Not Bloomberg

Bloomberg is Wrong for Wisconsin

Votes here are not for sale.

Former Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced that he is running for President of the United States in 2020……….. as a Democrat. 

Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire who has championed some liberal causes and many conservative ones throughout his political and business careers. He believes that he is the only one tough enough to take on Donald Trump in next year’s election. He is willing to spend millions of his own money to try and convince Democrats and disaffected Republicans that he is correct. 

Whether you agree with Bloomberg’s politics and policies or not, he is correct about one thing. The path to the presidency has to run through Wisconsin, a state Trump won in 2016. To solidify the point, Bloomberg rented office space in downtown Milwaukee and recently opened his first Wisconsin campaign office in the space. He plans to hire staff and spend lots of his money on television ads here to tell voters why they should vote for him. No mention yet on the scope and depth of a ground game to reach actual voters with his still undefined platform.

Moderate Republicans welcome Bloomberg to the field. He is one of their own or, at least, one they feel comfortable with, as he avoids the popular themes and plans put forth by many in the progressive wing of the Democratic party like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He won’t seriously come after accumulated wealth to level the tax burden on working people if elected. 

Bloomberg has a lot of ground to make up on those who have been on the campaign trail longer. His massive TV ad buys here and across the nation have barely budged the Wisconsin polls. The best of the bunch gives him just about a 3 percent approval rating, placing him well back from those taking part in the televised debates and running grass-roots supported and funded campaigns.

Progressive Democrats here and across the nation have roundly criticized Bloomberg for trying to buy the election with his massive personal wealth and fear he will take moderate votes away from the populists running more grass roots efforts. I suspect he will hurt more moderate, centrist Democrats like former Vice-President Joe Biden, U. S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. The best we can hope for is that a Bloomberg campaign will doom those closer to the center, clearing the way for a populist progressive to take the primaries and win the nomination at the DNC convention in Milwaukee this summer.

Progressive and even moderate Democrats take issue with Bloomberg’s controversial “stop and frisk” policy that turned New York City police officers loose to harass and detain “suspicious looking” people who just happened to be people whose skin tones were more than off-white. Even though Bloomberg has told the media his policy was a mistake in hindsight, he pushed it hard against all detractors while he was the Mayor of New York City and continued to defend it long after he left office. 

Bloomberg’s wealth and position conveniently allow him to avoid the cauldron of the debates where ideas, policies and positions get the scrutiny they deserve and candidate’s ability to defend their proposals is publicly tested. A self-funded campaign does not have to measure success like a grass-roots campaign with millions of supporters does. Bloomberg only has to answer to himself, not the people whose money supports the policies and proposals of the progressives. 

We have already witnessed what so-called “self-made” wealthy people do when elected in rigged elections bought and paid for with personal wealth. We don’t need a Democratic Donald Trump who says things people want to hear in order to secure their votes and then does just what he pleases afterwards. We don’t need another wealthy politician whose wealth and claimed business acumen are pushed as the solution to the problems facing our government and a deeply divided country.

Michael Bloomberg demonstrates the fear and arrogance driving many of those who have amassed great personal wealth. They took advantage of the trickle down, continually lower taxes political strategies championed by the GOP politicans they help to maintain power in Washington and Wisconsin. They fear their gravy train will be stopped by a reformist progressive led government and believe that only they have the right to hold the keys to the city. 

I’m not one to make New Year’s resolutions, but this New Year I will make an exception. My resolution is to work to sweep these old guard folks from the halls of government and put working people and a vibrant middle class first by electing a progressive, grass roots supported candidate with a proven track record of standing up for them.

On Being Santa

On Being Santa

Family Promise Needs Him 

Over the decades, I have been asked to become Santa for a time to spread some holiday cheer to those who need or miss it.

My first time was in State College, PA as a member of the Junior Chamber of Commerce. I donned a borrowed suit, hat, wig, beard and a bag of candy and strolled through the shops and taverns in that small down spreading smiles with a hearty Ho-Ho Ho. I didn’t just greet customers, but went into kitchens, behind bars and into back wrapping rooms to add some merriment for those who were trying to make other happy. 

My wife brought our three-year-old daughter downtown and we met up on the street, much to her surprise. I bent down and in my best disguised voice said, “Have you been a good, little girl this year?” She peered into my eyes, paused for a moment and replied, “Hi Dad.” We both smiled and laughed. I’ll never forget the experience.

My next adoption of the Santa persona was for the Washington County Humane Society’s Pictures with Santa fundraiser. Local folks brought all manner of pets down to the old strip mall between Kohls and Shopko to have me stand, sit or lie down with their critters for a picture they could use as a Christmas card. I had a lot of fun, raised some needed funds for the Shelter, but had to clean the suit of lots of lots of extra fur. Most enjoyed the experience and I did not get bit by anything or squeezed by the constrictor. All in all, this was a success too.

I donned the suit more than once for holiday parties at our local Democratic Party office where Christmas took on a more partisan tone surrounding the election or issue of the moment. Still I was able to coax a smile and a carol out of these more serious crowds as we shared Merry Christmas treats and libations. Success again.

My most memorable excursion into Santa’s world came this past Thursday night when my wife and I became Santa and Mrs. Claus for the Family Promise of Washington County’s Christmas party at Holy Angels School. We entered the room full of families who have or are experiencing homelessness and were greeted by the innocent, believing smiles and wide eyes of small ones who flocked to us for hugs and surprises. 

Even though these children are living in poverty and the uncertainty that accompanies it, they made cookies for Santa and Mrs. Claus which they gave to us with great joy and wonder. We could see the pride of accomplishment in the decorations and sprinkles. We thanked each one and mostly followed with a hug. Some asked where the Elves were or how old I was. Each got an answer and a smile. 

We sat for pictures with the kids. Some came with their siblings or a parent to capture the moment. After pics were snapped, each child got to pick out a stuffed toy from a large box. Many had to come back to show us what they picked out. Teens came with friends or siblings to sit on Santa’s lap for a picture and a toy. The large ones also got special Green Bay Packer socks wrapped with love at the North Pole by Mrs. Claus.

We ended the short evening with a photo of Santa and Mrs. Claus with all of the Family Promise volunteers who had worked very hard to pull off a successful dinner and event with the Clauses. It was an honor to be with them and to share, at least for a moment, in their joy of a job well done. I was glad to see some old friends among them who took time out of their busy lives to make the lives of others a bit better. They smiled and I consider the night my best Santa yet.

For those of you who don’t know about Family Promise of Washington County, check out their website at https://familypromisewc.org. If you don’t believe that one of the wealthiest counties in Wisconsin has a homeless population, read about the work these great volunteers do throughout the year to help those struggling with that very real problem right in our hometown neighborhoods.

If you are looking for a great cause to support that makes a real difference in the lives of folks right here in Washington County, consider a donation to this great organization. They have a wish list on their home page or just send them a good-sized donation. It will be well used.

Protect Water Protectors

Fossil fuel advocates ignore First Amendment rights

Evers failed to protect the protectors

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers turned his back on environmental protectors, including major supporters and Wisconsin’s federally enrolled Native tribes, when he failed to veto Assembly Bill 426 and signed it into law as Act 33.

The bill, co-sponsored by Washington County Rep. Rick Gundrum, expanded the definition of energy provider under state law and made peaceful protest on property owned, leased, or operated by companies engaged in oil, water or gas production or transmission a felony offense, punishable by up to a six-year prison sentence and up to a $10,000 fine.

The bill was modeled after proposals by ALEC, the ultra-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Council of State Governments in response to the protests at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Wisconsin became the tenth state to pass similar legislation. Evers’ press release echoed the ALEC and oil and gas industry talking points, indicating the bill was needed to “ensure each energy provider is treated the same under the law while still protecting the right to exercise free speech and the right to assembly.” Evers added that he wanted the Legislature to work with Wisconsin tribal nations in the future “before developing and advancing policies that directly or indirectly affect” them. Given the final language of the new law, neither the tribes nor many of the state’s environmental groups were satisfied.

Maria Haskins, of the tribal advocacy group Menikanaehkem Inc., noted, “neither the energy industry nor the state of Wisconsin has consulted any tribal government about how this legislation would infringe on the sovereignty of Wisconsin’s twelve Indian Nations.”

Thirty-six groups signed letters delivered to the governor urging him to veto the bill. They included the ACLU, Sierra Club, the landowner group 80 Feet is Enough and others. Their concerns included claims that the new law infringes upon constitutional rights to protest and a loss of landowner rights. The letters point to the possibility of more people of color being sent to prison trying to protect our water.

Fourteen more national groups including Greenpeace, the National Lawyers Guild, PEN America, Defending Rights and Dissent anhers also asked Evers to veto the bill. Their letter concluded, “special protections designed to protect the energy industry from protests, including non-violent civil disobedience, do nothing to protect the public or worker safety. They do threaten our democracy by chilling dissent.”

Elizabeth Ward of Sierra Club-Wisconsin called out the governor for failing to protect the environment and make good on his campaign promise to address climate change. “Governor Evers had the opportunity to demonstrate leadership on climate change, and he opted not to. The need to stand up for water protectors, Tribal members, and landowners with oil pipelines running through their property has been crystal clear with the recent pipeline fights in Wisconsin and around the country. It’s disappointing that the governor was unwilling to do so and instead supported this bill that helps the fossil fuel industry continue to lock us into a climate catastrophe,” she noted.

Chris Ott, the executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, vowed to monitor the enforcement of this law and “oppose any attempts to infringe on the freedom of speech or criminalize people for making their voices heard.”

Unfortunately, Governor Evers sent a conflicting message by signing this bill into law. He previously appointed a task force to focus on actions to combat climate change led by Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. In doing so, Evers signaled his support of efforts to rein in the destructive impact the use of fossil fuels has on our environment. His failure to veto this “pipeline protection” bill undercuts his own task force and calls into question Evers’ commitment to protecting our environment.

Human Beings Are Not Mascots

Human Beings are not Mascots
Teach Respect Not Racism

Imagine a high school choosing to name its sports mascot an “Old White Guy” or a “Crazy Christian.” The surrounding community would rise up as one to say how inappropriate and demeaning to the elderly Caucasian or the practicing Christian. We would not tolerate such an insult, even us old white guys who might find it mildly amusing to be so honored.

It amazes me that surrounding community members still find it appropriate to continue to use Native American figures as mascots and school symbols and name their sports teams after them when it is clear that many indigenous peoples are offended by these portrayals and object to their continued use.

The Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the organization that represents and serves public school boards across Wisconsin, is circulating a resolution requesting those few public-school districts still using Native American names and mascot imagery to change their names and mascots to create more inclusive and welcoming learning environments for their students. So far, 17 districts have signed on and others have voluntarily changed their practices. Some districts have learned from the past and made the change. But 31 districts across the State still use their Indian or Chief names and mascots, including Menomonee Falls High School and the Kewaskum school district.

The Menomonee Falls district has taken up the challenge and is holding community listening sessions to gauge public support. The district’s superintendent has come out in favor of changing their mascot and name. Community members have spoken in favor of the change while other have voiced support for continued use. Community groups have urged the board to change the mascot and imagery, including the American Civil Liberties Union. The school board will vote on the issue in December.

My community, Kewaskum, has ducked the issue so far. Here the problem is larger as the village is named after Chief Kewaskum, a Potawatomi chief. The school mascot is an Indian as are those who play sports for the school. Kewaskum shares an even bigger issue because both the village president and a member of the school board who is also a Republican member of the state Assembly have been vocal adherents of the “let’s stop with the political correctness” defense of continuing use of the name and imagery. Rep. Tim Ranthum, the school board member, even wants to put larger Indian chief logos on school sports field fences, claiming the name as a matter of community pride. He recalls proudly when prominent community members used to attend sporting events in full native regalia. He claims to be honoring the past chief, even though his descendants see no honor in the practice.

There have been been published studies showing that Native American students enrolled in schools that use people like them as mascots and terms like Indian for members of the school’s sports teams do not feel welcomed or included in their learning environments and do not do as well academically as similar students in schools with mascots and sports team names that do not appropriate their likeness or heritage.

Wisconsin law used to make it relatively easy for marginalized students to challenge the use of their heritage or racial identity. They did not have to show actual harm in order to prevail. In 2013, Wisconsin changed the law shifting the burden to the student aggrieved to show harm and also added a requirement for a community petition signed by 10 percent of the district population to force a change. This change did not end the controversy as Wisconsin tribes continue to lobby for teaching respect, not racism. So far, the Republican Legislature has not listened or acted with respect toward those who find the mascots, names and images offensive and insulting.

This is also a national problem, especially when you consider the NFL’s Washington Redskins and Kansas City Chiefs. Not to mention the Atlanta Braves baseball team and the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team. Pressure has been mounting on these franchises to change their identities and demeaning use of native names, images and heritage.

Those who lived on these lands long before the invasion of the Anglo-Europeans deserve more respect than they are given. We need more robust curriculums on Native American customs, history and environmental stewardship in our schools. With a deeper understanding and appreciation of indigenous people and how we might benefit from many of their ways of living in harmony with their environment, perhaps we can find better and less offensive mascots and sports team names.

Recusal Required

Senator Johnson Must Recuse in any Impeachment trial involving Ukraine

Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. Senator Ron Johnson has put himself in a box that is impossible to get out of when it comes to impeachment proceedings in the Senate involving President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President. 

As Chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations sub-committee on Europe and a member of the Senate’s bipartisan Ukraine caucus Johnson was smack dab in the middle of the conversations and meetings being considered by the House of Representatives for an article of impeachment against President Trump that involve withholding of U.S. military aid in exchange for Ukrainian help with investigations of 2020 presidential candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter. 

Johnson has been quoted in newspaper accounts as having learned of the withholding of the military aid to Ukraine and that it was done to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He had direct communications with President Trump who assured him that there was no “quid -pro-quo” for the aid to flow and Ukraine going forward with the desired investigations. Johnson also met with Ukrainian officials who claim that Ukraine assisted Democrats in the 2016 election. Johnson attended the inauguration of the Ukrainian president who spoke with President Trump. Johnson also unsuccessfully lobbied Trump to let the Ukrainian military aid flow. He stated publicly that he was satisfied with Trump’s statements to him that there was no “quid pro quo” involved with the aid and a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens. 

In order to understand the problem, it is important to understand the process of presidential impeachment. The U.S. House of Representatives is charged with bringing articles of impeachment forward. Think about articles of impeachment as similar to charges in a criminal complaint or indictment filed by a prosecutor. The articles then form the outline for a trial in the United States Senate where two-thirds of the Senators have to vote to convict in order for the president to be removed from office. In that trial, each Senator sits as a judge or member of a jury, and has to decide if the facts presented are first, true and second, sufficient to warrant impeachment and removal of the president from office. 

If you were facing a criminal trial, would you want one of the witnesses to the facts of your case to then turn around and act as the judge or member of the jury charged with determining if those facts are true?  Would you want that same person to then determine if those facts were sufficient to establish your guilt? I bet you would not.

The rules governing criminal and even civil trials in the United States strictly prohibit witnesses from serving as fact finders and judges in the same trials where they give testimony. The reasons are clear and obvious. We want our trials to be free from bias or even the appearance of bias by those charged with making credibility decisions and applying the law to facts determined to be true. If such a situation arose in our courts, the judge who had first-hand knowledge of the facts of a case before her or who actually gave evidence in the case would be required not to decide the case and to step aside from all decisions in the matter.

In this particular case, Senator Johnson was asked directly if he would step aside, or recuse himself, from his judicial role in any impeachment trial involving the Ukrainian allegations. On Tuesday, Johnson indicated that his close involvement would not cause him to recuse himself from an impeachment trial of President Trump. He claimed that he would “listen to the case very respectfully” and “not prejudge anything.”

Senator Johnson, that just is not good enough. If you want the trial to be fair, you must step aside and not vote on any allegations involving Ukrainian matters or the solicitation of foreign governments to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. Wisconsin voters expect fair and unbiased proceedings, regardless of party loyalty.

Vos violated the ADA

Respect is optional; the ADA isn’t

Vos flouts Americans with Disabilities Act in dust-up with Anderson

Wisconsin state Rep. Jimmy Anderson, D-Fitchburg, has substantial physical disabilities and is confined to a wheelchair. He is still able to speak, think and act as the representative of his constituents. In order to carry out his legislative duties, Anderson has repeatedly asked Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, to allow reasonable accommodations for his disabilities such as being able to participate in those legislative committee meetings where he is a member by phone instead of in person. Vos repeatedly denied Anderson’s requests until last week, even though the Americans with Disabilities Act requires the requested accommodations.

Vos offered Anderson a watered-down affirmative answer last week, but coupled it with changes to Assembly rules consolidating more power in the Republican majority, providing less input from the Democratic minority and increased opportunities to limit Gov. Tony Evers’ veto power. Anderson rejected the accommodations offered to him because they were coupled with these new rules.

Under the new rules, the Assembly now can take unlimited votes to try to override an Evers veto. The old rule only allowed one override vote. The new rules also prevent the Democratic minority from caucusing when surprise bills or amendments are introduced on the Assembly floor. In addition, the speaker now has the power to limit the time allowed for debate and to convene a surprise floor session to vote on bills even when a number of lawmakers are absent.

Needless to say, the response from Democratic Assembly members was quick and scathing.

Rep. Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, released a statement in response.

“It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Speaker would pass on the chance to do the right thing for the right reasons. The effort to tie accommodations for Rep. Anderson to rule changes that silence the minority and undermine the governor is an insult to every single voter. It means that voters aren’t represented equally in the legislature, because some representatives are allowed less of a voice,” Neubauer said.

“Disability accommodations should never be a political process and changing the rules in the Assembly to water down the Governor’s veto and silence the minority — these changes undermine our democracy and each person’s right to equal representation in Wisconsin, regardless of party or ability,” she noted.

Assembly Democratic Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, also criticized Vos’ actions.

“The decision to not allow these basic accommodations without attaching an unrelated power grab is unnecessarily cruel, anti-democratic, and leaves a permanent stain on this legislature. Not every decision has to be political, but it is to Robin Vos. No single legislator has been more damaging to this institution and to our democracy,” Hintz stated. “It’s clear Republicans don’t want us to debate the issues. They don’t want to address the challenges facing our state. Instead, Republicans are solely focused on ways to consolidate their own power and stick it to Governor Evers.”

“Apparently Republicans are not capable of the simple decency of accommodating their colleague without attaching rule changes that have literally nothing to do with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The fact that throughout this process none of Rep. Anderson’s GOP colleagues reached out to him to offer even their minimal support tells you everything you need to know,” Hintz concluded.

Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, also weighed in on the controversy.

“AR 12 ties disabilities accommodations for a member of the Assembly to other rule changes that consolidate power of the majority party, including allowing unlimited attempts to override a veto and giving sweeping new powers to the Speaker.

“Accommodating individuals with disabilities serving in the Legislature is an issue of basic respect and should not be treated as a political matter up for debate. Yet, Speaker Vos has spent months denying our colleague, Rep. Jimmy Anderson, and his constituents the respect they deserve.

“Speaker Vos’ petty refusal to provide the same reasonable accommodations to our colleague that we would expect and require of any employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act has been a mind-boggling embarrassment to himself and our entire institution. Now his motive is clear — He was unwilling to do the right thing unless there was something to be gained for himself and his caucus.

“Republicans have treated what should be nonnegotiable — accommodating the full participation of individuals with disabilities — as a negotiation. Their refusal to act on Rep. Anderson’s request for reasonable accommodation without getting something for themselves in return is nothing short of shameful.

“Instead of holding ourselves accountable to the same standards under the Americans for Disabilities Act that we require of all other employers in the state, Republicans have used this as an opportunity to hide their naked power grab and change the rules for their own benefit. Speaker Vos and Assembly Republicans shamefully put themselves first in a flagrant act of disrespect for our colleague and other individuals with disabilities,” Subeck said.

When we thought that our society was better for the contributions of those less physically able, Speaker Vos shows we still have miles to go before we have a truly inclusive democracy where the contributions of all are welcomed and honored.

Farewell Famiy Farms

Farewell to the Family Farm
Trump Abandons Farmers

The Trump Administration just told Wisconsin’s family farmers to get bigger or go out of business. Wisconsin family dairy farmers, already facing steep competition from large corporate farm operations, are leaving their fields, selling their herds and going bankrupt in record numbers rather than grow themselves out of work. Wisconsin has lost over 1,000 dairy farms in the last two years.

On Monday, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Purdue addressed the World Dairy Expo in Madison. He said family farm survival depended on their getting bigger in order to catch up with the large corporate operations. “In America, the big get bigger and the small go out,” Purdue said. This not the first time Purdue has put small farmers down. He recently called farmers “a bunch of whiners” at Minnesota Farmfest.

In a press conference after the Expo, Jerry Volenec, a dairy farmer from Grant county said, “What I heard today from the secretary of agriculture was there’s no place for me.”

The Wisconsin Farmers Union strongly condemned Purdue’s remarks in a press release. WFU President and third-generation dairy farmer Darin Von Ruden runs a 50-cow organic dairy farm in Westby. He noted that the “bigger is better” mantra has not panned out well for rural Wisconsin in recent years. 

“The mindset that has been pushed on farmers to continually grow is ultimately pushing them out of business as overproduction forces market prices down,” Von Ruden said. 

Farm losses have accelerated in recent years, ripping farm communities apart. The loss of revenues in rural areas is reaching their Main Streets causing banks to close along with post offices and grocery stores, Von Ruden noted. 

At the press conference, Von Ruden said, “When there’s no money in the farming community it doesn’t stay in that farming community and so it disappears and the local community disappears.” “We need to look at something that will benefit all of our rural America, not just corporate rural America. 

Democratic Representative Ron Kind noted that the Trump administration’s Market Facilitation Program that was supposed to help struggling family farm operations has, instead, favored large corporate farms. Kind wrote to Purdue complaining that the top one percent of large farms received an average of $183,000 in trade aid while the bottom 80% received under $5,000. He also told Purdue that 82 large farms received more than $500,000 and 95 percent of all payments went to the top 50 percent of farms. 

The Market Facilitation Program was developed in response to the Trump trade war with China when China responded to Trump imposed tariffs with tariffs on American farm exports that hit small farms, including those in Wisconsin, especially hard. 

Rep. Kind’s letter to Purdue asked the Secretary to make sure that the next round of payments to farmers harmed by the trade war went to those actually harmed by it. Kind noted that $38 million of the last round of payments went to addresses in American cities indicating they were made to corporate farm owners and not family farmers. 

The facts are grim for farmers. “Between July 2018 and June 2019, the number of farms that filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy rose by 13 percent over the previous year,” according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Loan delinquency rates have reached a six-year high. And nearly 13,000 farms disappeared in 2018 according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” the Federation noted. 

Politico reports, “Farm exports in fiscal 2019 are down nearly 7 percent from 2018, exacerbating one of the toughest periods for agriculture since the 1980s farm crisis.”

Finally, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, “The fallout continues as farmers, on the cusp of spring planting, decide whether to invest in seed, chemicals, fertilizer and other supplies needed to raise the crops they feed to their cattle. More than 300 Wisconsin dairy farms shut down between January and May, including 90 -three a day- in April alone.”

Family farms are the backbone of Wisconsin’s rural economy. If we continue to lose these farms and their surrounding communities to the corporate mega operations that sell cheap and take their profits home, some to foreign countries, and continue to invite retaliatory tariffs on farm exports in a needless trade war, we will all suffer

Rejectionists

Rejectionists Fail to Learn from History
Canadians Got it Correctly

My wife and I are visiting our middle daughter in Owen Sound, Ontario. It is a small waterfront community on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, nestled in Georgian Bay. We went to a local park where a memorial to the African-American slaves who fled the American South prior to the Civil War via the Underground Railroad and ended their journey in that community. 

Many came north fleeing oppression and confinement through Wisconsin and crossed Lake Michigan and came into Canada. Others came north through New England and crossed Lake Erie into Ontario. Some estimates put the number of former slaves who crossed into Canada during those tumultuous times at between 15 to 20 thousand. They came to Canada because that country refused to extradite former slaves back to their former owners in the States when claims were made for their return. 

The memorial in Harrison Park in Owen Sound recounts the contributions these earlier immigrants made to local life and economic growth. It showcases the coded signals families along the Underground Railroad sewed into quilts hung on fences or clotheslines that told travelers which way to proceed along their journey north. One symbol used a star pattern to remind travelers to follow the North Star to freedom. A sailboat pattern warned of a large body of water ahead that would need to be crossed. A flying geese pattern of triangles used north pointing wings to show the way. A crossroads pattern warned of potential dangers from people traveling in a different direction. Others warned of dangers or obstacles and some indicated safety.

The park later became a gathering place for the descendants of those early escapees to meet for annual reunions each August and celebrate their continuing freedom. The gathering date notes the passage of legislation granting permanent freedom to all former slaves throughout the British Commonwealth. 

In Wisconsin, abolitionists created safe houses for escaped slaves traveling the Underground Railroad to rest along their journey north to freedom before the Civil War and President Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation permanently freeing all those held in slavery in our Southern states. Abolitionists were common in Waukesha, Milton and Burlington. Crowds gathered in Racine and other communities to demand the release of captured runaway slaves. They stood up to the bounty hunters sent from slave owning communities to bring owners’ “property” back home. Wisconsin sent the Iron Brigade to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War to put a final end to enslavement of fellow human beings. They mustered at Camp Randall in Madison before traveling south to free fellow human beings.

All this history has come full circle once more as we struggle to find solutions for those fleeing oppression and punishment in foreign lands. The United States is in conflict once more about what to do with brown skinned people who want to be free and see our country as their last best hope for a better, safer life than they have in their South and Central American homelands. 

Many of us would welcome these new immigrants and encourage their integration into the American fabric. We know that successive waves of immigrants, including those with different colored skin or different languages and cultures, have successfully entered life in this country and made significant contributions to our economy and culture. There are others, stoked by fear and hatred of those with different skin tones or who speak different languages, who want to build walls to keep the “invading hoards” from taking our jobs and raping our women. Canada, in stark contrast, has let it be known that it will accept all those that we refuse to admit. 

The new American rejectionists refuse to even consider the possibility that the new freedom seekers might just be able to help us out. They fail to recognize the contributions those from south of our borders already make to agriculture, the food processing industry, restaurants and nursing homes where they do much of the hands-on care of our elderly and infirm. The do not remember when we actually invited the Braceros to come north to work in the fields picking crops and following the migrant trail to work the fields from south to north when those already here refused the work. 

It always amazes me when we fail to learn from our history and fail to see the opportunity in welcoming new workers and their families into our communities. We are better than our rejectionist past and those who share that belief need to stand and be counted at the ballot box when we choose the next round of representatives to speak for us in Madison and Washington.

Free Speech?

Is Speech Free on UW Campuses?
Crafting a solution in search of a problem

In November, 2016, Ben Shapiro, a conservative activist and author was scheduled to give a public speech on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. As he was starting his speech, several people in the audience disrupted his talk with chants of “Shame” and “Safety.” Shapiro responded by writing “MORONS” on the blackboard and gave the audience a double middle-finger salute. Students surrounded the stage for a short time and prevented Shapiro from speaking. The protesters were shown the door and Shapiro was able to finish his speech.

In 2017, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill aimed a punishing those who disrupt speeches on UW campuses subjecting them to harsh penalties, including expulsion for a third offense. The bill failed to pass in the state Senate after the UW Board of Regents passed temporary new rules that provided much of what the Assembly bill contained. The Regents are currently in the process of formally promulgating these rules to be part of the state’s Administrative Code which will need final approval by the legislature and the governor before they take final effect.

Notwithstanding this march towards curtailing speech on our state university campuses, four members of the current legislature have introduced a new bill more draconian than the first one. Republican Representatives Cody Horlacher, Robin Vos and Dave Murphy were joined by Senator Chris Kapenga in sponsoring the new bill. The new one goes further than the first by allowing recovery of attorney’s fees and damages if a violation is found.

In an accompanying memo, the sponsors declared, “Campuses across the country have erupted in protest, including violent riots, as the growing debate over who has the right to speak threatens our nation’s first amendment.” Their memo, aimed at finding legislative co-sponsors for the measure, continues claiming free speech violations have taken place on several UW campuses, including Madison, Oshkosh, Stout and Stevens Point. The memo offers no details of these alleged violations and none of the four sponsors provided any details when asked if there were any other events than the one involving Shapiro. 

Mark Pitsch, a spokesman for the UW System, confirmed that there have been no free speech rights violations on any of the state’s 13 universities and 13 branch campuses since the Regents adopted the current rules in 2017.

It appears that our GOP controlled legislature is proposing solutions to a problem that does not exist. 

Even if it was a problem, passage in our current divided government is far from certain. Governor Tony Evers sat on the UW Board of Regents as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction when the first rules were passed. He cast the sole dissenting vote on the new rule indicating it would chill free speech rights of those opposed to a speaker’s views. His current spokeswoman indicated that his position has not changed, signaling a probable veto of the bill and new Regent rules should either pass.

State Senator Chris Taylor (D-Madison) claims the new bill is being pushed by the Republicans knowing it will be vetoed in order to use it for political messaging. Taylor indicated they will claim Evers and Democrats are anti-free speech when, in fact, the new bill is anti-free speech. 

The bills both appear to track model language suggested by the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona right-wing think tank funded by the Bradley, Walton and Koch foundations, among others. So far, 17 states have enacted a variant of the model campus free-speech legislation with bills pending in several others. 

A key provision requires state campuses to “remain neutral …. on the public policy controversies of the day.” The clear intent of these bills is to take our universities out of the debates on current public policy issues. They are based upon the discredited notion that universities are inherently liberal and anti-conservative and skew instruction to match those views. 

To the contrary, our universities are places where all can come to learn and develop their own world view based on history and accumulated knowledge. There is no better place to develop personal views about the policies and debates that form our society and culture. Universities can supply the instruction that links the past to current issues of public interest and concern.

You cannot understand racism without knowledge of our history of slavery and the post-civil war efforts to keep newly freed slaves in bondage. You cannot understand why oil and gas pipelines are being protested by Native American tribes as threats to their very existence without an understanding of the history of the attempts to obliterate Native people and their cultures. You cannot understand the current fascism of the right without knowing the history of European fascism and our involvement in two World Wars to end it. The birthplace of the modern environmental, civil rights and anti-war movements was on university campuses across the nation.

After learning these foundational histories, it is only proper that protests over the current iterations of these evil movements be not only allowed, but encouraged, on our campuses and in our communities. Punishing people who stand up against oppression is the wrong message.

Climate Change Action Now

Climate Change Action
The Time is Now

It is great to see Wisconsin acting to combat climate change and increase protection of our shared environment based upon sound science, not who puts dirty energy money into campaign coffers.

Governor Tony Evers recently signed an executive order setting a goal for our state to transition to 100% carbon free electricity by 2050. He established an Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy to oversee the effort. These actions set a tone for state action on the issue of climate change and promoting the use of clean energy. They deserve full legislative support and funding to put science back into the policy making agencies that support the effort.

These actions are important because Wisconsin’s climate is changing just like the rest of the world, fossil fuel funded climate change deniers notwithstanding. We’ve seen increasing temperatures year after year. NOAA just announced that this past July was the hottest ever recorded worldwide. The Great Lakes are getting warmer and causing heavier rainfalls and increased flooding. Storms and wild fires streak across the land with increasing strength and damage.

Milwaukee’s Metropolitan Sewerage District was forced to allow five sewerage overflows into the Milwaukee River and Lake Michigan in just three months this year. The District is only allowed to have six during any given year. Wisconsin farmers had to delay planting this Spring due to heavier than normal rains. Our lakes are experiencing unprecedented algae blooms, leading to beach closures across the state. 

Some see Evers’ deadline as too far into the future. A new wave of young climate activists is pushing for a 100% clean energy transition by 2030, twenty years sooner than Evers’ deadline. These young people see their futures imperiled by climate change and are demanding changes sooner so their planet remains habitable.

On another front, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul recently joined a coalition of 22 other states, seven local governments and several environmental groups that recently announced a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency over its new ACE, or “Dirty Power” rule. 

The ACE rule replaced the Clean Power Plan which imposed the first nationwide limits on one of the largest sources of climate change pollution, existing fossil fuel burning power plants. The EPA’s new rule rolls back these limits, freeing plants to continue burning expensive and polluting coal. It also adds restrictions on state efforts to move to clean renewable and affordable generation of electricity.

In a press release, Attorney General Kaul noted that “climate change is not only real; it is a crisis. We’re only beginning to see its effects, including severe flooding and extreme temperatures. We can’t afford to wait for 20 years or a decade to take meaningful action. We need to step up now and to start responding to the climate crisis like our kids’ future depends on it – because it does.”

The new EPA ACE rule barely mentions climate change and ignores the science that proves we have a looming climate crisis. It disregards the requirements of the Clean Air Act requiring limits on air pollutants through best practices like cap and trade programs that have proven effective in reducing power plant emissions of climate changing pollutants. The new rule actually prohibits states from participating in cap and trade programs. Instead, the Trump EPA proposes utility equipment upgrades that will reduce emissions by only 0.7 percent by 2030 as opposed to having no rule at all. The EPAs own analysis of the new rule’s impact on polluting emissions shows it will cost more in economic damage and significantly increase power plant burdens on air quality. 

It is clear that fossil fuel money drives the Trump climate change denial train and brought us this new effort to revitalize a dying industry. Wisconsin legislators would do well to jump off that train at the next station and support Wisconsin and national efforts to take climate change seriously. We need new laws promoting renewable energy generation and pollution reduction strategies. We need to remove the surcharge for registering hybrid electric vehicles. We need more energy efficient mass transit. We need more energy efficiency regulations that lower home heating and cooling costs. 

We all live on this planet and cannot bury our heads in the coal ash any longer. We have no Planet B and need to take substantial steps to correct the errors from the last century of industrial progress by transitioning to renewable and sustainable energy systems that will help restore clean air and water which we all need for survival. 

Time for Gun Law Reform

Wisconsin Wants Common Sense Gun Law Reform
Let the Legislature Debate New Laws

In the wake of yet more mass shootings this week that left far too many dead and injured, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers asked Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to meet and discuss how to address the growing problem of gun violence. There have been over 250 mass shootings this year alone where 4 or more died, with two occurring in Wisconsin.

After agreeing to meet, Vos immediately tweeted that he would not consider gun law reform and blamed the recent carnage on “mental illness.” Fitzgerald indicated that he would not consider any bills that infringed on the 2nd Amendment and Due Process. Their entrenched views will certainly preclude legislative consideration of universal background checks for all firearm purchases or of “red flag” laws that would permit a judge to order firearm confiscation from those found to be a serious threat to themselves or others. 

These modest proposals are already finding renewed favor in states historically opposed to gun law reforms such as Ohio where the republican governor called for similar measures in light of the killing sprees in Dayton and El Paso.

Blaming “mental illness” for our gun violence problem is a distraction dreamed up by the NRA and pedaled by those afraid of losing NRA support. According to U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, 19 out of twenty murderers and 4 out of 5 mass shooters do not have mental illness diagnoses. All of the civilized countries in the world have citizens with mental illness, yet none come close to having as many gun homicides or mass shootings as we do, except those at war. Trump’s recent blaming of the mentally ill for the latest round of killings is all the more bizarre when we recall that one of his first presidential acts was to reverse the Obama era rule barring firearm sales to the mentally ill. 

Hatred of others not like the shooter based on religion, race or country of origin is not a “mental illness.” Hatred and fear of others are among the hallmarks of the white supremacist nationalists all too often found with their fingers on the trigger of the assault-style weapons that kill our fellow citizens. 

The current batch of white supremacist nationalist killers have often been self-described Trump supporters who appear to have been given permission to repel the “invaders” and wipe out the “infestations” their leader describes at his rallies and in his tweets. Trump’s refusal to consider basic gun reform measures further emboldens the haters to continue their killings. His recent condemnation of white supremacy and hatred ring hollow when followed by his tweets attacking his critics in racist and hate filled terms.

Other GOP notables trot out obsession with violent video games as a leading cause of our mass shooting carnage. Other countries, notably China and Japan, have far more video gamers that we do, yet far fewer mass shootings or murders by firearm. No other country where video gamers play violent games comes close to approaching our levels of gun violence. 

What all of our mass shooters have in common is all too easy access to the assault style rifles with high capacity magazines and ammunition designed to inflict the greatest amount of damage to human bodies. Lack of access to these weapons of mass destruction is one of the hallmarks of those countries with almost no mass shootings. 

The tide of public opinion on gun control has shifted. Over 80 percent of Wisconsin citizens in a recent Marquette University Law School poll supported universal background checks for all firearm purchases. This would eliminate the so-called “gun show” loophole in present law that exempts private firearm sales from current background check rules. Over half of those polled also supported a ban on assault-style rifles.

Twenty-two states now have “red flag” laws similar to those now proposed by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. These laws provide due process protections for gun owners by requiring a hearing before a judge where evidence of current danger to self or others must be presented before firearms can be removed by law enforcement. Such measures will certainly pass constitutional muster under the 2nd Amendment.

While important first steps, these measures will not address the need to further restrict access to the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill human beings. Until we renew the assault weapons ban, the killings will continue unabated. 

Speaker Vos and Majority Leader Fitzgerald would do well to take a step back from the NRA talking points and mythology and allow the legislature to freely debate how best protect all Wisconsin citizens from further gun violence. Let us urge them to act on reasonable gun reform before there is another Wisconsin mass shooting. We deserve no less.

Death Penalty Is Wrong

The Death Penalty is Wrong
Wisconsin rejects Capital Punishment

The U. S. Department of Justice just announced that it would start executing people convicted of federal capital offenses in December. President Trump’s apologist Attorney General, William Barr, announced that the first five inmates will die within six weeks. How a staunchly pro-life administration justifies state sponsored killing, while opposing abortion on demand, continues to baffle me. 

The Federal government restored using capital punishment in 1988 and only executed three inmates up to 2003, when it was again suspended. Thirty-seven Federal inmates were executed from 1927 to 2003. In 2014, President Obama ordered a review of death penalty procedures because of concerns over botched executions performed with lethal injections. The current administration announced that the lethal injection concerns have been resolved, clearing the way to start the killings once again. 

Here in Wisconsin, the death penalty was abolished at the end of the 19th century. There was an effort to reinstitute it in the middle 1990s when republicans controlled the legislature and held the governor’s office. 

I had the privilege to be the Chair of the Wisconsin State Bar’s Criminal Law Section from 1994-97. That section is made up of prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges involved with Wisconsin’s criminal justice system.

Our Section looked at the legislative proposal to re-introduce capital punishment and concluded that capital punishment was flawed on a number of levels. We were concerned about the possibility of executing an innocent person. At that time, DNA testing was offering some increased certainty, but many cases lack DNA evidence to test. Research into false confessions and the vagaries of eyewitness identification also lent support to our opposition to the penalty. We all knew that the criminal justice system cannot get it right all of the time and that it is wrong to convict and kill innocent people. 

We also looked at the impact of capital prosecutions on the rest of the justice system. Capital cases cost several times more than other cases that go to trial. Expert testimony, pre-trial litigation and appeals add to the costs and the time cases take to conclusion, taking resources away from other areas of the justice system. Court time for capital cases would take time away from civil cases and would grind the rest of the court system to a halt, especially in smaller counties.

The issues we identified in the 1990s are still present today. They are magnified at the federal level where now Federal courts can impose the death penalty for a federal crime committed in a state that does not have the death penalty. 

President Trump ran his campaign on a “pro-life” platform, promising to appoint “pro-life” judges to the Federal courts. If you believe “life begins at conception” and “all lives matter,” how can you support state sanctioned killing?

I worked with many prosecutors in state and federal courts over the years of my work as a defense lawyer. Former Milwaukee County District Attorney, E. Michael McCann, was among the best and most thoughtful prosecutors I ever tried cases against. McCann, a devout Catholic, was a staunch opponent of the death penalty throughout his tenure and was a strong voice in the debate over its reintroduction. His faith drove his belief that state sanctioned killing was wrong morally. He also understood how trying death cases would take limited resources away from other important law enforcement prosecutions. 

Our work, coupled with the advocacy of other anti-death penalty groups, convinced the Wisconsin legislature not to pursue reintroduction of the death penalty. The proposals died in committee without ever coming to a full vote in either chamber of the legislature. Subsequent efforts to pursue capital punishment also withered and stopped all together by 2000.

Only 22 states now allow capital punishment. Most are republican controlled. How states without the death penalty will react to federal courts sentencing their citizens to death when their state courts cannot will create an interesting political dynamic. 

All of the legalities and moral considerations aside, I still fail to understand how those professing to be “pro-life” can support an administration that engages in state sponsored killing of its own citizens, especially when we have life means life sentencing laws for the most serious offenses.

Attorney General Barr has injected an issue into our political debate that will further divide the electorate and give Trump’s opponents another point of discussion in upcoming election cycles. It is time we abolished the death penalty as many other civilized countries have done.

Obamacare Unconstitutional?

Be Careful What You Wish For

Litigation often brings unintended consequences

Republicans have long railed against the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Salivating at the chance to be rid of the epitome of socialist government run amok, 22 Attorneys General from republican led states brought suit in Federal Court to have the entire act declared unconstitutional. They most recently pressed their case before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the deep south. Two of the three judges favorably received the GOP arguments, foreshadowing a favorable decision. Whichever way the appeals court judges rule, the loser will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. Standing in the way are five of the nine justices who voted to uphold the law in 2012.

Should Obamacare be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, several of its very popular provisions will cease to be in force immediately. Among those would be protection for those 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions that currently prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for those maladies. We recall vividly the recent lame-duck session of our own legislature that failed to pass state protection for pre-existing conditions proposed just in case the Obamacare litigation gutted them. 

There are a number of other Obamacare provisions that would be eliminated immediately with a decision that the whole law fails to pass constitutional muster. A recent survey of the law in the New York Times outlines what is at risk.

Obamacare also provides a number of other protections for health insurance consumers including elimination of the caps on the lifetime amounts that could be paid under a policy, elimination of caps on the amount insurers can require for deductibles, prohibitions against charging older customers more than younger ones and prohibitions on dropping more expensive benefits like prescription medication coverages. All would vanish if Obamacare is declared void.

Obamacare provided permanent authorization of the Indian Health Service that provides doctors and hospitals to more that two million Native Americans. 

Obamacare enabled the Food and Drug Administration to consider and approve biosimilar medications. They are like generic versions of biologic medications which cannot be copied as easily as typical drugs. So far twenty-one biosimilar medications have been approved by the FDA. Elimination of Obamacare could jeopardize those approvals and discourage new biologics from coming to market. 

Obamacare created a new office to innovate new methods of paying for healthcare services, such as lump sum payments for hip replacements and courses to lower diabetes risk. Even the Trump administration seized on this one, using it to link Medicare payments for certain drugs to prices from an international index thus lowering costs. Ending Obamacare would eliminate these efforts as well. 

Obamacare changed several Medicare payment formulas, reducing amounts paid to hospitals. Healthcare providers adjusted their practices to accommodate these changes and undoing them would be difficult. The changes extended the life of the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund and their loss would cause Medicare to lose several years of solvency. 

Obamacare requires drug companies to disclose gifts and payments to physicians, exposing bias in prescribing practices. The end of Obamacare eliminates this safeguard. 

Obamacare reduced the “doughnut hole” in Medicare drug plans that enabled the plans to stop paying for seniors’ meds once they reached a certain amount. Eliminating Obamacare makes seniors on fixed incomes liable for much more of the costs for their medications. 

Obamacare included benefits for breastfeeding mothers like insurance coverage for breast pumps and a requirement that employers provide private spaces for mother to express milk. Thousands of employers that have changed policies to accommodate breastfeeding employees could drop these benefits should Obamacare be invalidated. 

Let’s not forget the 21 million Americans who would lose all healthcare coverage if Obamacare is invalidated. 

If recent history is any guide, our GOP dominated legislature could not even pass legislation to protect those with pre-existing conditions. How can we expect it to provide Obamacare protections for these other benefits current law provides?

To top it off, a declaration that Obamacare is unconstitutional will pave the way for passage of “Medicare for All” on the national level. A measure that already commands support from a solid majority of the American voting public.

Be careful what you wish for, very careful.

Leave our Constitution Alone

Leave our Constitution Alone
It works just fine

When our founding fathers sat down to write our new nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, they recognized that we needed protections against governmental abuses that deprived citizens of their freedom. With abuses by the English crown in mind, they crafted bedrock principles to protect us against future governments run amok. 

When the government accuses a citizen of a crime, the citizen starts the process with the presumption of innocence. This requires the government to carry the burden of proving that a crime was committed and that the citizen accused committed it. The accused never has to prove her innocence. 

The second principle requires the government to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest evidentiary standard used in the law and is meant to ensure a high degree of certainty in the verdict.

The third principle requires the accused be afforded due process of law. This means the government has to tell the accused what crime has been charged, what evidence it intends to use to prove it and provide a neutral forum to hear that evidence.

Finally, the accused is guaranteed that her case will be tried before a jury of her peers who have to unanimously agree as to her guilt or innocence. 

These protections are buttressed by additional requirements preventing governmental invasions of privacy. Before the government can invade your home looking for evidence, it must first obtain a warrant from a judge based upon a credible showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched. 

These protections against government over-reach have worked well since our nation was founded. They apply to all and can be invoked by anyone who stands accused. 

Because those who commit criminal offenses are not well regarded, some in our legislatures seek to curry favor with those who would dispense with these protections for the “obviously guilty” by “getting tough on crime.” One such effort led to the passage of a victim’s rights amendment to our Wisconsin Constitution.  It provided “victims” with a set of rights to make sure that they are treated fairly by the criminal justice system. It set up an obvious conflict with the rights afforded to the criminally accused that is still being litigated in criminal cases. 

Not to be out done in stripping rights from the accused, our legislature has recently passed a new set of “victims’ rights,” known as “Marsy’s Law.” Because the proposed provisions change the state constitution, they must be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum this fall. 

The Wisconsin Justice Institute (WJI) recently published an analysis of “Marsy’s Law” authored by noted criminal defense lawyer, Dean Strang.

Strang looked at all 16 provisions of the new law and noted that voters must consider all in an up or down vote, not 16 separate votes. He concludes that while some of the provisions are laudable and workable, some unconstitutionally invade the rights given to the accused and place undue burdens upon law enforcement officers and district attorneys seeking to comply.

While people can be and are harmed by the acts of others, they do not become “victims” in the criminal law sense until the person who caused the harm is convicted by a jury of his peers who unanimously agreed that the government proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “Marsy’s Law” continues the effort to put a finding that one is a “victim” before the accused is tried and convicted.

Here are some of the problem areas identified in the WJI analysis titled “Marsy’s Flaws.”

One provides a “victim” with a right to privacy. This directly invades the accused’s right to notice of the charges against him, the identity of his accusers and the evidence that will be presented by the government in its effort to convict. This new “right” will create a false sense of hope and expectations for those harmed. 

Another right is to have the proceedings be “free from unreasonable delay.” The proposed law does not tell us who gets to decide if a delay is unreasonable, nor does it fashion a remedy. Would a delayed trial mean that charges are dismissed or that the accused must be found guilty without a trial? The first would not please the “victim” and the second would not pass constitutional muster. 

A third provision allows the “victim” to attend all court proceedings upon request. This will not work as written. It would require the state to provide notice and transportation to all “victims” wanting to attend but unable to afford to and that judges schedule proceedings so that their attendance can happen. For a working, out of state “victim,” this would mean court hearings at night or on weekends to accommodate schedules. 

A fourth requires “victim” access to the attorney for the government upon request. Most district attorney offices have victim-witness coordinators who serve as points of contact with prosecutors. Most DAs do not have the time to meet with “victims” whenever they ask. Again, this provision creates false hopes and is unworkable given current staffing levels. 

A fifth requires that a “victim” be allowed to address the court in any proceeding where one of her rights is implicated. This will create chaos in the courtroom as “victims” often disagree with decisions made by prosecutors and sometimes even ask that charges be dismissed or reduced. 

Finally, Marsy’s law provides that “victims” are entitled to “full” restitution from the person ordered to pay it. What happens when the offender cannot pay due to incarceration or death? This provision would then require state taxpayers to foot the bill. 

“Marsy’s Law” is not needed to address a real problem. Its passage is meant to appease the “tough on crime” crowd that has led us to be one of the countries with the largest prison population on the planet. Our constitution was written to protect us all from government over-reach. Let’s keep it that way.

Death is Inevitable

Death is Inevitable
Tell me how to help

We all have one thing in common. Sooner or later we are all going to die. Most do not have the luxury of knowing when or what will end our lives. Way too many think death is just for the old and infirm and is personally way too far off to contemplate. Far too few plan for end of life issues, leaving family with hard choices.

Death that comes quickly is somehow easier. Those with long, slow death dealing infirmities put caregivers, loved ones and medical providers in tough ethical and moral conundrums. Do we treat aggressively, moderately, passively or not at all? Who gets to make the decisions for the incapacitated who can no longer make decisions on their own? What happens when medical judgments and religious beliefs clash? What happens when family members disagree about the course of treatment?

As a guardian for those with dementia or other incapacitating infirmities, I have experienced first-hand what happens when death comes before affairs are put in order and end of life wishes are made known. 

People who fail to plan for their eventual death or terminal illness exist in what is known as “full code” status. That means that first responders and medical providers must use all means necessary to keep the person alive unless certain guidelines are followed. This can result in invasive medical procedures that may compromise quality of life or cause pain to the patient. 

People who are competent can direct how they want to be treated when they are not able to direct how and what medical treatments are undertaken for them. This is usually accomplished by creating a written living will that outlines what steps can and cannot be taken. People can also designate through a written Health Care Power of Attorney who can make medical and end of life decisions for them if they become incapacitated. Hospitals have forms you can fill out and elder care and estate planning lawyers can also help. Taking the time to create these plans and then discussing them with your family and loved ones will save them and you from the chaos that can follow sudden life-threatening injury and illness. 

For those who courts have determined to be incompetent and fall under the care of a guardian, end of life decision making gets complicated. If the person has made their wishes known before becoming incompetent, guardians can honor those wishes as life winds down. 

One of the major issues is whether to administer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if a person suffers cardiac or respiratory arrest. If a person does not want to have this intervention, she can sign a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) order and provide copies to their medical providers and hospitals, keeping copies at home and in vehicles for first-responders. We know from studies that CPR when performed on elderly patients in nursing or other residential care can cause pain and broken ribs. We also know that long term recovery in these patients is not significantly improved if CPR is administered. 

If no DNR order is in place, guardians can obtain one under certain conditions. First, the person must be 18 or older (known to be not pregnant) and have a terminal condition or a medical condition that could make such actions unsuccessful or repeated cardiac or respiratory failure would occur before death, or have a condition where resuscitation would cause significant physical pain or harm that outweighs the possibility of restored function for an indefinite period of time. Next, an attending physician has to provide written information on procedures that might be used and how the patient can revoke the DNR consent. A DNR form is then signed by the doctor and guardian.

DNR orders do not address the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from someone who is unable to make those decisions. Again, living wills and Healthcare Powers of Attorney can spell out your wishes before these decisions have to be made. Those without this advance planning, put guardians and loved ones called upon to consider them at a considerable disadvantage.

In order for a guardian to withhold or terminate life-sustaining treatment like hydration and artificial nutrition, three physicians have to determine the person to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” If the person expressed their wishes on the subject, the guardian must follow those wishes. If not, the guardian must determine if the proposed course is in the person’s “best interest.” Courts have held that continued life is in a person’s “best interest.”

In considering if treatment withdrawal is in the person’s “best interest,” guardians must consider what treatments will do to the person, life expectancy and prognosis for recovery with or without treatments, the various treatment options, the risks, benefits and side effects of each treatment and the opinions of those who have known the person for significant periods of time. If these considerations weigh in favor of withholding or ending treatment, then the guardian must notify all “interested parties” and give them time to respond. If no one objects, the guardian can withhold or end treatment. If there is an objection, the matter is brought before the probate court for decision.

These are complicated and difficult issues fraught with emotional overlays making it more than worth the effort to address them long before they get presented. Please have the conversations needed to make your wishes known to your spouse, children and extended family. Make your own decisions now about how you want to be treated in the event you cannot express your wishes. It will make it easier on those called upon to help you as your life ends.