has seen an almost doubling of SNAP recipients since 2001, with an accelerated trend that seems attributable to Pres. Obama’s job-killing coal regulations. (PS: Historians debate whether Marie Antoinette ever said, "Let them eat cake.")

Do Contractors at the University of Illinois Have a Right to Display the Confederate Flag While Earning Money from Taxpayers?

The picture you see is a pickup truck that belongs to a contractor’s employee outside my building. I took the photo at 9:05 a.m. on May 23^rd.

The owner of this truck has a right to show a confederate flag on his truck.

His employer also has a right to fire him for displaying the flag.

The University also has a right to require the contractor to direct its employees not to show the Confederate flag on this campus.

Here’s support: Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 330 F.3d 2003 (4th Cir 2003) (employer did not violate speech rights of employee who refused to remove a Confederate flag from his toolbox after a black employee complained that the flag was offensive); and Vanderhoff v. John Deere Consumer Products, Inc., 2003 WL 23691107 (D.S.C. 2003) (no wrongful discharge of employee who displayed a Confederate flag decal on his toolbox because the decal is not a “political opinion” under state law).

Does the University of Illinois have a policy of prohibiting contractors from displaying the Confederate flag, or a Nazi swastika? If not, why not?

The University of Illinois’ policy on inclusion states: “We are publicly reaffirming our commitment to diversity, inclusion, and pluralism as a priority and cornerstone of operations here at Illinois.” The Confederate flag is a symbol of white supremacy and intolerance.

For evidence, see the picture of Dylan Roof, who murdered nine African-Americans in cold blood during a prayer service in a black church that opened its doors to him.

Here’s hoping that this campus follows up by tracing this license plate.

Play Along, Guess the Year: “The Radical Right: A Problem for American Democracy”

Seymour Martin Lipset, a renowned political sociologist, published an influential article, “The Radical Right: A Problem for American Democracy.” Guess the year of this publication. I was off by more than 20 years—maybe you’ll do better.

Why think about it? For me, the answer is that our current politics is about much more than our current president. For the answer, scroll to the far bottom of this post.

Here is a quote:

This essay deals with the emergence and activities of an important American political phenomenon, the radical right. This group, which is characterized as radical because it desires to make far-reaching changes in American institutions, is basically concerned with eliminating from American political life those persons and institutions which threaten either its sense of traditional American values, or economic interests. In general, it is opposed to the social and economic reforms that have been enacted in the last twenty years, ….

…

….

….

….

The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 2 (June 1955), pp. 176-209.

Lessons from The 22 Chinese Prostitutes and Queue Cases

Two cases from 1870s may serve as a guidepost for the current interplay between our nation’s xenophobic laws and courts that protect oppressed minorities from hateful discrimination.

In The Twenty-Two Prostitutes (also known as in re Ah Fong; see accompanying picture), a state law empowered a local official to board incoming ships to administer a “character” test to hopeful immigrants. In this case, after conducting his examination, the immigration official declared that Ah Fong and 21 other Chinese women were “lewd and debauched women.” The women were denied entry and were about to be forced to return to China, against their will. An emergency appeal was held by Supreme Court Justice Field. He ruled that a state may exclude foreigners when they are known convicts or public health hazards (e.g., lepers), but cannot discriminate against the citizens of a foreign treaty power as a class.

He said: “I am aware of the very general feeling prevailing in this state against the Chinese, and in opposition to the extension of any encouragement to their immigration hither. It is felt that the dissimilarity in physical characteristics, in language, in manners, religion and habits, will always prevent any possible assimilation of them with our people. Admitting that there is ground for this feeling, it does not justify any legislation for their exclusion, which might not be adopted against the inhabitants of the most favored nations of the Caucasian race, and of Christian faith….

I have little respect for that discriminating virtue which is shocked when a frail child of China is landed on our shores, and yet allows the bedizened and painted harlot of other countries to parade our streets and open her hells in broad day, without molestation and without censure.”

This anti-immigrantion law sounds like President Trump’s class-wide travel ban/Muslim ban.

In another anti-Chinese law, San Francisco required that anyone imprisoned in a city jail would be required to have his hair cut to one inch or shorter. Neutral on its face, the law was designed to humiliate Chinese men who shaved their heads except for queues or pony-tails.

Justice Field wrote a Supreme Court opinion that ruled that San Francisco’s hair regulation violated the equal protection rights of Chinese immigrants. In How Ah Kow v. Noonan (with accompanying picture of a different Chinese man with traditional queues)— after a jailer clipped the queue of a Chinese immigrant— he said “the deprivation of the queue is regarded by them as a mark of disgrace, and is attended, according to their religious faith, with misfortune and suffering after death; that the [jailer] knew of this custom and religious faith of the Chinese, and knew also that the plaintiff venerated the custom and held the faith; yet, in disregard of his rights, inflicted the injury complained of; and that the plaintiff has, in consequence of it, suffered great mental anguish, been disgraced in the eyes of his friends and relatives, and ostracized from association with his countrymen; and that hence he has been damaged to the amount of ten thousand dollars.

The cutting off the hair of every male person within an inch of his scalp, on his arrival at the jail, was not intended and cannot be maintained as a measure of discipline or as a sanitary regulation. The act by itself has no tendency to promote discipline, and can only be a measure of health in exceptional cases. Had the ordinance contemplated a mere sanitary regulation it would have been limited to such cases and made applicable to females as well as to males,…  

The claim, however, put forth that the measure was prescribed as one of health is notoriously a mere pretense. A treatment to which disgrace is attached, and which is not adopted as a means of security against the escape of the prisoner, but merely to aggravate the severity of his confinement, can only be regarded as a punishment additional to that fixed by the sentence. If adopted in consequence of the sentence it is punishment in addition to that imposed by the court; if adopted without regard to the sentence it is wanton cruelty.

One lesson: Our times are not too much different from the “Yellow Peril” of the 1870s. Another lesson: Courts can only do so much to stop discrimination. These two opinions were largely ignored in a wave of anti-Chinese laws. Finally, there is nothing new about a law that has “anti”-outgroup intent and is defended by facially neutral justifications, such as the need to protect Americans from outside threats.

Why Did Trump Eliminate New Pension Law for Employees?

Suppose you work for a small employer, say, a local restaurant or a heating and air conditioning company—and your company offers no 401(k) pension plan.

A 401(k) plan refers to a defined contribution plan. The employer is not obligated to pay for it, though it may. The employee is able to fund the account through payroll deductions and to deduct contributions from income for tax returns.

The Obama administration came up with a small but important solution. In a Department of Labor rule, it gave authority to states to create individual retirement account programs for nongovernment employees who lack access to retirement plans through their employers. 

Under ERISA, the federal law for private sector pensions, there is no role that a state can play in private sector pensions. The law doesn’t allow it, nor does it prohibit it.

Trump’s action rolls back an August 2016 DOL rule that provides a safe harbor from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for states that create individual retirement account programs for nongovernment employees who lack access to retirement plans through their employers.

Last week, President Trump signed a law that was passed under House Joint Resolution 66. In early May, the bill passed the Senate on a 50-49 vote after having won approval in the House of Representatives in February, largely along party lines.

This effectively deauthorizes eight states had already created such programs. As reported by Reuters, “Most of those states, including California and Illinois, had passed laws requiring employers that don't offer a workplace savings option to automatically enroll employees in state-administered IRAs through payroll deductions, while some other states had created a marketplace of savings options for workers without employer-sponsored plans.”

Key to note, states were not supposed to fund the plans, nor did states require employers to fund the plan. The point of the law was to create an enrollment mechanism for these private sector workers to have access to a 401(k) plan when their employer chose not to provide that option.

With Social Security heading toward insolvency, what’s the point in disallowing workers from having access to a 401(k) plan?

The AARP strongly favored the Obama rule. After the passage of this repealing law, AARP expressed disappointment that older people will not be able to invest for their retirement.  

Credit: Sack, Star Tribune

Tournament of Trump! Fill Out Your Bracket

However you feel about Donald Trump, these are momentous times. With help from Janet and Sam, I present the Tournament of Trump. 

TOT is based on 64 reality TV and game shows from the 1960s-present. 

Just click and enlarge the picture. Feel free to fill out a bracket or simply send me your favorites on FB (my page or Janet’s), and this will help to determine the second round of TOT.

Tip-off for Round 1 games is the start of the James Comey hearings. After those hearings conclude, I hope to post the updated brackets for Round 2. 

The Zen of Dying

           

The "Vocations" section of the New York Times recently published a short article on Zen Hospice. Zen refers to a Japanese form of Buddhism that emphasizes meditation and intuition.

The article focused on a 72 year-old hospice nurse, Anthony Valentine. 

Here is one answer he offered in his interview:

Q. What is the difference between traditional hospice and Zen hospice?

A. The difference is the level and quality of attention the Zen hospice approach can give. At the Zen Hospice Project, our whole idea is to help dying people live fully right up to the end. Drawing on the principles of Zen Buddhism, we bring a strong sense of simply being 100 percent present, with, and for, them. As well, we focus on offering a healthy dose of compassion and a lot of personal touch.

To learn more about Zen Hospice, visit https://www.zenhospice.org/education-training/opendeathconversation. 

Learning from Witch Trials: How Catholics Were Hated

Our Twitter-in-Chief invoked a common expression today, referring to a witch hunt. Many of us use the term to mean an unfair investigation.

In a way, this usage is correct—but we can learn much from the most famous witch hunt in the annals of legal history. No, it wasn’t the Salem Trials.

It was the Pendle Witch Trial of 1612. 

King James had an intense paranoia that Catholics in his kingdom were plotting a coup in behalf of the Pope. The king stirred fear of Catholics among his subjects.

That brings us to Pendle, a town that the king had identified as being filled with subversives.

A young girl, Alizon, was a street beggar. After her begging was rebuffed, she said unkind things to a pedestrian. The man suddenly died. 

Being Catholic, she was charged with bewitching him to death.

The magistrate went to Alizon’s home on Good Friday, hearing rumors that these Catholics were witches. Jennet Pendle, a 9 year-old girl, substantiated the witchcraft charges against her family, and another family with whom the Pendles were feuding.

Little Jennet was the King’s star witness, calmly and convincingly testifying that her mother and sisters and brother and neighbors were witches during a two-day trial.

As a result of her testimony, ten defendants were executed upon conviction of witchcraft.

So, why is this the most important legal case involving witches? That’s because English and American courts (and likely others) adopted a rule barring the testimony of children under 14 years of age on grounds of inherent unreliability.

Thanks to Prof. Ronald Hutton from the University of Bristol for this outstanding research.

Your homework: Consider parallels and differences to today’s tweet about witch hunts.

Bad Girls at Work: Female on Male Sexual Harassment More Common

Guess the percentage of men who say they have been sexually harassed by women at work.

I’ll show some evidence at the end.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week to revive a sexual harassment claim made by a man against his female employer.

Quoting from the case: “Mr. Jones worked as a mechanic for Needham Trucking from May to November of 2014. According to Mr. Jones, he was fired because he would not have sex with Ms. Needham, his direct supervisor and a shareholder of the business…. He provided a comparator, another mechanic who ‘was treated better because he had sex with Ms. Needham.’ And he listed two witnesses, both of whom would testify that they knew of the sexual harassment. In response to questions seeking more detailed explanations, Mr. Jones wrote ‘“I was terminated because I refused to agree to Ms. Needham’s sexual advances and I rejected all such efforts by her.”’

Jones alleges that he was “subjected to sexual remarks by owner, Julie Needham. I complained to General Manager, Jonathan Needham and Stephanie Needham about the sexual harassment. Nothing was done. On or about November 3, 2014, Julie Needham terminated my employment.”

….

According to AWARE (Association for Women for Research and Action): “Both women and men are more likely to have been harassed by the opposite sex, although some have also experienced harassment from the same sex. In AWARE’s survey, 79% of the respondents who reported having experienced workplace sexual harassment were female; 21% were male.” That was a 2008 survey.

In 2012, statistics from the EEOC showed as follows: “The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has recently released its 2012 Enforcement and Litigation Statistics which provides that although the number of sexual harassment charges filed has decreased from 7,809 in 2011 to 7,571 in 2012, the percentage of charges filed by males has increased from 16.1% to 17.8%.

Your Hotel Maid Is Calling

My name is Gerdine Vessagne, and I am a housekeeper at the Fontainebleau Resort on Miami Beach. 

I am a proud union woman, and I love my job.

I was born in Haiti, a country that’s seen its fair share of devastation. But I’ve been living and working in the U.S. for eight and a half years because of something called “Temporary Protected Status,” or, TPS.

TPS has allowed me to provide for my five children, including two back home, and three born here. But this isn’t just about me. 

Over 50,000 Haitian nationals working in the U.S. have this protected status. We are the engine of Florida’s hospitality industry, much of which greatly depends on our labor. 

If Donald Trump does not extend TPS for Haitians by May 23rd, then 50,000 of us face an impossible choice--return to a country still recovering from national disaster or lose our jobs and be forced to live in the shadows as undocumented immigrants.

Please add your name to tell President Trump and his administration to extend the TPS for over 50,000 hardworking, taxpaying Haitian immigrants who have proudly served people in Florida and beyond for years.

Thank you.

Gerdine Vessagne, UNITE HERE Member

Housekeeper, Fontainebleau Resort

Miami Beach, FL

What Does a “Wall” Look Like in Voter Suppression?

In 1963, many states in the South and West had laws that were not discriminatory on their face, but racial in their application. In U.S. v. Louisiana (1963), the court started to tear down a race wall by opening with these words:

A wall stands in Louisiana between registered voters and unregistered, eligible Negro voters. The wall is the State constitutional requirement that an applicant for registration ‘understand and give a reasonable interpretation of any section’ of the Constitutions of Louisiana or of the United States. It is not the only wall of its kind, but since the Supreme Court's demolishment of the white primary, the interpretation test has been the highest, best-guarded, most effective barrier to Negro voting in Louisiana.

The court described what this wall look like:

When a Louisiana citizen seeks to register, the Parish Registrar of Voters may ask the applicant to interpret the provision, ‘The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and each of the judges * * * may also in aid of their respective jurisdictions, original, appellate, or supervisory, issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and all other needful writs'. Or, the registrar may ask the applicant to interpret a less technical but more difficult provision, constitutionally, such as, ‘Every person has the natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.' In giving this test, the registrar selects the constitutional section and he must be satisfied with the explanation. In many parishes the registrar is not easily satisfied with constitutional interpretations from Negro applicants.

The court took down this wall, stating the following (below). Can you think of any executive order(s) that fit the following reasoning? If you are inclined, comment on this posting:

In this case, too, we must go into the ‘history’ and ‘present setting’ of a law non-discriminatory on its face. In doing so, we bear in mind a maxim quoted appropriately in this circuit many times in recent years, a maxim from one of the Supreme Court decisions outlawing the Oklahoma grandfather clause: ‘(The Constitution) nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination. It hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by the colored race although the abstract right to vote may remain unrestricted as to race. (Lane v. Wilson, 1939, 307 U.S. 268.)

Cartoon from CagleCartoon.Com

The Pedigree of Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission

The idea of massive voter fraud is itself a massive fraud.

The following extracts are from “The Suffrage Clause in the New Constitution of Louisiana,” by Amasa M. Eaton, Harvard Law Review (1899). The intentions of racist lawmakers in 1899 have found new life in Trump's voter fraud commission. 

(Louisiana legislators, 1898)

Lieutenant-Governor Snyder: “I am in favor of the proposition that every white man shall vote because he is white, and no black man shall vote because he is black. We cannot put in these words, but we can attain that result (compare to Trump's new voter fraud commission).”

President Kruttschnitt: “Doesn't it meet the case? Doesn't it let the white man vote, and doesn't it stop the negro from voting, and isn't that what we came here for?” (Applause.)

Mr. Sanders: “We are here to write in the organic law of Louisiana that the white men shall always rule this state.” (Applause.)

Mr. Boatner: “Will Mr. Breazeale permit me to suggest that the committee was seeking in this, in a general way, the exclusion of all the negroes and the inclusion of the whites.”

Judge Semmes: “We proclaimed at least in my part of the state that we were coming to establish the ascendancy of the white race, and to see to it that no white man should be disfranchised.”

Hate in 1872, Compared to Now

Cartoon circa 1868, Tuscaloosa, AL

Research isn’t boring. It’s thrilling because the chase leads to discovery.

Have a minute? Pop this Library of Congress source in a search engine: https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.23700700/.

It’s an account by Zachariah Chandler, written in 1872. He chronicles the rise of the KKK. I’ve copied a section that sounds like the relationship between parts (not all) of the Republican Party to hate groups, including the alt-right movement. I’ve put in bold text to indicate connections from the past to today. (The Democratic Party in the 1860s and 1870s was a  great proponent of "Black Codes," laws that made blacks legally and socially inferior-- that explains the donkey with the KKK label.)

...

The sworn testimony [in Congress] discloses the lamentable fact that in a majority of instances the outrages and violence in question have been perpetrated through the agency of intelligent, covert, and systematic organization and direction. It is a noteworthy fact that the more active scoundrels composing the order are reserved for deeds of violence, while the more influential and reputable members make themselves useful to the order in controlling public sentiment, furnishing bail-bonds for arrested parties, securing suitable witnesses, and influencing juries. It is these so called respectable and reputable people who assure newspaper correspondents and other inquiring minds that “everything is lovely” in their region. The desperadoes of Southern society find a welcome place in the Klan, and furnish suitable working material when there is to be shedding of blood and other deeds of violence. The fraternal relations which subsist between them and the influential chiefs of this political brotherhood, has an effect the very opposite of deterring them from threatening the lives of good citizens and disturbing the tranquility of our country. 

Judicial Swamps? Trump's Restocking of Influence

President Trump’s recent nomination of Joan Larsen to a federal appeals court fills a growing judicial swamp that is fed by big-spender interest groups. In 2016, Justice Larsen won election to the Michigan supreme court. Michigan, like Illinois, has partisan elections for judges. A judge appears as a Republican or Democrat on the ballot. This implies that there is a Republican and Democratic justice system—and the two differ. Framers of the Constitution worried about courts that were politically motivated.

According to her 2017 campaign report, Justice Larsen received $579,171 in 2016. She received contributions of $5,000 or more from Blue Cross Blue Shield, Health PAC [an anonymous name], Michigan Realtors, Michigan Farm Bureau, and more.

What’s wrong with this picture? These groups gave money to buy influence for cases that are important to them. Americans already have a branch of government that takes donations to advance the interests of businesses, unions, and other groups. It’s called the legislature. The problem is that the Michigan supreme court is often bought by special interests.

Illinois suffers from the same problem, only more, because Illinois supreme court elections attract millions of dollars. These donations have real effects on major rulings. Our high court has a Democratic majority. Voting along party lines, this court turned back a re-mapping initiative that was popular with citizens. If Democrats voted with Republicans, they would have put Speaker Madigan’s ironclad map at risk. Not to be outdone in the influence department, Republican justices threw out a billion judgment against an insurance company that defrauded policy holders by failing to tell customers that it only paid for second-quality parts. The current chief justice, a Republican, received more than $2 million for his campaign in 2014.

Our community has its own version of a judicial swamp, a local radio show where two judges are asked friendly questions that have more to do with their ideology than the law. One guest is Judge Michael McCuskey. When he recently retired as a federal judge, he did so at full salary—close to $200,000 per year. A short time later, he was seated for a state judgeship in Illinois, making him about $190,000.

This is legal. But it amounts to double dipping at a time when taxpayers are stretched thin. Altogether, taxpayers are paying Judge McCuskey about $400,000 per year. The only reason this amount cannot be confirmed is that Illinois judges are not required to disclose the value of their financial interests.

I know this because of my research on judicial ethics. If taxpayers want to see the annual financial disclosures by state judges, they must appear in person. To get information for Judge McCuskey, I drove to the Illinois Supreme Court Building in Springfield; went through screening; presented my driver’s license; filled out a multi-page form; explained my reason for this request; and paid for copies in exact change. That’s a lot of hoops to jump through to get some basic information about our judges. What are they hiding?

We might want to know if our elected judges have an interest related to our litigation, such as investments in insurance companies. The insurance industry likes Illinois Republican justices, a lot. They like Donald Trump’s nominee from Michigan, too. It is fair to ask, however, whether our elected judges own stock in insurance companies. Why aren’t these records available online?

The answer is that our courts have become swampy. Interest groups that spend heavily are transforming our courts into shadow legislatures, and judges into politicians in black robes. We need strict spending limits on state judicial elections; and we deserve transparency about our judges’ financial interests. 

Wealth Inequality = Health Inequality

As friends and colleagues, we probably disagree whether wealth inequality is a big problem.

Let’s put that aside and look at this map, printed by the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and republished in CNN. 

Counties in eastern Kentucky, and southwestern West Virginia—the heart of Trump’s support— and Deep South— also strongholds for Trump— had the lowest longevity, averaging about 66 years for life expectancy. These areas are mired in long-running poverty.

The nation’s average for men and women was 79.1 years in 2014. 

The east and west coasts—shown in hues of blue (is the map intended to be this political?) had the highest life expectancy. 

Summit County, Colorado—home to ski resorts and pricey real estate— topped the list with life expectancy at 86.8 years.
Talk about two Americas! Our nation has a 20-year difference in life expectancy, correlated to geography and wealth.

It’s interesting to think about the new ACHA (TrumpCare) in light of the map.  

Why You Will Miss My Friend, Alan Goddard

If you’ve had a power outage, you’ll miss Alan Goddard, who passed away today.

Alan was an expert on deregulation of electric utilities. As a key labor spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, he was often a lonely voice at deregulation hearings in the 1990s.

He lost most of his battles, but not for lack of being on the right side of these policy hearings.

In a nutshell, he said that deregulation of utilities made it easier for companies such as ComEd, Ameren, AEP and others to cut their workforce of union power line employees.

Since the late 1990s, when there is an ice storm, hurricane, tornado or similar force that causes widespread downing of power lines— say, in Illinois (ice), Louisiana (Katrina), Oklahoma (dozens of twisters)— convoys of electric crews crisscross the nation, fulfilling aid and assist pacts. That’s because area utilities have cut more than 50% of their highly trained workers.

The utilities save lots of money—but Alan argued as follows:

These companies save money while making other businesses and homeowners pay for unnecessarily long outages.

When these companies promise to save consumers money, it often doesn’t happen.

At times, America’s power grid has the instability of those found in South America or Asia.

When good paying jobs are lost in a community, there is a pronounced, negative ripple effect.

If deregulation is such a great idea for consumers, why are these regulated monopolies proposing to deregulate themselves, while consumer, labor, and environmental groups oppose these efforts?

Rest in peace, my beloved friend.

Remember Jamila: Monday’s Big Court Hearing

You’re looking at Jamila Ali Abdu, 7, shortly before she died of malnourishment this week in the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah, Yemen. Reuters published this photo by Abduljabbar Zeyad.

Under President Trump’s travel/Muslim ban, this girl and others like her would have a zero chance of coming to America as a refugee. Jamila was hardly the picture of a terror threat.

On Monday, a rare court hearing will occur in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will meet en banc—that is, the entire group of judges will hear a case together (15 judges), rather than in a panel of three, as is the custom of federal courts.

The Richmond, Virginia-based court will examine a federal judge's ruling from Maryland that blocked the Trump administration from temporarily barring new visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen—the home to this deceased girl.

Was Social Justice Part of Your Favorite Children’s Book?

Not likely, according to a research project I saw today on the UIUC Quad during a Social Justice Day Fair. Two students reported research showing that 87% of popular children’s books lack diverse characters and social justice themes such as rich and poor parts of town.

My favorite children’s books taught me to stereotype people. With this in mind, I was about to ask, “Are you education majors?” I caught myself in time, and asked an open-ended question. Sure enough, one student is studying crop science, the other engineering—both are women in male-majority fields.

This got me to thinking about my favorite book—and I hope you will, too!

Mine was Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel.

Looking back, I see how the book might have cultivated my professional interests. Mike and his steam shovel, Mary Ann, had plenty of work until they were displaced by younger workers with diesel-powered, bigger earth movers.

I guess that accounts for my arbitration work with the coal mining industry.

Mike was laid-off. He had to adjust to economic competition.

Hmmm, sounds like my fascination with industrial unions in the 1980s through the present.

Mike moved to a small town and found a new opportunity— digging the foundation for a town hall. The book never mentioned that he was paid less; but I got the point that Mike wanted and needed to keep working, so he was pretty desperate.

Mike’s project had 100 protesters. I guess Mike worked non-union. I’ll simply say that my tenure research dealt with strikers and picketing. (Thank you, Mike, for my lifetime job!)

Mike failed to build a ramp to take Mary Ann out of the pit. Kids in the town suggested that Mary Ann be converted to a boiler, and that Mike switch jobs, becoming a janitor.

Okay, retraining for an older worker.

Maybe I got the point that Mike needed a job; that his identity was tied to his work; and that technology offered a mix of progress and dislocation. Oh, you think that’s a stretch? Probably, but maybe it helped to whet my appetite for Uber and other gig work that shuffles people lower in the deck of economic cards, like Mike.

So, I think that very young kids should read more about diverse peoples and more about climate change and more about income inequality and more about intolerance—that is, if we believe that children’s books make lasting impressions. This “Mike” thinks that’s true. PS: I think Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel is a social justice book.