Is August KKK Revival Month?

As we approach August, it’s a good time to recall some of the Klan’s most momentous events that occurred in August.  

The federal government used troops to crush a KKK rebellion in the 1870s. The Klan re-emerged after several books and a movie romanticized the terror group (Thomas Dixon’s best selling trilogy, The Leopard’s Spots (1902), The Clansman (1905), and The Traitor (1907); and a popular movie in 1915, The Birth of a Nation).

The Klan enjoyed a major revival in the 1920s, capped by a march of 35,000 robed Klansmen in Washington D.C. on August 8, 1925 (captured in this Washington Post article, above).

The Midwest—not the South— was the focus of the KKK’s second life. In Our Town: A Heartland Lynching, a Haunted Town, and the Hidden History of White America, Cynthia Carr chronicles a lynching of two black teenagers in her hometown of Marion, Indiana on August 7, 1930 (photo here). 

Thomas Shipp and Abe Smith were accused of rape, murder, and robbery; but they never had a trial, as provided in the Sixth Amendment.

Carr writes: “When I first learned that my grandfather had been a Klansmen I didn’t want to know more and I didn’t talk about it. The news was not just shameful it was frightening. It suggested that someone I loved wasn’t who I thought he was, that maybe I’d never really known him." 

How Teamsters Union Is Fighting Opioids

What can a labor union do to combat opioids? We will find out soon.

McKesson is a major manufacturer of opioids. They face lawsuits in several states for failing to control the distribution of their products. As reported in the New York Times and Charleston Gazette-Daily, McKesson paid $150 million in a fine to the U.S. Justice Department for failing to report suspicious orders of their drugs.

To illustrate: the company received 1.6 million opioid orders from a single Colorado distribution center, but the company reported only 16 as suspicious.

McKesson’s CEO John Hammergren’s pay is the root cause of the problem, says a Teamsters leader. 

Hammergren’s pay is tied to company performance. He has been paid $692 million since 2008. In other words, when opioid sales flourish, so does Hammergren’s pay—and so does the incentive not to monitor excessive ordering.

The Teamsters represent some of McKesson’s employees. They have had a long-running dispute with the company. A company spokesperson says the Teamsters are simply grandstanding to put pressure on the company for a better contract.

The Teamsters administer a large pension fund. They have a financial position in the company. Now, the Teamsters have a proposal in front of the board of directors to name an independent director to monitor CEO and other executive pay, which they say is excessive.

The Teamsters are led by Ken Hall. He lives in West Virginia. The company’s response to his proposal doesn’t surprise him. But he said that opioids are destroying lives of union members and their families in his community and state.

The company spokesperson never explained how an independent director on McKesson's board who reviews executive pay will cause the company to make a better contract offer to Teamsters members. That's because there is no relationship between corporate governance and negotiating a labor agreement.   

Speaking of RICO: Chicago Teamster Leader Indicted

ProfLERoy’s views on labor are positive … but not when it comes to corruption. Meet John T. Coli Sr. (above). He is one of Chicago’s most powerful labor leaders. 

Last week, Coli was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of extortion and one count of attempted extortion from a local film production company. Prosecutors allege that Coli received cash payments from the firm totaling $100,000, threatening economic retaliation if money was not forthcoming.

In 1989, his union settled a civil RICO suit with the Justice Department. At the time, various Teamster affiliates in the Chicago area were closely scrutinized by a federal monitor, including Local 727.

John Coli Sr.’s father, James Coli, headed that local. The son was elevated after the father encountered legal trouble. He's held the post ever since-- until he resigned last week.

Whether it’s the Trump Enterprise or the Teamsters Enterprise, federal investigators need to do their work without political interference.

The Dons—Corleone and Trump

It seems increasingly possible that Robert Mueller will bring RICO charges against Trump associates—for example, Paul Manafort.

RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. It’s a federal law that was passed in 1970 to go after Mafia enterprises—and later, Mexican drug lords and others.

The Mafia ran prostitution, drugs, gambling, and union corruption schemes. 

To launder their money— and evade taxes— they also operated great restaurants, real estate companies, and other legitimate businesses. 

Business losses helped write-off income that would have been due for taxes.

RICO works like this: When a person commits “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period, they can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related to an “enterprise.”

Notice the lengthy statute of limitations and also Mueller’s keen interest in tax returns from several years ago.

Federal crimes that might apply to the Trump Enterprise would be computer crimes and tax evasion. Again, prosecutors need at least two federal crimes to make it a “racket.”

Rudy Giuliani made his fame convicting 11 Mafia leaders, including the heads of New York’s five dominant crime families, in February 1985. The case took down La Cosa Nostra—not by convicting one person (who was replaced)— but by dismantling entire chains of command.

Not only has RICO has been used against American enterprise but also those involving Russians, Mexicans, Japanese, and Israelis.

Along the way, prosecutors make suspects “an offer you can’t refuse” and acquire evidence by flipping key members of the enterprise.

When you look at Mueller’s legal team, they seem well-versed in RICO prosecutions.

Union Builds, Staffs Health Clinic—Members and Kids Get Free Care

The New York Times reports on a genius health care solution. The union for 30,000 hotel maids and staff at NYC hotels used its pension fund to buy a garage in Brooklyn. The union tore that down and replaced it with a building in a high-rent district of Brooklyn.

They lease out five floors; the rest are for a free health and dental clinic for members and their families-- plus workout facility. 

Members pay nothing for visits—the union has hired physicians, dentists and other health care professionals.

The fund contributed $120 million but regards it as a sound business investment.

Las Vegas has a similar clinic for its members and children.

Bad Robot News Gets Worse

Adding to my post yesterday about robotic sex, now comes news that robots might soon make decisions to use warfare without direct human input. CNN and other outlets report testimony from America’s second-highest ranking military officer, Gen. Paul Selva, who advocated Tuesday for "keeping the ethical rules of war in place lest we unleash on humanity a set of robots that we don't know how to control." (Not a joke.)

According to CNN: “Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, asked about his (Gen. Selva’s) views on a Department of Defense directive that requires a human operator to be kept in the decision-making process when it comes to the taking of human life by autonomous weapons systems. Peters said the restriction was due to expire later this year."

…

For baby boomers, we have seen “The Jetson’s” cartoon parody come to life-- for example, Rosie, a domestic robot who had a platonic but testy relationship with George. 

The Jetsons lived in Orbit City, with robot servants and moving sidewalks. George was employed by Spacely’s Space Sprockets, a manufacturer of high tech equipment, as a “digital index operator.” His boss, Mr. Spacely, often fired George.  All sounds familiar.    

And by the way, George and Mr. Spaceley communicated via Skype.

Robotic Sex Nightmares

My friend (also uncle) Jim Schultz recently posted an article about robotic sex, and now the New York Times has another story on this. It’s horrifying—but if you missed it, a robotic woman will soon be on the market to indulge men.

The creepy part is that the dolls are engineered with artificial intelligence to simulate love and eroticism. In other words, this is not an improved blow-up doll. It is a substitute for wives.

I pass along some questions and welcome yours, please.

1. Will this intensify religious fundamentalism? Bin Laden’s Wahhabi critique of the West emphasized our licentious sexuality. Christian fundamentalists cannot accept anything that differs from husband-wife procreative sex. Will men hooked on female robots deepen fundamentalist reactions?

2. Will robotic sex increase global conflict? Many conflicts are set up by stark inequalities in birth rates and wealth. ISIS, for one, preys on these inequalities as justification for striking Paris and London—targets as notable for their wealth as for political capitals. These robots are going to cost about the price of a used car—a lot to pay for sex, but a bargain compared to a wife and kids. Robotically-sexed men will have much more discretionary wealth if freed from the social requirements of marriage and raising a family. Inequality will widen-- a frightening leading indicator of social conflicts.

3. How will men with robotic partners age? The premise of a robotic sex doll is perfection. People in long-term relationships routinely confront the realities of aging. Donald Trump is a good example of a man who idealizes sex as something that is superficially perfect and suspended in time—and his emotional development is arrested, as a direct result. Is this the future for our grandsons?

4. What’s in this for women? Fewer mates, and no alternative robot, yet. Comments on the NYT article snicker that women already have a battery-powered substitute. But this misses the danger in these robots—the allure of mechanized attachment, driven by an engineer's algorithms.

5. A lot of procreation occurs in a laboratory. If sex robots catch fire like cell phones, will society arrange for a robotic womb? What does that mean for humanity?

We probably underestimate the magnitude and importance of human sexuality, even if we talk about it constantly. It's nothing to mimic with our advanced technology. We may soon find out what we are taking for granted.      

Photo Credit: New York Times

TWATE! & RHATE! New Vocab Words

Lots of hate today, near and far: 

Illinois’ Republican governor fired a newly hired aide after the aide tweeted homophobic and racist slurs; and a leading Nevada Republican tweeted that she hopes John McCain dies soon. She disagrees with his hawkish policy positions. 

A few days ago, a Republican county official wished publicly that all Muslims would die. Given the chance to retract his statement, he doubled down. Nothing like following our President.

So, today I propose a new word: TWATE. It is a noun or a verb.

Noun: A tweet that expresses hate toward a group of people, or an individual.

Verb: To hate on someone in 140 characters or less.

It is closely related to this new word: RHATE.

Noun: An expression from a Republican that expresses hate toward a group of people, or an individual.

Verb: To hate on someone like President Trump and so many other Republican leaders who have lost emotional self-control and see their political fortunes rise in their party by trying to out-rhate each other.

Democrats and independents are not immune from intolerant messages; but for the time being, Republicans lead the way on vocalizing RHATE and TWATE. 

Want proof? Look at the party’s electoral popularity and the coarseness of appeals to voters that prove to be winning strategies.

Made in America: Your Employment Rights Were Taken-- Forcing You into Arbitration

President Trump will spend this week promoting “Made in America” products. This is long overdue, and I thank him.

This week, I am promoting “Made in America: How Your Employment Rights Were Taken from You.”

Case 1: Robert Gilmer was fired as a stock broker/sales manager at age 62. At the time, he was among the top performers in his firm. He believed he was fired due to age discrimination.

Gilmer sued his employer in federal court under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. His employer countered that he signed an arbitration agreement in which he waived his right to sue.

Gilmer argued that Congress created a right of employees to sue for age discrimination in court—thus, no one could take that away. 

He argued that he had no power to negotiate out of this mandatory arbitration agreement. 

He argued that large brokerage firms selected the arbitrators and therefore the forum was biased.

Gilmer lost his case in the Supreme Court in 1991. See Gilmer v. Interstate/Lane Johnson.

In civics, we learn that courts apply or interpret the laws. At work, we learn that we must choose between signing away our rights to a court hearing or being unemployed. Today, civil lawsuits are increasingly for the wealthy, not the average person.

Made in America? The illusion of justice.

“So much we left behind, but the most valuable thing I lost was my freedom.”

Three pictures of Japanese internment camps in WW II.

Picture 1: This beautiful Japanese American girl had been ordered by the federal government to leave Oakland to be interned at a camp. Later, she wrote: “So much we left behind, but the most valuable thing I lost was my freedom.”

Picture 2: This is a travel permit to “allow” a Japanese American to travel on a specific day from Ellensburg to Yakima.

Picture 3: “Many thanks for your patronage. Hope to serve you in the near future. God be with you till we meet again. Mr. and Mrs. K. Isarai.”

The desert of eastern Oregon was a site of a major “relocation camp” for Japanese Americans in WW II. Janet and I visited a simple but powerful museum in Ontario, Oregon (Four Rivers Cultural Center). We saw heartbreaking images— many that brought to mind two things: (1) America's current downward spiral of intolerance, the mindset that leads to “camps” for outcast groups, and (2) the history of my family (and virtually all European Jews) in Nyirmada, Hungary.

To friends of ProfLERoy, thank you for the many small ways you speak out against hate. Small acts are crucial; silence is unacceptable. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue-- it is human decency.

Sex Is Confusing: Or, Employment Discrimination: Does It Apply to LGBT?

A federal law called Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of sex.” In the past three months, one federal appeals (7^th Circuit) has ruled that “because of sex” covers discrimination against LGBTs. Boiling this court’s reasoning down to a sentence, the 7^th Circuit said: “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.’” Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017).

The Second Circuit, in a March 2017 decision, said that Title VII pertains to some forms of sexual orientation discrimination— namely, to the extent that it is gender nonconformity discrimination. That case involved a claim by a male employee that he was humiliatingly harassed because of his “effeminacy and sexual orientation.” Anonymous v. Omnicom Group Inc., 852 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2017).

Also in March, the 11^th Circuit made a similar ruling. Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017).

So, the courts disagree about the meaning of “because of sex” as it relates to complaints on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s time for the Supreme Court to resolve this “circuit split.”

Did you know? When Title VII came to the floor for a vote, a segregationist named Howard Smith tried to block Title VII, which at that point only prohibited race discrimination. He proposed the addition of “because of sex” thinking that this much broader version of the law would doom the legislation. He miscalculated—the law passed with his amendment. But that has created an interpretive problem for courts. Usually, courts view words in a statute as reflective of the intent of lawmakers. Here, however, the intent was the opposite—to deny coverage for women (and now, LGBT). 

Picking Up Trash and Normalizing Racism

These “friendly” people are performing a salute for the International Keystone Knights of Georgia. A variant of the KKK, this group applied to participate in Georgia’s Adopt-a-Highway Program. Citing the Klan’s long history of racial intimidation and violence, the highway department denied the group’s petition. In 2016, the Georgia state supreme court held that the agency violated the KKK’s speech rights by impermissibly singling out the Klan (my question: what other group has applied for the program with this unique history of violence?). This follows similar rulings in Arkansas and Missouri.

The Missouri case is interesting. After the state was ordered by the court to post the group’s sponsorship sign, the state renamed this stretch of I-55 the Rosa Parks Highway. The Klan stopped participating … but someone expressed their feelings on this Rosa Parks sign. Do you suppose that vandalizing this sign is protected speech under the First Amendment?

Lynchings and Cotton Prices: Painful Lesson for Today

Did you know that lynchings increased as cotton prices dropped? That’s the important lesson in this economic study, E. M. Beck & Stewart E. Tolnay, The Killing Fields of the Deep South: The Market for Cotton and the Lynching of Blacks, 1882-1930, 55 AM. SOCIOLOGICAL REV. (1990) 526, 537.

When cotton prices were high, lynchings declined but mob violence against blacks soared.

There are several implications.

One is that freed slaves and their descendants were too valuable to kill when the economy was strong, and exploitable labor was needed.

Beck and Tolnay also conclude: “Given the Deep South’s racial caste structure, whites could harass and assault blacks with virtual impunity. Blacks were considered legitimate, and even deserving, objects for white wrath. White workers were in more direct economic competition with black laborers than with the white elite.”

Given the poor times experienced by many lower-class whites, the lessons from the 1890s help to explain the surge in racism today.

PHOTO CREDIT: Circa 1890s, Georgia (Gary Doster)

“Travel Ban” After Civil War: How Southern States Trapped Freed Slaves

Question: Were freed slaves free after the Civil War? Surely you sense that this is a trick question. You’re right. The answer is yes as a formality but no as a matter of experience.

Many freed slaves and their descendants, facing terror from the KKK and an oppressive labor system known as peonage, hired agents to get them out of states such as Georgia. By the late 1800s, this led to such an exodus of exploitable labor that states began to tax the transaction between the African Americans and their agents.

As explained by Prof. David Bernstein, these “freedom workers” were called emigrant agents. He explains that these agents “played a key role in encouraging and financing African-American migration within the United States. Because many rural African-Americans were too poor to go very far without aid and because they lacked ready access to information about opportunities in distant places," they had little choice but to rely on labor recruiters.”

Take a look at how this law was ironically phrased in Georgia in 1898:

“An act to levy and collect a tax for the support of the state government and the public institutions; for educational purposes in instructing children in the elementary branches of an English education only; to pay the interest on the public debt, and to pay maimed Confederate soldiers and widows of Confederate soldiers such amounts as are allowed them by law for each of the fiscal years 1899 and 1900; to prescribe what persons, professions, and property are liable to taxation….”

When R.A. Williams was arrested for failing to pay the annual $500 tax, he challenged the law. 

The Supreme Court denied his challenge to the law. He argued that it has the effect of restricting the right of travel of African Americans. One Justice agreed (Justice John Harlan)—all the others viewed it as a legitimate tax, concluding: “Nor was the imposition in violation of § 2 of article 4, as there was no discrimination between the citizens of other states and the citizens of Georgia.”

This law and court ruling acted like a travel ban on African Americans who wanted to come to the North in search of jobs and freedom.

When Executive Orders Unified US

Donald Trump is not the first president to stretch the powers of president by issuing executive orders. Consider Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (a speech with an attendant order) and Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802. Stripped to its essentials, Lincoln's proclamation legislated slavery out of existence. No one can reasonably argue that this was not a usurpation of legislative powers; Congress had been deadlocked for years in legislating this matter. More than that, Lincoln’s fiat violated the Constitution, because that document institutionalized slavery. History proved it was a wise order.

And take a quick look at Executive Order No. 8802. Workplaces were heavily segregated by race. This order required defense contractors to integrate whites and blacks in their workplace.

6 FR 3109, Exec. Order No. 8802, 1941 WL 41288(Pres.)

EXECUTIVE ORDER 8802

REAFFIRMING POLICY OF FULL PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFENSE PROGRAM BY ALL PERSONS, REGARDLESS OF RACE, CREED, COLOR, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTION IN FURTHERANCE OF SAID POLICY

June 25, 1941

WHEREAS it is the policy of the United States to encourage full participation in the national defense program by all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin, in the firm belief that the democratic way of life within the Nation can be defended successfully only with the help and support of all groups within its borders; and

WHEREAS there is evidence that available and needed workers have been barred from employment in industries engaged in defense production solely because of considerations of race, creed, color, or national origin, to the detriment of workers' morale and of national unity:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes, and as a prerequisite to the successful conduct of our national defense production effort, I do hereby reaffirm the policy of the United States that there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and I do hereby declare that it is the duty of employers and of labor organizations, in furtherance of said policy and of this order, to provide for the full and equitable participation of all workers in defense industries, without discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

And it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. All departments and agencies of the Government of the United States concerned with vocational and training programs for defense production shall take special measures appropriate to assure that such programs are administered without discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

2. All contracting agencies of the Government of the United States shall include in all defense contracts hereafter negotiated by them a provision obligating the contractor not to discriminate against any worker because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

3. There is established in the Office of Production Management a Committee on Fair Employment Practice, which shall consist of a chairman and four other members to be appointed by the President. The Chairman and members of the Committee shall serve as such without compensation but shall be entitled to actual and necessary transportation, subsistence and other expenses incidental to performance of their duties. The Committee shall receive and investigate complaints of discrimination in violation of the provisions of this order and shall take appropriate steps to redress grievances which it finds to be valid. The Committee shall also recommend to the several departments and agencies of the Government of the United States and to the President all measures which may be deemed by it necessary or proper to effectuate the provisions of this order.

FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 25, 1941.

Marriage Equality Denied in Texas Workplaces

 

On June 30^th, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are not necessarily entitled to government-dispensed spousal benefits. This is a setback to marriage equality.

As reported by Reuters’ Jon Herskovitz, the “Republican-dominated court said the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, did not resolve issues such as payments of municipal employees’ spousal benefits.

"The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages," the Texas court wrote, "but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons."

Who brought the case? Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, a pastor and an accountant. They said the Obergefell did not mean that same-sex couples were entitled to spousal employment benefits.

Meanwhile, two weeks ago the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an anti-LGBT state court ruling. Arkansas had refused to list both same-sex spouses on birth certificates. Clarifying Obergefell, the high court said that Obergefell means states cannot deny male-male or female-female listings as parents on a child’s birth certificate.

My thought: Given President Trump’s selection of Neil Gorsuch and preference for Heritage Foundation nominees, Obergefell is not a safe precedent (meaning it might be overruled). 

Don’t Dismiss the “Mark of the Beast”

As I recently blogged, a coal miner refused to put his hand on his employer’s scanner, a device that recorded his time in and out of work for payroll. The miner refused due to his sincerely held religious belief in the “mark of the beast.”

What is the mark of the beast? According to GotQuestions.org, the “main passage in the Bible that mentions the ‘mark of the beast’ is Revelation 13:15-18. Other references can be found in Revelation 14:9, 11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, and 20:4. This mark acts as a seal for the followers of Antichrist and the false prophet (the spokesperson for the Antichrist). The false prophet (the second beast) is the one who causes people to take this mark. The mark is literally placed in the hand or forehead and is not simply a card someone carries.”

Returning to the miner, he was convinced that the hand scanner “marked” his hand, and therefore, conflicted with his religious beliefs. A jury awarded him over $400,000.

GotQuestions.org further explains: “The recent breakthroughs in medical implant chip and RFID technologies have increased interest in the mark of the beast spoken of in Revelation chapter 13. It is possible that the technology we are seeing today represents the beginning stages of what may eventually be used as the mark of the beast. It is important to realize that a medical implant chip is not the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast will be something given only to those who worship the Antichrist. Having a medical or financial microchip inserted into your right hand or forehead is not the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast will be an end-times identification required by the Antichrist in order to buy or sell, and it will be given only to those who worship the Antichrist.”

…

While my research is inconclusive, I see evidence in social media of sincere believers in the mark of the beast who reject bar codes and other RFID uses that “read” or “imprint” on the body—like a scanner. Where this is heading no one knows—but these technologies are becoming an everyday reality. The miner’s $400,000 jury award is a sign that this religious belief cannot be ignored or dismissed as nonsense. 

Electoral Dysfunction Syndrome: Gun Privacy Greater than Voter Privacy

President Trump’s electoral dysfunction syndrome has led to a national commission that has directed all 50 states to forward extensive voter information.

Compare that intrusion on privacy to gun laws.

As of July 3^rd, 12 states have adopted permitless concealed carry firearms laws. They include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. A permitless carry bill was passed in Michigan's House this month and is on the way to its Senate.

In these states, you do not need to provide authorities any personal information to exercise your constitutional right to own a gun. However, your right to vote is subject to scrutiny by the so-called national election commission.

Farewell to the Man Who Hired Me: Prof. Walter Franke

Prof. Walt Franke passed away suddenly on Sunday. I literally owe my career and incredible good fortune to this soft-spoken, thoughtful man.

If you are an ILIR or LER graduate, you should know that Prof. Franke did more to pivot our program to an HR perspective, somewhat away from its “industrial relations” focus, than any other LER dean/director. He made our program relevant for decades to come.

Walt studied older workers when the subject was dull as dishwater. Today, his work offers significant insights into the rise of Donald Trump.

Here is a sample. God speed, Walt, with great respect and appreciation. Michael

Labor Market Experience of Unemployed Older Workers

Walter H. Franke

This article reports some of the findings of a study of unemployed older persons in Peoria, Illinois  based on interviews conducted in July and August 1959 with 195 male workers age 45-64 who were  jobless during October 1957.

Extent of Long-Term Joblessness

Most of the workers experienced very extended periods of unemployment. Over half were with-  out work for a year or more. The high level of extended joblessness reflects in part, of course, the weak demand for labor generally during much of the period covered.

Extended periods of unemployment were particularly frequent for workers who were age 55 and over, for those who had relatively little education, for blue-collar workers with little skill, and for those who had to leave their previous jobs for reasons of health. Fifty-seven percent of those with less than a ninth grade education were out of work for a year or more, compared with only 44 percent of those with more education. The combination of advanced age and low education had particularly severe consequences. Sixty-five percent of those age 55 and over with less than a ninth grade education were without work for 12 months or more.

 These data indicate that the market does differentiate among older workers. 

When America Was Kinder and Bi-Partisan

The Fourth of July is a good time to celebrate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The bill passed in the Senate on a 76-8 vote (with 16 senators not voting). A liberal senator and a conservative senator led the effort. Sen. Tom Harkin introduced the bill in sign language so that his deaf brother could understand. Sen. Bob Dole, severely disabled in WW II, voted for the bill.  

President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law, stating:

“I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We've all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we've been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred.... Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.”

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (A Quote, 1951)

“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true....

Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.

The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

Calling Orwell: Border Agents Working to Take Away Your Liberty

The National Border Patrol Council is a labor union composed of immigration police. Their job is hard, certainly—but no harder than police who work in high-crime precincts around the U.S. Unlike those police—who tend to keep their politics to themselves— this group is active politically.

Here is one proposal on their legislative website that would affect you and me:

Enhance the Social Security card with biometric information (picture, fingerprint, etc.) to identify the cardholder and assist employers with verifying the identity of the applicant.  Similar to a state drivers license or credit card, the card should have a magnetic strip on the back with information about the card holder.  The magnetic strip will enable employers to swipe the card through a card reader, which would be connected to a computer database run by the Social Security Administration.  The Social Security card would be issued to U.S. citizens and immigrants who have been approved to work in the United States.

Photos are common on government IDs—fingerprints are not. And what does “etc” mean for biometric data? Iris scan? Cheek swab (this provides unique DNA markers)?

And what happens when Wikileaks, Gucifer 2, or Wannacry ransom gets a hold of your biometric data, seeking either ransom or simply sells it to a terror outfit or drug gang?

Bigly Lie: Guns Will Save You in a Workplace Shooting

Today: Shooter kills 1, wounds others at NYC hospital; officials say he was doctor.

June 26, 2017 - Bail was set at $1 million for a man accused of shooting and seriously wounding a co-worker at a Carmel Mountain (San Diego) warehouse last week.

Jun 14, 2017 – Four UPS employees killed in a shooting at the company's facility in San Francisco.

Jun 5, 2017 - Six people, including the shooter, have been killed in an Orlando, Florida workplace shooting, WFTV, a CNN affiliate, reports.

May 31, 2017 CATOOSA, Okla. (KTUL) -- Catoosa police have released the name of the victim in Tuesday afternoon's deadly shooting. Police say Cody Thurman, 26, was shot to death near Marshall Street and North 165th East Avenue. The suspect, Steven Northcutt, was a coworker at a trucking company.

PS: I have added "bigly" to my Word dictionary and invite you to join along.

Recalling July 4, 1999

At the time of his suicide on July 4, 1999, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith was 22 years-old. He was a member the neo-Nazi World Church of the Creator, and under the spell of a vicious if charismatic racist leader, Matthew Hale. During that Fourth of July weekend, Smith targeted members of racial and ethnic minorities in drive-by shootings in the Midwest.

Smith had a significant connection to the UIUC campus. He was a student here until he was expelled in 1998 over domestic violence charges and posting racist literature. Influenced by Hale’s Pekin-based “Creativity Church,” he returned to the Urbana side of campus on July 3rd, shooting at African-Americans and Asians near the spot where a Chinese student was apparently abducted by a white male several weeks ago. Next, he travelled to Decatur, where he shot and wounded an African-American minister.

The day before, he went to a mostly Jewish neighborhood in Chicago, where he shot and wounded nine Orthodox Jews in drive-by shootings. Smith then shot and killed former Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong, an African-American, in front of two of Byrdsong’s children while they were walking outside their home in Skokie.

On the Fourth of July, Smith traveled to Bloomington, Indiana. There, he killed Won-Joon Yoon, a 26-year-old Korean graduate student in Economics at Indiana University, who was on his way to the Korean United Methodist Church. Smith committed suicide while attempting to elude the police.

Smith is dead but his violent white supremacy movement has grown exponentially. The Ku Klux Klan Act was passed in 1871 as a response to lynchings and mob terror committed by the newly formed remnant of the defeated Confederate army. The KKK’s main goal was to keep African-Americans and their liberal political supporters in a state of paralyzed terror as well as political disenfranchisement.

Parts of the law were ruled unconstitutional by conservative Supreme Court justices. The criminal law element was ruled as an unconstitutional usurpation of state law—a warped reading of post-Civil War amendments that were enacted because southern states would not treat African-Americans and their liberal supporters as equal to white citizens. (See above, a version of the American flag, circa 1865.)

For 90 years, the Ku Klux Klan Act laid dormant until Griffin v. Breckinridge (1971). Griffin and several other African-Americans were stopped in their car on a Mississippi highway by white men who believed the car was carrying civil rights supporters. Griffin and his passengers were nearly beaten to death. The Supreme Court ruled that the KKK Act allows for a civil lawsuit against private actors who conspire to deprive minorities of fundamental liberties such as the right to travel— a liberty right encompassed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Since the time of Smith’s racist rampage, violent attacks on racial, religious, and ethnic minorities have sharply increased. Twitter and other social media platforms have given license to stigmatize these groups, and in some instances, to instigate violence against them. The white nationalism that fueled Smith’s Fourth of July murder binge in 1999 is a growing force that is making the once dormant Ku Klux Klan Act relevant again.  

What’s the Origin of Our Right Against Self-Incrimination?

This post passes along a fascinating explanation (excerpted) into the origins of our right against self-incrimination. But first, the back story to this post. The picture shows the arm of Christopher Slavin. He and an accomplice tricked two Mexican men to enter his car on Long Island, promising day labor at a warehouse. In the basement, Slavin attacked one man with a post-hole digger and almost killed him. He’s serving 25 years-life.

At trial, the issue was whether this assault was aggravated by racial animus. The state wanted to enter evidence of intent via photographs of Slavin’s neo-Nazi tattoos. The trial and appeals court upheld the introduction of this evidence. Credit defense lawyers with arguing, however, that the tattoos amounted to confessions of a hate crime—a really good argument on these facts.

If you read to the bottom, you’ll see how the state argued that use of the tattoos does not violate the right against self-incrimination.

….

Pretrial criminal procedures in the Middle Ages had no privilege against self-incrimination. At arraignment, the accused was required to expressly admit that he was the person charged.

After pleading not guilty, he was required to answer a second question about how would he be tried. The rights to battle, ordeal, or oath had to be relinquished before the case could be tried by a jury. The expected answer was “By God and my country.”

If there was a refusal to give this specific answer (assuming there was no issue about physical or mental ability to speak), there was a heavy penalty for recalcitrance. In cases of a felony, the method was peine forte de dure, which involved the piling up of weights upon the accused until he consented to a trial by jury. Other tortures and deprivations were also employed, even unto death when, if life left him, judgment found him. In cases of treason or misdemeanor, the refusal to answer was construed as a plea of guilt and the matter proceeded directly to determination of punishment.

One major factor in upgrading the tenet against self-betrayal into a rule of law was widespread opposition to the canonical oath de veritate dicenda, also known as the ex officio oath. Regularly used in the ecclesiastical courts but also in the prerogative courts, the ex officio oath required a defendant to swear under oath that he would answer all questions put to him truthfully without any prior knowledge of the subject of inquiry whatsoever.

This practice was detested because it led to all kinds of fishing expeditions for evidence of immorality, religious heterodoxy, or political dissent. In the 1550’s, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, both Catholics, who wanted a return to the Roman rites, and Puritans, who wanted to shed the dregs of popery, were frequently persecuted. By seeking a writ of prohibition in the common law courts, they tried to stop the use of the ex officio oath with limited success….

Compulsory process by law arrived in 1562. After enactment of the Statute of Elizabeth, 5 Elizabeth I, c. 9, § 12, a statutory penalty and right to sue was created for witnesses who refused to testify in a civil case, provided there had been proper service of process and tender of expenses…. Eventually compulsory process evolved from a duty to attend into the duty to disclose all knowledge.

Beginning in the late 1700's and into the nineteenth century, the criminal process in England became adversarial. The increased use of defense counsel reduced the expectation that the accused would offer a defense himself. Private associations of prosecutors arose to defray the victim's costs.

….

The relevant text of the Fifth Amendment states “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Therefore, the word “witness” limits the category of compelled incriminating statements to those that are testimonial in character.

Counsel for Slavin has focused on the “communicative” aspect of the tattoos and urges that they fit under the Schmerber “shadow of testimonial compulsion.” This argument ignores the contemporaneousness component of compulsion. The New York State Court of Appeals has defined “testimonial or communicative evidence” to be that which reveals a person's subjective knowledge or thought processes.

However, prior voluntary communicative acts are distinguishable from contemporaneous communicative acts which retain the testimonial aspect required under Fifth Amendment analysis. People v. Holmes, 304 A.D.2d 1043 (3d Dept. 2003) (tattoo with nickname “Polo” was communicative but its display to jury was non-testimonial); People v. Spruill (alteration of tattoo from “Pike” to panther was proper evidence of guilty conscience); People v. Mars, 266 A.D.2d 316 (2d Dept. 1999) (love letters from defendant to non-spouse, which were found by defendant's estranged husband, were admissible to prove motive). Prior voluntary communicative acts without any contemporaneous testimonial aspect, lack the element of compulsion needed to bring them within the constitutional privilege.

College of Education at University of Tulsa Loses Certification

Oklahoma has a teacher shortage. In 2016, school districts cut about 1,500 teaching positions. They still had over 500 teaching vacancies when the school year started. The Oklahoma Teacher of the Year moved to Texas for better pay.

Now comes word that an Oklahoma agency under the control of Republican Governor Mary Fallin has denied certification to TU’s Education Department. In vague terms, TU states that the problem is with evaluating teacher preparation and candidate assessment.

Tulsa is a private university but subject to the state’s certification standards. The Tulsa World reports: “Higher education institutions that prepare teachers used to be accredited by the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation, but in 2014, a change in statute combined it with the Office of Accountability and renamed the new entity the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability, or OEQA. 

OEQA commissioners are appointed by Gov. Mary Fallin, and Fallin’s secretary of education, Natalie Shirley, serves as chairwoman.”

The action does not seem to be motivated by an agenda to destabilize public schools. Just this month, Gov. Fallin got behind a proposal to raise taxes $1.5 billion to help fund public education.

…

For readers in Illinois, this story might raise even more concerns about great education departments at EIU, ISU, and other state schools that are harmed by the budget impasse.

PHOTO CREDIT: Bennett, Christian Science Monitor

Miguel Montero and Jake Arieta: Was There a Wall?

Most news stories about Miguel Montero’s swift dismissal from the Cubs take a two-part approach: Montero had a good point, but he violated a norm about not throwing your teammate under the bus publicly.

Maybe it’s a bit deeper.

America is deeply polarized over the 2016 election. Friendships have been lost over whether one favors or opposes Donald Trump.

Now mix in the fact that Cubs ownership is tight with Donald Trump. Todd Ricketts was nominated by Trump to be Deputy Commerce Secretary but bowed out due to apparent conflicts of interest (bravo, Todd).

Throw in Jake Arieta’s tweet shortly after Trump’s big win: “Time for Hollywood to pony up and head for the border #illhelpyoupack #beatit.”

For most of us, it’s a throwaway tweet. And maybe Montero paid no mind to it.

But maybe it got under his skin. Montero grew up in poverty in Venezuela. He is likely here on an “O-1 visa.” If he married a U.S. citizen, he can qualify for citizenship that way—for now.

This is all speculation, but the point is that politics may have seeped into the Arieta-Montero battery in the kind of toxic way that many of our relationships are suffering from a lack of civility.

I’m not saying the Cubs are wrong—but I am saying that the Cubs are a very different team this year. Maybe there’s a wall that separates one group of young stars such as Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant who grew up with an upper middle class background, and another group of players—Willson Contraras (Venezuela), Pedro Strop (Domincan Republic), Javier Baez (U.S. citizen from poor island territory, Puerto Rico). If this is true, throwing out Montero won’t solve the problem.

And by the way, if you think the Cubs treated Montero fairly, let's also recognize that the Cubs didn't flinch at trading for baseball's best closer last year, Aroldis Chapman, after he allegedly choked his wife; nor did the Cubs flinch when two star infielders, Starlin Castro and Addison Russell, faced allegations of assaulting women. Yes, that's different from Montero's public rant, and yes, Montero isn't close to these players in talent.

But as of today, the Cubs owe Montero $14 million. That's a lot to pay for high-minded hypocrisy.

Breaking Noose: Make America Hate Again

Yesterday, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission confirmed reports that the UPS center in Maumee, Ohio had two nooses that were routinely hung at work. The report concluded that the UPS hub has been "permeated" with racially charged comments and incidents since 2013 to include displays of Confederate flags, racially offensive text messages and hostile comments.

In the past month, here are new reports of noose sightings:

A college football coach at East Tennessee State University was arrested this past weekend after he threatened to kill, beat, and hang a hotel clerk "from a noose" because his room key card didn't work.

For the third time in a year, a noose was found hanging last week from a lamp post near the Smithsonian Museum on African-American History and Culture.

On June 8^th, a teddy bear was found hung with a noose at a North Carolina high school.

On June 7^th, a 15 year-old student at a charter school found a picture of herself with a noose around her neck.

On June 3^rd, a noose was found hanging at a construction site near an elementary school in Washington, D.C.

A noose hung in the Port of Oakland sparked a walkout by workers on May 25^th.

Are You a Social Drinker?

I was asked this question today: “Are you a social drinker?” Doctors will ask that question, as do others.

I had some trouble with the question. At most university events where alcohol is served—graduation, fund-raisers, even tailgates— I don’t drink at all. Alcohol is served all the time at these venues.

If I am in company with people I don’t know well or trust, I won’t drink, either.

If I’m with family or close friends, I sometimes have a beer or glass of wine—but just as often or more so, I pass.

Anyway, I kind of condensed all of this and gave my answer—it boiled down to “not so much.”

Later, I looked into how some authorities define social drinking.

There is some variety in answers.

I found the answer from the Betty Ford Foundation a bit unsettling: “Question: How do you define social drinking? Answer: Social drinking may be that drink or two that soften the harsh events of the day or release one to relaxed sociability or just allow you to see the humor of it all.” For a rehab place, that sounds like rationalizing your problem away. Well, by that definition, I am not a social drinker.

Urban Dictionary defines social drinker in these terms: “A person who only drinks alcohol in social settings where there are already other people drinking.” Okay, I fit that definition.

Alcoholrehab.com gives a definition that comes closest to my wife’s definition. I would answer “yes” here:

“One way to describe a social drinker would be to say that these are individuals who: * Only drink occasionally. * Do not feel the need to drink alcohol in order to have a good time. * Never get into trouble because of alcohol. * Don’t do or say things they regret while drinking. * Do not spend a lot of time thinking about alcohol. * Feel no need to control their intake. Such individuals never drink enough to worry about having to cut back.

Compare that pretty narrow definition to The Free Dictionary, which defines social drinker in these terms: “social drinker: A person who consumes alcoholic beverages in moderation–ie, ≤ 2 'standard drinks'/day, often in a socially acceptable situation.”

Hmmm, I’m not sure what a “standard drink” is, and this definition sets a limit of two-per day.  

Finally, Psychology Today offers a pretty generous definition: “Social drinkers are those individuals who drink in low-risk patterns. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), ‘low-risk’ drinking for females consists of no more than 7 drinks per week and no more than 3 drinks per sitting. For males, it consists of no more than 14 drinks per week and no more than 4 drinks per day. 

Okay, if that’s the definition, my answer (mostly no) seems okay.

***

On a serious note, I don’t see a consensus definition of social drinking here, and these are in some way or other authoritative sources. If you want to share a definition, e-mail me at m-leroy@illinois.edu. If I get enough replies, I will update this post (and will post your reply only with your permission).

“Three Blind Mice!” Alito, Thomas & Gorsuch Can’t See Muslim Discrimination

“Three blind mice. Three blind mice.”  (That’s a good way to describe Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch’s inability to see what nearly every other judge—Republican-- or Democratic--appointee saw. All but these three saw anti-Muslim discrimination.)

“See how they run. See how they run.” (See how they run to give paid speeches to religious and conservative lobby groups. See this recent quote from U.S. News& World Report: “Speaking to graduating Catholic seminarians last month, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered an urgent message: America's "traditional values," he warned, are under attack, and the assault on Christianity is coming from the left.

"For most of my life, American people have been united in their strong respect for religious liberty. But recently, things have started to change," Alito told the Class of '17 at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, a Catholic institution in Wynnewood, New Jersey. "The idea that speech can be banned if it expresses an idea that is offensive is spreading around the country.".)

They all ran after ….

Did you ever see such a sight in your life? (Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 6–3 decision, Korematsu v. U.S., had six blind mice who sided with President Roosevelt’s executive order excluding Americans of Japanese descent from living, working and moving freely in the U.S. during WW II. They saw no racial discrimination.)