I doubt I paid much attention to the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970.

I liked nature, and was vaguely concerned about overpopulation, but was unaware how badly we were fouling up our environment, and had no clue about global warming. I’d read Silent Spring, and about the Cuyahoga River catching fire, and the Santa Barbara oil spill, but these issues hadn’t fired me up as civil rights and the Viet Nam War had.

After a peace activist proposed a day to honor Earth, U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, disturbed that an issue as important as our environment was getting little attention, created the first Earth Day. He asked Denis Hayes to organize an environmental “teach-in” modeled on peace and civil rights teach-ins. A Madison Avenue ad-man, volunteering, came up with “Earth Day.” Ultimately about twenty million people participated, nationwide, a surprising grassroots explosion that helped bring us the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

The next year, Hayes pushed for an international celebration. By 1990, 200 million people celebrated in 141 countries. On Earth Day 2016, the landmark Paris Agreement was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and 120 other countries. Last year, more than 100 million people celebrated Earth Day’s 50th anniversary virtually.

The Iroquois, the Navajo, and many other tribes have long recognized and celebrated the interdependence of Mother Earth and all her creatures. (That interdependence is the part European/American society still has a hard time grasping.) In the 19^th Century, trains and factories already had watchful citizens concerned about how humans were affecting nature; but their concern was more aesthetics. Noise and smoke marred the peaceful countryside.

By 1906, Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot were setting aside land to protect forever.

What should we be doing now?

The major need isn’t individual action and making household changes, but community organizing, voting, and working together toward larger changes. But even recognizing we individuals can’t be the whole answer, we should each reduce our carbon footprint. Walk, bicycle, or ride a bus to some of the places we normally drive. Cut down on meat-eating, because it’s scary how much producing a month’s hamburgers impacts the environment more than providing some equally nourishing food. Recycling is basic, and composting can actually be fun.

Sound the alarm! Share with our community your concern about the climate crisis. It is urgent. As U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres says, “Mother Earth is clearly urging a call to action. Nature is suffering. Oceans filling with plastic and turning more acidic.  Extreme heat, wildfires and floods, as well as a record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season, have affected millions of people."  Call our Congressperson, even though it's hard to imagine  Yvette Herrell admitting there's a crisis.  Join the Movement.  Groups dedicated to change need support - and the power of numbers.

Meanwhile, we should try to educate ourselves on climate change. Read the 14-page Green New Deal; and my blog post today mentions other well-regarded resources. We can’t all be scientists, but we can have some idea what we (and governments) should be doing.

Finally, we can’t become grim. Yeah, we’ve screwed up, big time. The truth is ugly. But there’s still much in life to give us joy. Frowning sequesters no more carbon than smiling; and frowning folks aren’t as persuasive as friendly ones.

But it’s not 1970. No caring person can afford to ignore our savaging of our environment.

                                             - 30 -

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 25 April 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.] 

 

Recalling Archibald Cox, an Island of Integrity in a Swirling Sea of Partisanship

 Fifty years ago, if you saw a pickup truck in Harvard Law School’s parking lot, it belonged to Archie. Professor Archibald Cox, who loved his farm and his horses.

Archie was a Yankee, and born to law. His father was a noted lawyer. His great-grandfather, William Evarts, had prosecuted Jefferson Davis and defended Andrew Johnson against impeachment. Archie was a diligent and brilliant lawyer; but what makes any of this worth telling was his quiet, stubborn commitment to do right.

He fell into politics when fellow New Englander Jack Kennedy drafted him to organize professors to provide campaign ideas. In 1961, Kennedy appointed Cox Solicitor General. He argued the government’s Supreme Court cases, including “one person, one vote” and major civil rights cases.

In 1973, Richard Nixon appointed Cox - a symbol of rectitude - Special Prosecutor to investigate the Watergate mess.

I met Archie in 1978. We were friendly, though not close. Two memories: in class he suffered fools with such grace that if he called on you, and you were unprepared or hungover, and tried your best to respond meaningfully, he not only listened but might, weeks later, suddenly ask, “Mr. Goodman, regarding your point about Smith v. U.S., . . .” and offer a new insight. Also, he always kept the hour before a class free for preparation. He was Mr. Constitutional Law, but so diligent (and humble) he still prepared carefully.

A friend and classmate, Ken Gormley, knew Archie well, and later wrote a splendid biography, which I recommend. Reading it made me long for a time when more folks put principle before partisanship. In one scene, a just-retired Supreme Court Justice tells Cox that, in one recent case, he’d written an opinion deciding one way, then one deciding the other, and ultimately stayed up all night trying to get it right.

When Watergate testimony suddenly revealed that a White House taping system recorded Nixon’s Oval Office conversations for posterity, Archie demanded to hear pertinent tapes. Nixon ordered him to stop seeking the tapes. Though Archie respected the Presidency, he didn’t give up. Nixon intended Cox to resign.

Instead, Archie gave a live Saturday news conference at the National Press Club explaining why he disobeyed Nixon. Archie, his wife, and a friend walked there from the office. It was aired live by two networks, and during halftime of ABC’s football game. Archie, lacking institutional support, wondered if one man could successfully take on the President; but he did his best.

That press conference sparked the “Saturday Night Massacre,” in which Nixon ordered Attorney-General Elliott Richardson to fire Archie. Richardson, a Republican, but another Yankee with a powerful conscience, resigned. Nixon ordered Richardson’s deputy to fire Archie. He too resigned. Finally Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox.

Archie awakened a country. Judge John Sirica eventually ordered Nixon to produce the tapes. Nixon appealed, but the Supreme Court ruled against him, unanimously. Exit King Richard.

My favorite moment is when, as they’re walking back across Washington after that press conference, Archie suddenly wants a beer. His friend finds some in a store, but can’t get anyone’s attention. They’re all in the back, watching TV. “Come back later, man, we’re watching history here!” He realizes they’re watching Archie, and he tells them he’s right outside. They refuse money for the beer, and rush out to shake Archie’s hand.

Thanks, Archie, for setting us all a superb example.

- 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 April 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[The referenced book is Archibald Cox: Conscience of a Nation, by Ken Gormley. A friend who is reading John Dean’s book on Watergate says Dean discusses conversations about Cox, with Nixon and his pals underestimating Archie and Nixon figuring Richardson will keep Archie under control – and Haldeman wondering whether they could trust Richardson. Most of official Washington underestimated Cox. They thought he was “too soft – not nasty enough.” Wikipedia’s entry on Cox notes that “James Doyle, a Washington Star reporter who would later become the chief press advisor for Cox's group, described his own first reaction to meeting Cox: ‘Prosecutors are supposed to have the instincts of a shark; this one seemed more like a dolphin.’"

According to Lewis (the Times reporter who knew Cox well and also taught some courses at HLS), Cox said when he took the job, “I think sometimes it is effective not to be nasty, in a nasty world – although it may take a little while for people to realize that.” Lewis commented: 

If Cox and his staff had not been so able and dogged, they easily could have fallen in a dozen procedural holes along the way in the tapes case. …But plainly there was more to that Saturday night and its aftermath. It all depended on public attitudes—and they in turn depended on the public's reading of one man's character. I am convinced myself that the character of Archibald Cox was essential to the result. Nixon and his men never understood it; they assumed that Cox must be a conspirator, like them, when he was so straight as to approach naivete.   ]

[I should note that although I omitted this because of the limited space in a newspaper column, Kennedy’s campaign wasn’t Cox’s first brush with politics, as he had served as head of the Wage Stabilization Board initiated by Harry Truman in 1952.

Looking on-line for a photo of Cox with horses, I learned that his grandson, Archibald Cox III, is a noted horse trainer.

Finally, I just read the NYT obit, which, after lengthy discussion of his accomplishments, adds:

As a law professor Mr. Cox seemed to make a studied attempt to run his life with courtly, Yankee good humor. His crew-cut hair, button-down shirts and skinny bow ties were personal trademarks, as was his fondness for driving to work in a pickup truck from his farm in Wayland, Mass. He also had a summer home in Maine.

A gaunt 6-footer who wore three-piece suits, Mr. Cox was often described as ''ramrod straight,'' not only because of his bearing but also because of his personality.

In the classroom he had his detractors. He was invariably admired for his scholarship, but his lectures in labor, Constitutional and administrative law were at times criticized as ''soporific'' and ''dry.''

''There's no question that he's in complete command of his subject,'' one student wrote in a critique. ''But he's not a performer in the classroom. There's no sparkle at all.''

Well, yeah. I like the two paragraphs on his manner and personality; and the two on his classroom manner are thoroughly accurate. ]

Some Concerns about Dogs

The County is working on a sole-source contract with “Barkhouse” to help decrease our homeless dog population, partly by transporting dogs to other states for adoption.

Many question the plan’s wisdom and legality. Some urge competitive bidding, because other entities could provide the same services. Some argue that since Barkhouse participated in writing the plan, it’s disqualified: a county can’t “accept a bid or proposal from a person who directly participated in the preparation of specifications, qualifications or evaluation criteria on which the specific competitive bid or proposal was based.” (County Manager Fernando Macias says this provision doesn’t apply.) There are also anti-donation clause issues.

People I respect consider Barkhouse (Kelly M. Barker) caring, creative, and uniquely capable of making progress on a tough problem. Others say Ms. Barker isn’t careful about dogs’ health, sometimes misrepresents things, and tends to react to questions or criticisms by attacking the questioner.

I can’t say. I asked to hear her side. Apparently lawyers advised otherwise.

Public records establish that two people back in Michigan won a 2009 default judgment default judgment on claims claims Barker breached a contract and defrauded them, promising their money would be in escrow and then be secured by real property in Dubai, and claiming she was a Michigan lawyer. (Apparently, after garnishing Barker’s pay and bank account, they eventually got their money.)

With which Barkhouse entity would the County contract? Barker has several entities, although some public records are unclear. Three are (or were) nonprofits: Global Flying Hospitals (Florida) and Uncaged Paws (one in Florida, one here). A column’s too short to discuss all the apparent irregularities, or their possible significance, and I’m no tax lawyer. (Judge Macias apparently sees no problem. I’m not so sure, but likely nobody will test these issues in court.)

Barker’s apparent response to questions concerns me. When someone from respected dog rescuer From the Heart asked to see papers a nonprofit is supposed to produce, Ms. Barker allegedly contacted a third-party to attack FTH. Someone who’d raised questions about Barkhouse received a lawyer letter (evidently designed to threaten, but somewhat silly) ordering her to “cease and desist” her “harassment.”

Really, it’s the dogs I worry about.

An experienced dog rescuer in Boulder, Colorado (‘Beca of Brighter Days) wrote that Barker talked them into taking 30-some puppies and their moms by claiming all pups were healthy and would come with vaccines, a vet check, etc.; but some puppies were seriously ill and papers were missing. The first puppy died two hours after arrival in Boulder, distemper killed three more, another was euthanized, and others were hospitalized. Allegedly, Ms. Barker lied about related points, and only a few papers ever arrived. As problems mounted, ‘Beca sent Barker a “frustrated message,” which Barker answered by posting an old non-stellar review of Brighter Days. Brighter Days paid huge vet bills. ‘Beca wrote the County that she wished she could say that Barkhouse, if better organized, “could do great things . . . but the bottom line is that’s not true. They lied, they hid the fact puppies were sick, took young pups away from their moms, and were the direct [cause] of the deaths of all these pups.” Reportedly, other entities either won’t take a Barkhouse shipment or won’t let dogs be shipped along with Barkhouse dogs.

I hope county officials put egos aside and examine the facts with the care our “best friends” deserve. 

                                              - 30 -

  

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 April2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and is available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[I regret that Ms. Barker declined to speak with me. Often folks can soften the apparent import of facts. For example, would she deny the fraud alleged by her associates in Michigan, explain extenuating circumstances, portray it as a one-off for which she feels remorse? Are there surrounding facts we don’t know that partially justify her conduct? We don’t know.]

[It’s always tough but useful to try to maintain impartiality about polarizing people whom many see as a devil and others as a marvel. I urge county officials to take their best shots at doing the same. I have seen local officials, right or wrong, circle the wagons and view as the enemy anyone who disagrees with them. I know that they have concerns that nonprofits’ turf battles and petty jealousies often prevent progress. We do often see petty jealousies among nonprofits all doing good; but it is not always so deep or strident as to prevent cooperation. I see why they supposed this deal with Ms. Barker might be a good idea. I hope they can see clearly, and admit that they see, why others might see things very differently. (While some of the arrows sticking out of this plan were fired by local nonprofits who might suppose the deal would harm them, most were not. From the Heart notes early in its letter to the BOCC that it is an El Paso entity that would be unlikely to bid, and unlikelier to submit a winning bid, if the County defined its needs and published an RFP. Brighter Days is in Colorado, as are other entities that I believe might have material evidence to give if the City did a serious investigation.]

[I just want the County to give this plan a long, hard, fair look. I fear county officials will react defensively, circle the wagons, feel more than ever committed to their initial course, and dismiss serious questions as the shrill complaints of jealous nonprofits. Just now, out back, petting a dog (a rescue who kindly came to live with us when her rescuer could no longer care or her), and listening to a neighbor call one of the many cats they feed, we all hoped the County will get this right.]

[P.S. In a comment to this post, a group posted a link to its letter to our county government, with supporting documents:  https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aqf7bCPmb2awiHhaQ3OYhLWYn9cJ?e=TSl7fL]

  

Voter Suppression or Guaranteeing Voting Integrity?

Republicans don’t like the results of majority voting in the U.S. and have introduced more than 300 bills in more than 45 states to undermine it.

Any who aren’t allergic to facts realize that significant voter fraud is an urban myth. The conservative Hoover Institute reviewed decades worth of records and found very, very little. Before Trump and Trumpists filed scores of lawsuits in 2020 and provided no evidence, former N.M. Secretary of State Dianna Duran sent the State Police 64,000 records to investigate for voter fraud and found none; and the State paid $90,000 for illegally hiding those public records from the ACLU.

So the folks who desperately shout “Voter fraud!” can’t find any.

Logic would tell us the same: individual voter fraud just isn’t worth it. Would a sane person risk serious criminal penalties over a vote that’s extremely unlikely to change anything? Absentee-ballot fraud is also harder than it sounds. Folks registering to vote must show the state identification, then most states require voters request absentee ballots be sent them by mail. Widespread voter fraud would be extremely difficult to coordinate and to hide.

The Republicans are doing this for the obvious reason: as white U.S. citizens move toward minority status, the Republican Party continues having white males, mostly older, in almost every significant party position; the party has lost the popular vote badly in the past several years, and gets by on gerrymandering, U.S. Constitutional provisions on the Senate and Electoral College, and convincing voters that immigrants, black neighbors, and abortions are more urgent national issues than global warming or economic inequality. Then they gave us Mr. Trump, idolized by his “base” but appalling to most everyone else.

Georgia’s 98-page S.B. 202 is the most prominent of the make-voting-harder bills. While some provisions are innocuous or even sensible, the overall effect is so unfair and dangerous that even corporations are objecting. Some provisions limit drop-boxes (and close them in the crucial last few days when voting is heaviest), start absentee voting later, and forbid giving water to voters waiting in line.

One provision changes the composition and powers of the state election board, making it a mere tool of the Republican-controlled Legislature. The Secretary of State, an independently elected official who in 2020 stood up to Donald Trump’s bullying and whining designed to overturn the will of Georgia voters, will no longer chair the five-member board. He’ll be an ex-officio, non-voting member. Republican politicians, not voters, will choose the chair.

The remaining four members will be three more Republican appointees (one each by the state senate and state house of representatives and one by the Republican Party) and one Democratic Party appointee, creating a 4-1 Republican majority, with no real nonpartisan member, although the chair may not have run for office or made campaign contributions during the previous two years.

The Republican-controlled board would also have more power to intervene in county election boards that are deemed underperforming. (e.g., Fulton County.) County election boards certify results and decide challenges to voters’ eligibility; now the Republican-controlled Sate Election Board will be able to replace county boards where results are unsatisfactory to the Republican state legislators. Such a system unquestionably would have said, “Yes, Sir!” when Donald Trump told them to find 11,000 more votes in 2020.

They haven’t revived the “literacy test” whereby dark-skinned voters had to recite the Constitution from memory to qualify. Yet.

                                                          - 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 3 April2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on on the newspaper's website and KRWG’s website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[One reader wrote this morning to ask a long series of questions, starting with “I am confused as to your statement, ‘While some provisions are innocuous or even sensible, the overall effect is so unfair and dangerous that even corporations are objecting.’ How can innocuous changes become dangerous? “ Well, what I intended to say, but apparently failed to make clear because of my space limitations or ineptitude, was that in this 98-page bill there were many minor points, including some that were administrative improvements with a neutral effect on voting and some that actually improve voter access; but the bulk of them will tend unnecessarily to suppress voting, by shortening periods of early voting and/or making it harder to relieve the impact of long-lines on voters’ patience in highly-populated (and often the most progressive) counties. Too, one could argue that the changes to the Sate Election Board’s composition and powers are innocuous; but in the context of a defeated president trying to bully the Georgia Secretary of State into illegally changing the vote, and encouraging state legislators to usurp powers to change results in their states, putting those decisions in the hands of the Republican-controlled legislature seems an obvious step toward permitting such a politically-motivated change in some future election. Why else do it? At any rate, a further discussion, perhaps on our radio show, with Republicans included, may be warranted.]

[Meanwhile, the Texas State Senate has now passed a package of election bills that would implement new restrictions on voting, which may be worse than the Georgia voting changes. That’s Senate Bill 7, of which I haven’t yet read the final version. The Texas House of Representatives, which is considering its own omnibus package of restrictions, House Bill 6, which some say is worse than SB 7. Texas actually leads the nation in restrictive voting bills, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Interestingly, Governor Greg Abbott announced that combatting election fraud is an emergency item in the legislative session, although he admits that there were no known cases of voter fraud in Texas in 2020. What’s the emergency? He doesn’t explain, but insists that “We must pass laws to prevent election officials from jeopardizing the election process.” In this new hyper-partisan world, I guess you don’t even need to come up with a good cover story.]