Author: Guest Contributor

  • The Reaction to Trump’s Press Conference is about Class and White Guilt

    by John Kluge

     

    The only way to describe the media’s reaction to Trump’s press conference and statements about the events in Charlottesville yesterday is irrational. To understand how irrational the reaction was, just imagine if instead of involving white nationalists and antifa counter protestors the events of last weekend had been a conflict between two rival biker gangs.

    Do not change a single event from this weekend but imagine the events being the result of violence at a biker rally. One biker club has its national rally and a rival biker club shows up to protest and disrupt it. During the course of the weekend, a lot of shouting and violence take place. Fights break out on Friday. For reasons yet to be known the local police do nothing to separate the rival gangs and violence and conflict spills over into Saturday. Finally, on Saturday afternoon a member of the first gang runs a car into a crowd of its rival gang injuring nineteen and killing one.

    Now ask yourself, would anyone in their right mind claim that only the first biker gang was to blame and everyone is obligated to condemn it? Of course, no one would. There would be national outrage about the problem of biker gangs. The local police would be called to the carpet for not maintaining order. Law enforcement would crack down hard on both gangs and biker rallies in general.

    The only reason the media and the nation at large are not having the same reaction it would if Charlottesville involved a fight between biker gangs is because it involved white nationalists. And the media and political class are incapable of having a rational conversation about anything involving white nationalism or white supremacy. The reason for this is that to do so would be to call into question the entire concept of white guilt.

    White guilt, like all racial collectivist beliefs, is completely irrational. White guilt is doubly irrational because it embraces the very sort of racial collectivism it claims to reject. It is irrational to say that one person is responsible for the actions of another person just because they share the same color of skin. It is irrational to say that anyone living today is in any way accountable or responsible or has any reason to feel guilty about events that occurred before they were born. The entire concept of collective guilt, be it based on race, class, sex or anything else is utterly irrational. It represents the worst sort of tribalism that civilization and rationality seek to end.

    White guilt, like all irrational belief systems, is completely antithetical to any form of rational discourse about any of the areas it concerns. Once a believer in an irrational ideology is forced to have a rational discussion about one area of the ideology the entire ideology comes into question. This is why the integration of professional sports did so much towards ending the idea of white racial supremacy. When blacks and whites were not allowed to compete on the same field, whites could hold the irrational belief that whites were inherently superior athletes to blacks. Once Jackie Robinson became a star in the major leagues and Jim Brown became the best football player in the world, whites could no longer hold that belief. They were forced to have a rational conversation based on facts about the relative athletic ability of the two races. And once they did that, they could no longer refuse to question or discuss rationally their views on racial superiority in every other area of life. The entire ideology fell like a house of cards. Within a few decades, white supremacy went from a societal given to a fringe belief.

    One of the primary tenants of white guilt is that white nationalism is a unique evil. White guilt necessitates that white nationalism not just be wrong but a unique wrong in the world, worse than communism or any of the sins of other races. If white nationalism isn’t worse than other isms, then whites have no more or less to answer for than any other race or creed and the whole edifice of white guilt collapses. This is of course irrational. White nationalism and belief in white supremacy is evil but no more or less evil than any other form of nationalism or religious or racial supremacy. So no believer in white guilt can have a rational discussion about white nationalism without calling the entire concept of white guilt into question.

    When Donald Trump spoke yesterday, he attempted to force the nation to have an honest and rational conversation about white nationalism and its involvement in the events last weekend. He said two undeniably truthful and rational things about the events this weekend. First, he said that not everyone at the march in Charlottesville was a white nationalist. This is true. The march was a protest against tearing down of the Robert E. Lee statue. It was organized by white nationalists but 200 or so people attended. It is perfectly rational and truthful to say that not all of them were white nationalists. Some of them, albeit a small minority, no doubt were there because they wanted to save the statue.

    Second, he said that the counter protesters deserve a significant share of the blame for the resulting violence and death. This is also true. The counter protesters were active willing participants in the violence that occurred. The proof of that is in the photos and accounts of the weekend given in the Virginia ACLU Twitter feed. And as I explained above, had the events in Charlottesville involved any other group but white nationalists everyone involved would be assessed their share of the blame.

    To say those things and to try and have a rational and truthful conversation about last weekend is to admit that it is possible for white nationalists, no matter how bad they are, to have been if the victims of a wrong or at least not be entirely responsible for the events of last weekend. And to do that is to necessarily admit the reality that white nationalists are not uniquely evil or worse than other violent or supremacist groups. Donald Trump’s statements were a direct challenge to the entire concept of collective white guilt.

    One of the interesting things about Charlottesville that no one seems to have noticed is that an event that was supposed to be about white nationalism and white supremacy was not a race riot. I have not, in any of the pictures and video I have seen of the weekend, seen a single black person. Charlottesville was a conflict almost entirely or maybe entirely between white people. There is a good reason for this. The debate and conflict over white guilt is almost always a conflict between upper class and middle and lower class whites. Black people are nearly always bystanders or props in that conflict.

    To understand why you have to understand how white guilt works. You would think the belief in collective white guilt would be an expression of self-loathing, but it is not. When a white person believes in white guilt they are engaging in one of the purest forms of virtue signaling. Since the belief is irrational and has nothing to do with their actions, they are not accepting any real moral responsibility. What they are doing is asserting their moral superiority over other white people who refuse to accept the belief. When a black person asserts collective white guilt, they are doing it to attack white people. When a white person does it, the white person is saying they understand their burden and the horrible sins of their race. In doing that, the white person is showing their moral superiority over other white people who refuse to accept their guilt and responsibility.

    Embracing some level of white guilt is one of the primary ways upper class and gentry whites assert their moral superiority over middle and lower class whites. Middle and lower class whites don’t believe in white guilt. As a result, they often have more rational views about race. Middle and lower class whites can say and think rational things about race that upper-class whites cannot do without losing their class status. Lower and middle-class whites can believe that black people are sometimes just as racist as whites. They can believe that black supremacist groups can be just as bad as the KKK. They can believe that the Civil War was a complex event that wasn’t just about slavery and white supremacy, or that just because South Carolina or Mississippi were slave states and have a bad racial history doesn’t mean there are no good parts of those places or that people from there can’t be proud of being from them.

    Upper-class whites cannot believe any of that. No upper-class white would ever wave a Confederate flag. No upper-class white would ever say that the Black Panthers are as bad as the KKK. If they are conservative, they might say the KKK is insignificant but they would never say that a black group is qualitatively just as bad. To do any of that would necessarily call into question the idea of white guilt and mean being kicked out of the class.

    So when Trump yesterday tried to force a rational conversation about white nationalism, Washington, that most white and upper class of cities, lost its mind. It was all hands on deck, left and right, to save and assert the white guilt moral privilege. The responses to Trump were predictably irrational and counter factual. For the crime of saying not every incident is entirely one sided, Trump was accused of being a white supremacist; the President everyone feared he would be. Some of the reaction was so counterfactual it can fairly be called insane. Mitt Romney and John McCain described the counter protesters as fighters for justice and equality against the forces of prejudice and racism. People who showed up waving Communist flags and carrying pepper spray and bags of feces and urine are now fighters against evil and prejudice. Really? The entire response boiled down to a giant guttural groan of “How Dare You!!” by the white upper class. Trump had attacked their most sacred moral privilege and they were not going to take it lying down.

    What will be the fall out of all this? Like most things involving Trump, a lot less than people think. First, I don’t think it is going to make a bit of difference politically. The people who voted for Trump are almost to the person people who reject the concept of white guilt. So, they won’t see it the way the media and Washington has. They will see it as Trump saying entirely fair and rational things. I don’t see Trump’s support dropping one bit. Trump’s enemies will just have a new reason to feel aggrieved.

    Second, I don’t think we are going to see much white nationalist antifa violence going forward. Trump tried to force a conversation the left doesn’t want to have. For the left white guilt is not just about class it is also how it enforces identity politics. The left needs white guilt. Trump also tried to force the left to talk about its role in this violence. And that is also not a conversation anyone on the left wants to have. The left has condoned and enabled antifa violence for years and gotten away with it. They do not want to have to answer for that.

    So I think the police departments in Democratic cities are going to start doing their jobs. Instead of standing down at these marches and counter protests, the police will start keeping the two sides apart, arresting people who show up with weapons and bags of urine and cracking down hard on any fights that break out and maintaining order. Deprived of the ability to riot with impunity, antifa will find better things to do. They don’t want to go to jail any more than anyone else and protests get pretty boring if you no longer have free reign to attack people. Deprived of any violence to use to slander the right, the media will lose interest as well. These marches are going over the next few months return to being the small events of paper hanging losers they have always been. So, I wouldn’t stock up on ammunition for the coming civil war just yet.

    Lastly, I think that the drive to tear down Confederate monuments will likely fizzle as well. They will tear a few more down in Democratic cities but the issue will fade away as well. Trump did another thing yesterday and laid down the mark that if this stuff didn’t stop they would be calling for tearing down George Washington statues. Of course, all right thinking people are today dismissing this. They, however, know that it is true. There are already calls to tear down the statues of Theodore Roosevelt in museums in New York City. You can tear down Confederate statues and largely avoid a rational conversation. Most people really don’t know who the people were and you can always use the “but it’s racist” charge to keep the average observer from objecting. George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt are different. People do know who they are and can’t be scared off by the racist charge. And the left doesn’t want a rational conversation about that any more than they want a rational conversation about last weekend.

    The statue controversy like all leftist causes is entirely manufactured. We had a hundred year struggle for black civil rights in this country. During that time not a single person to my knowledge, not Martin Luther King, not W.E.B Dubois, not Booker T. Washington, not Malcolm X, ever cared or said a single word about those monuments. Yet, suddenly in 2017, they are a threat to all that is right and good. Give me a break. Once the left decides tearing them down is no longer to their advantage, and they will if they haven’t already, no more will be heard about the subject.

  • What Should Be Said About Charlottesville

    By John Kluge

    Item originally published here.  Republished with author’s consent.

    Not Robert E. Lee.

    Let me say up front I am not a Nazi, a white nationalist, or a sympathizer of them. I am a military history buff who knows a lot about the Civil War and am firmly pro-union and very unsympathetic to the southern cause. I don’t buy a word of the lost cause or other mythologizing of the old south. So, anyone reading this can please not waste their time accusing me of being a white nationalist or confederate sympathizer. I am most certainly not.

    Second, before we get onto the important work of using the events of yesterday to slander our political enemies, I think we might want to at least look at the facts as we know them. The facts are, as best I can tell, as follows. A white nationalist organization known as Unite the Right decided to have a national rally in Charlottesville, VA, to protest the removal of the city’s Robert E. Lee statue.

    After months of work and hype on social media, Unite the Right managed to get 200 marchers to show up in Charlottesville Friday. On Friday night they marched around with tiki torches and waved flags without incident. On Saturday a group of Antifa counter protesters showed up. The counter protesters proceeded to attack the Unite the Right Marchers and a riot broke out.

    According the the Virginia ACLU, the Charlottesville police stood down and did nothing to control the situation. During this riot, a supporter of the march, it is unclear if he is a member of any of the organizations there, slammed his car into a crowd of counter protesters, killing one person and injuring 19 others. It is unclear if the driver had planned to do this to any counter protesters before the march or if he just took the riot as an excuse to do it.

    Those are the facts as we know them currently. What they mean can be debated. Any debate about this subject should be based upon facts, not assumptions or hasty generalizations. What can we reasonably conclude from the known facts? Three things, I think.

    First, the white nationalist movement is still the same small, insignificant movement it always has been. Despite months of hype and work, the Unite the Right rally drew 200 people. The white nationalist KKK movement has been able to draw a couple hundred people at a national rally for my entire lifetime. So let’s stop with the nonsense about this being some significant rally or that the white nationalists are any more popular or emboldened today than they ever have been. They are not. It’s the same small group of morons that have always been there. The proof of that is in the numbers. If there had been 10,000 people at that rally, I might reconsider that. But there wasn’t.

    Second, what played out yesterday in Charlottesville is just a repeat of what happened in Berkeley, Middleburg, NYU, and other places over the last year and a half. Some group Antifa finds objectionable has a speech or a rally. Then Antifa shows up and starts assaulting people and the police stand down, let them do it, and let the riot happen. That is exactly what happened yesterday. It should surprise no one that one of these riots has now resulted in someone’s death. The fact that the death was the result of the actions of the enemies of Antifa, rather than Antifa itself, changes nothing. This was going to happen eventually.

    Third, this is exactly what Antifa wanted. Their plan is always to attack their enemies hoping they fight back and then get blamed for the resulting violence. And time and again the police let them do it. Every time some self-righteous writer like David French gets up and talks about this being the result of the “alt right,” whatever that is, they are doing nothing but emboldening Antifa and encouraging this to happen more in the future.

    You want this stuff to stop, and you should, don’t waste your time virtue signaling about the dreaded Virginia Nazis. They are an insignificant group that are defended by no one and whose only use seems to be to allow Democrats and writers like David French to slander their political opponents. Prosecuting and condemning the person who did this is an essential start. But you can’t undo the harm he did and you can’t deter or prevent the actions of truly violent people.

    What can be done is to hold local police accountable for doing their jobs and preventing situations like the one in Charlottesville from happening in the first place. As the President said, the solution to this is for police to restore law and order. There are no other answers or deeper lessons here. It is just that simple.

    Editor’s note (8:32 pm central): there are several people involved at Glibs. I took it upon myself personally and without discussion to post this article. I thought it was well-written and would provoke a respectful and engaging discussion from the readers. It is in no way the consensus opinion of everyone involved and shouldn’t be considered such.      -sloopyinca

  • Foreign Footy – The Underside of the World Football Edition

    In this week’s thrilling installment, we go to the underside of the planet to learn about Australian Rules Football … or “Life isn’t dangerous enough here, let us create our own sport that contains high exertion, possible mayhem and most likely some harm!”

    By BP (w/assist by Raven Nation)

    Aussie Rules! Football down under.

    Those of us USA Gen Xers who grew up when ESPN first came on the air in the early 1980’s were greeted by a new sport: Australian Rules Football. (We can assume Ozzies and Kiwis were already well familiar) Desperate to have something to fill airtime, ESPN made a deal with the AFL, (and possibly Kerry Packer) to put Ozzie footy on US TV. While it has some superficial similarities to rugby, it’s a quite different sport.

    The basic rules are to carry the ball down the pitch (either bouncing it every ten meters while running, or passing it by kicking or ‘hand punch’ until a player of the same team gets near to the 4 goalposts.  An opposing player can tackle him, or (better for them) intercept a handball or kick. Any kick over 15m that is caught by a member of the same team is called a “mark,” and the player can either play on, or take a free kick from (typically) about 5m behind the place of the mark. This is very important when it comes to marks caught within 40m or so of the goalposts, as they can then usually aim for a goal.

    Happy Landing!

    Regarding the goalposts, the middle two are the ones to aim for: a goal between then gains 6 points. On either side, a mis-fired attempt (called a “behind”), gets only one. (see graphic) You can see this in the scores: i.e., ‘14.10.94’ is 14 goals= 84, 10 behinds= 10, and well, you can do the rest of the math yourself.

    Raven Nation: For the goal to count 6 points, it has to leave the boot and travel between the goalposts without being touched by anyone else. And then, if the ball strikes one of the two goal posts, it counts as one point. If a kicked ball strikes one of behind posts without hitting the ground or being touched by another player it’s “out of bounds on the full” and is a free kick to the non-kicking team. If the ball strikes one of the behind posts in any other fashion, then it’s just out of bounds and results in a throw in.

    Keep yer jokes about scoring a “behind” to yerself, mate!

    Watch THIS for a rules explanation.

    Here’s a diagram of (half of) an AFL field, which probably doubles as a cricket ground:

     

    NOT in the front row seats.

    Here are a couple of links to watch for examples and amusement:

    All sort of fun.

    Hits.

     

     

     

  • Ritual. Uniformity. Ceremony. Sacrifice. Brotherhood.

    By: Anon Anon

    A group of grown men stand around in an otherwise empty schoolhouse.  Out in public, you wouldn’t be able to spot them as cohorts.  They rarely wear their uniforms out in public, and they come from every walk of life.  Some have dirty hands and torn dungarees.  Some have meticulous spectacles and Italian loafers.  In here, standing under a trifecta of flags, standing in the anonymity of their uniforms, this paramilitary squad happily show off enough pins, dangly medals, and patches to make a third world dictator lift an eyebrow.

    Once everything is in place, the youth squad is led in.  The boys have their own uniforms.  They are a little bit different from the men’s.  But a little bit the same, too.  The men stand ready when the youth come in.  Patriarchal traditions are passed on best when men present a united front, and these men look prepared and competent.  

    Ritual.  Uniformity.  Ceremony.  Sacrifice.  Brotherhood.

    These are ideas that have always motivated boys, sometimes to gleeful bloodshed.  Knowing this, these are the ideas that these men use to mold the minds of the youth.  The ceremony starts.  The rituals begin.  A flag is saluted, allegiance is pledged, prayers are invoked, oaths are repeated.  Next, a new round of indecipherable pins are given to select youth who have shown sufficient vigor.  The youth are split by age and led apart.  Small cliques are easier to control than large groups.

    What authoritarian Hellhole is this?  A Hitler Youth rally?  A Southeast Asian secret police meeting? Some African boy-army training?  No, this is America.  Trump’s America.  And it is happening right under your noses.

    It’s your local Cub Scouts.  Please buy popcorn.

    Today, I am one of those men.  A few decades ago, I was one of those boys.  Somewhere in between I picked up Heinlein, filed my first income tax return, and decided I was going to teach myself economics by reading the stilted English of a few peculiar Austrian authors.

    How’s that for some cognitive dissonance?  Paramilitarist on the streets, libertarian between the sheets.  I was raised Catholic, so I know how to hold two mutually exclusive ideas in my head at the same time.

    But really, there isn’t any dissonance.  Scouting as a youth was good for me.  Scouting was something I chose to do.  When I said the pledge every week, it was because I chose to.  When I humped a backpack through a downpour with my best friends, it was because I chose to.  When I connected with the other scouts and made a community, it was because I chose to.  When I had a personal crisis and leaned on my Scoutmasters, the way any boy should lean on his father, it’s because I chose to.  

    And those Scoutmasters made a choice to be the man in my life when I needed it.  The father that Mother Nature gave me wasn’t good for much more than introducing me to occult rock and teaching me the value of cynicism.  A boy should have more than that out of a father.  Fortunately, I had a very peculiar volunteer community that gave me what I needed.

    Then I went to college and grad school.  I focused on me, not a community.  That’s OK.  That’s what college is for.  My engineering classes hammered home some libertarian facts – bridges fall if you design them wrong and no one can argue them back up.  An A really is an A.  At the same time, my autodidactic education was directed more to some classic libertarian past times.  I read Rothbard and Hayek and Smith and Rand.  I made friends with progressives for the first time.  I learned that I wasn’t really a political conservative after all.  I started voting strategically in local elections and writing in “Fuck You” for national elections.  I rolled my eyes at the pledge and stayed silent when they played the National Anthem at hockey games.

    I thought I was an individualist.  I knew how to shoot and do laundry and cook and all those things Heinlein said to do except that bit about the sonnet.  Sure, most of those skills I learned in scouting.  But that was behind me.  It was a ghost of a memory that only rattled a few chains when I used those skills.  I had a small handful of good, deep, solid friendships with people who didn’t agree with me on anything political.  I was my own man, living in the city but apart from any real community.  I knew I was standing on my own beliefs and I didn’t need anyone with me.  I was a libertarian.  I was a lone wolf.

    What a jackass.

    After school, I moved to a new city, took up a new job, and got to know a few people.  A very few people.  I mostly lived my life alone with just my wife and later a cat and two small humans.  I spent all my time in my apartment or in the office.  I didn’t spend much time with anyone else.  I barely knew anyone I didn’t work with.  Which is OK, because I’m an individualist, I told myself.  Over, and over, and over again.  I almost believed it.

    A few years go by, the oldest kid comes home from his government school with a blue and gold flier.  “I wanna do this,” he says.  Three years later, and I’m running the kid’s Cub Scout Pack.  I struggled for all of seven minutes trying to decide if putting on the uniform, saying a pledge, and reciting an oath would constitute turning my back on everything I have come to believe.  

    No, you jackass.

    Seems like *someone* has an unfair advantage here…

    You are a big hairless ape and God made you to function in a community.  Didn’t you say you read your Hayek and Smith?  And really, this is the ideal libertarian community.  There’s no government thug making me say the pledge.  There’s no qualified immunity that attaches when I put on my uniform.  There’s a couple dozen families that set aside two or three hours every week to come together to form a community.  Arts, crafts, and watered-down juice mix are also often involved.

    We say our oath because we want to.  And it is an oath to ourselves, not to some outside authority figure that lords over us by an accident of birth.  We say a pledge to a flag of an imperfect country that, warts and all, is still the greatest engine for freedom devised by man.  We don’t pledge to land or a nobility.  We have a law, and the only enforcement mechanism is our reputation with our peers.  We work together to make a wooden cars and to make a community and to make our youth better men some day.

    For me, that’s as libertarian as it gets.  Forget the lone wolf crap.

  • Trump Wiretapping May Actually be a Thing…and it Looks Nasty!

    By Trump Lotto of The Unforgiving Shadow

    The Trump wiretapping scandal is back with a vengeance and you’ll want to pay close attention this time! Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, came forward with new information involving surveillance of Trump transition team members. Nunes claims communications of Trump’s team were captured on multiple occasions, incidental to collection on foreign targets. Nunes further claims these intel reports include details about transition team members that offer “little to no foreign intelligence value.” The intelligence reports were widely disseminated in the intelligence community, and the identities of US citizens exposed during collection, were left unmasked. Finally, Nunes said none of the surveillance was related to Russia or investigations into ties between Russia and team Trump, an obvious but futile attempt to head off more Russian conspiracy theories.

    My fellow Glibertarians, if this is indeed true, the significance is staggering! If you are not familiar with SIGINT collection operations you probably don’t fully appreciate what the implication is here. When signals intelligence incidentally collects information on a US citizen, it is a huge deal! The collectors must take steps to mask the identity of the US person, destroy or at least restrict any information gained from or about the US person that has little to no foreign intelligence value, and attempt to limit future collection on the US person. If Nunes is right, this didn’t happen. Whoever disseminated these intel reports never masked the Trump transition team members, included details with no relevant intelligence value, and then disseminated this information. This does not happen accidentally! I’ve seen people lose their access for far, far less.

    It’s time now to put on the speculation hat and try to crack this thing wide open: If I’m President Obama and I want to dig up dirt on Trump, directly spying on him would never fly. I need a method that at least offers plausible deniability. So, I do some research and find some foreign friends of the Trump transition team; foreign persons that Trump team members have regular contact with. Next, I get a trusted intel staffer to cook up some BS accusations about these foreign targets being involved in a conspiracy or terrorism. I get my intel subordinates to present this to the FISA court, and you’re approved for surveillance! It’s easier than buying a toaster.

    Next, an appropriate agency begins collection and whoops, since these foreign targets have regular contact with Trump transition team members, we just happen to incidentally collect information on them, too, but we totally weren’t intending to do that….wink, wink. This is where things fall apart for plausible deniability: If the rules are followed, the identities are masked, information is withheld, and the rest of the intel community will have no idea who the US persons were in those intelligence reports. Of course, if the rules are followed, that destroys any attempt to get dirt on Trump. So somewhere along the line, someone high up in the intel chain-of-command (most likely a director/agency head) made the call that these US citizens would remain identified in the disseminated intel reports. This was not a low-level decision!

    Trump Has a Serious Intel Problem

    Trump may be a master of media manipulation, but I don’t know if he fully appreciates the situation he’s in. Signals intelligence dudes illegally and improperly collected and disseminated information on his team and maybe even him. This information was probably seen by hundreds of analysts and the heads of every major US intel organization. Why the hell didn’t anyone come to Congress sooner? Sure, this looks bad for Obama, who is the probable mastermind, but it appears that a large portion of the intel community has been silent on this.

    A sitting President has an intelligence powerhouse with vast surveillance powers and no qualms about blatantly illegal and unethical surveillance on the President’s own team! Trump needs to clean house and do it fast or this could get ugly. Trump’s relationship with the intel community has already been frosty, but he may have a fair number of entrenched and powerful enemies willing to go to war if it means taking him down.

    This revelation also comes on the heels of FBI Director James Comey’s congressional testimony that he has “no information” to support Trump’s wiretap claims. It strains credulity if we are to believe Comey never saw these intel reports. Perhaps Comey is merely playing semantic games here, ignoring this incidental surveillance because it isn’t physical wiretapping. Either way, it doesn’t look good for Comey, and it is high time Trump gave him the ax.

    The Liberal Media Playbook

    This is the level of commentary you can only expect here in Glibertaria. Meanwhile, CNN’s coverage on this revolves around Nunes apologizing for not notifying Democrats of the intel before his press conference: Nunes only notified Republicans prior to the conference. Now I agree that Nunes should have briefed his Democrat committee members, but this is slow news day coverage at best. On the other hand, evidence that the former President used his powers to spy on an opposition candidate, that’s huge! But at this point, any of us could have called the news coverage a mile away.

    Still, I think it’s interesting to discuss the liberal media playbook. If this is substantiated, it’s big and very bad. In the short term, they’ll continue to ignore it or downplay it like they’ve been doing. Once more details are provided, they’ll have to cover it, but I suspect the Clinton email plays will be marched back out to paint this as another unsubstantiated right-wing conspiracy theory. And with tremendous irony, they’ll fire back with their own conspiracy theories. Even if there isn’t a Russian within a light-year of this thing, liberal outlets will be wildly throwing around accusations that this is proof of a Russian conspiracy. The collection efforts were exposing those connections, contrary to Nunes’ comments, and now Republicans are trying to cover it up!

    There’s one more important takeaway here: If the intelligence community willingly participated in a scheme to spy on a US Presidential candidate, what’s to stop them from doing far worse to your average US citizen? They had to realize if this got out it could be very bad for them. On the flipside, abusing your power to target a lowly US peasant, that’s easy to hide. It’s time to be paranoid folks…. very, very paranoid.

  • Thank You, President Trump

    By Mid-Town Orphan Recycling | Over 1 Million Served!

    I never was a fan of the hair. While some of my Libertarian brethren celebrate proclamations of deregulation, I remain doubtful. For me, net liberty is the best way to measure a President’s Libertarian bent or lack thereof. If Trump manages to reduce federal regulations by 20%  but pushes trade protectionism, continued military engagement in Middle East matters, the expansion of the surveillance state, and other freedom-hating projects, that’s probably not a win for liberty.

    I hope Trump proves me wrong, but his biggest obstacle, in any liberty-minded endeavor, will be his own party. Despite being given yet another opportunity to pass whatever they want, many Republicans lack the gonads to dismember big government. This should not be surprising given the party’s reluctance to adopt any meaningful reform efforts in the past. The opportunist in me hopes Trump can get them in line: The liberal media has gone full retard, and the political landscape is about as polarized as it can get. Reform efforts aren’t going to turn enemies into friends, but that ship has sailed. Most of the country has lined up behind their champion, and they aren’t going to switch sides anytime soon. This is the time to get unpopular things passed: Now is the time to burn it down and not look back!

    Alas, Republicans seem blissfully unaware that this may be their last chance to keep the party from imploding. The election of Trump proves that a big portion of the base does not support the standard party line. That should be a wake-up call to every elected politician with the desire to maintain some authoritah. I doubt they’ll get the message – The future looks very bright for the populists.

    Of course, voters want free health insurance and an Obamacare repeal; they want free retirement but don’t want to pay for it; they want free college and forgiveness of student loan debts they fully accepted; they want perfect security and zero terrorism. This puts republicans in the position of trying to satisfy unlimited demands for free shit and pipe dreams. The alternative is to back unpopular reform efforts that will lower costs, increase liberty and boost the economy. It’s time for Republicans to see the writing on the wall: The progs and populists will beat them on any efforts to give crap away; the expansion of the security state can only go so far before it collapses under its own weight. Taking the unpopular stance with big reforms now can give them support for the future, once voters see the overwhelmingly positive results of smaller government. Despite this, I expect Republicans will continue down the unsustainable path of max-security-prog-lite.

    Even with my doubts on Trump’s commitment to liberty, there is something for which I owe him my deepest thanks…

    Normally, I’m a news junkie. I watch and read news voraciously, and incidentally find myself completely pissed off with the slanted coverage from just about every media outlet. While I’m an equal opportunity hater of news, the liberal outlets are the frequent objects of my ire. Then Trump came along, and everything changed.

    The intellectually-challenged liberal media went all-in to discredit Trump, pushing Russian conspiracy theories in the process. Allies circled the wagons and defended bad articles as merely false stories, but not fake news. #NeverTrumpers reliably bought into the media conspiracy machine, while others saw through the naked bias and tuned out. Too busy celebrating their fake news as Pulitzer-prize worthy material, the liberal media was oblivious to the fact that they had given Trump exactly what he needed…a villain and a polarized country.

    Trump’s greatest skill isn’t his leadership ability or business acumen; it’s his ability to manipulate the media: If the phrase, “there is no such thing as bad publicity” is true for anyone, it’s true for Donald J. Trump. So Trump hit back and hit hard. He spewed his fair share of crap, but the media’s flailing efforts to take down Trump gave him plenty of legitimate ammunition too. And somewhere in all that mess I finally made peace with the state of the media.

    Trump is not a Libertarian, not even close, yet he has brought balance to the force. Somehow, someway, the people of the United States of America elected the best possible candidate to completely undermine the media…and I love it! For years, I’ve watched the liberal media act as a direct extension of the progressive PR machine, while their trained monkeys throw shit on their chosen enemies. The people responded with Trump, a man who could throw shit faster and in greater volume than anyone else. The liberal media has met its match, and they have no idea how to fight it!

    The media, as we’ve recognized it for the past decade, is done. Once the dust settles, we will see a dramatically different fourth estate: Progs will grow exhausted from their perpetual outrage act and turn their attention back on the rifts within their own movement. The resulting drop off in already low ratings will leave liberal outlets with a choice to change direction, or get pushed to the fringes. Meanwhile, the media void will be filled with interesting upstarts, a phenomenon which is well underway. The future of media is more choice, though not necessarily less bias. Still, I’ll take it!

    President Trump, you have my sincerest thanks!

  • Use This One Weird Trick to Create Your Own Monopoly

    By: We Are Tulpa

    The Good

    Why is it whenever critics discuss monopolies they rarely mention Google? You know Google, the company with a market cap of over $500 billion that controls around 80% of the search market, about 30% of the worldwide digital ads market, and provides its Android operating system to almost 90% of all smartphones used by roughly 25% of all websites, including this one! We can’t forget about the behemoth Apple either. They control 10% to 20% of the smartphone market at any given time, and are the most valuable company in the world! And when your Facebook friends unleash a screed against monopolies they ironically fail to realize that their message is made possible by a company that enjoys 42% of visits to social media platforms.

    How is it critics continue to ignore these monopolies, preferring to poke at other sores? Truth is, these are the good monopolies. From Amazon to Uber, many of these relatively new tech companies have achieved enormous gains over incumbents due to superior service to customers. Yet when Bloomberg blames monopolies for income inequality, worker exploitation, slow productivity growth and a lack of business dynamism (whatever the hell that means), they conveniently fail to discuss these good monopolies.

    Now I’m not saying the tech world is an ideal model for worker-employer relationships: In fact I think many tech companies, like Amazon, are screwing themselves long-term with their burn-out cultures; but these monopolies were elevated to their positions by doing it better than the rest, and that inconvenient truth destroys the “all monopolies are worse than Hitler” narrative often supported by the right and the left.

    As a quick note, I’m using the term monopoly to include monopolistic competition and oligopolies in addition to monopolies. Let the commentariat eviscerate any uncharitable pedants who fail to understand this.

    The Bad

    So why are consumer outcomes so bad in industries like finance, utilities, and healthcare? How is it that consolidation in these industries just seems to make things more painful for consumers, while tech monopolies have reached dominance by making customers happy?

    My Libertarian comrades may be inclined to say “it’s the regulatory environment dumbass” and they have a point. A free-market for internet providers would remove many of the regulatory obstacles to deployment. It would also reduce regulatory risk, or the uncertainty of future regulations that could instantly destroy the earning potential of a new billion-dollar internet provider. A recent example of this risk materialized with Net Neutrality, a policy which limits how internet service providers can respond to bandwidth hogs like Netflix. A free-market, or something close to it, results in lower barriers to entry and less regulatory risk, thus encouraging more competitors to enter the marketplace in a direct assault on entrenched bad monopolies. After all, it’s really not that hard to beat Comcast, if you have lots of cash and a fair playing field.

    However, while onerous regulations explain how bad monopolies retain their market position while providing terrible service, it doesn’t fully explain why consolidation is occurring in industries like healthcare. To understand that we have to add one more factor to our model of how bad monopolies are born…consumer irrationality.

    The Ugly

    Our journey to the center of government meddling in healthcare starts with this contemptible creation:

    The food pyramid was brought to life in 1992, thanks to the generous assistance of many food industry groups, and in the face of enormous criticism. Despite that, American’s seemed to jump on board with the “screw fats” and “carbs are good” recommendations it pushed: After the new guidelines were released the average calories from fat became significantly lower. Further, the pyramid influenced a wide range of policies and recommendations from meals in public schools, to dietary guidelines for expectant mothers.

    Today we know better. Fats are not an evil that should be avoided at all costs, and many experts are questioning whether saturated fats (long considered the worst of the worst) are actually linked to obesity or heart disease. Meanwhile, those glorious carbohydrates that formed the base of the mighty food pyramid have been sidelined in most modern nutrition programs.

    Back to the ’90s, after the government’s food innovation, something very interesting and entirely predictable happened. We got fat. Obesity rates begin to increase sharply in the mid to late ’90s. It was a perfect storm really. Nixon’s corn subsidies had reduced the price of corn products including high-fructose corn syrup. Food suppliers seized on this and offered cheap junk food. Then came the food pyramid, which told us massive intakes of carbs are a good thing. So whether you jumped on the cheap junk food bandwagon, the carbo-load bandwagon, or somewhere in between, your new diet was influenced by good ole Uncle Sam.

    Of course with rising obesity rates came rising rates of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and more. Doctors advocated for taking in less fat and sugar to combat the problem. Cholesterol became a key indicator of your risk for many obesity-related diseases and cholesterol-lowering drugs.

    But were doctors targeting the wrong cause all this time? Several new studies have found no or negative relationships between cholesterol and heart disease. Plus, we already covered the growing body of evidence that saturated fats aren’t really bad after all. Of course, if true, it means that thousands of lives have been lost in preventable deaths, billions of dollars wasted, and many lives forever transformed because our favored solutions were about as useful as a Libertarian purity test.

    This begs the question how much influence did government nutrition guidelines have on health recommendations? How much did government actions contribute to the obesity epidemic? These are hard questions to answer, but they’re even harder when you’re not looking. Take a glance at some of the major websites weighing in on the obesity epidemic and you’ll be lucky to see a reference to corn subsidies. Don’t bother looking for the government’s promotion of terrible diet advice. Apparently, that bit of history has already been forgotten by most.

    Of course, this is the perfect opportunity for a Libertarian moment – a shining example that science and government policy should exist independently, not in direct reliance on one another. Don’t get your hopes up. Salon argues that the government’s newest food meddling innovation, My Plate, still over promotes carbs. But the apparent cause is we just didn’t have the right top men. HuffPo answers the gov food failings by pointing the finger at the evil food industry. After all crony capitalism isn’t a problem inherent in governance; the problem lies in capitalist actors using greed against the noble politicians. How can our great politicians resist the influence of these evil capitalists?

    This is our first glimpse of consumer irrationality: Reliance on government health guidelines and demanding more government to fix the problem it created in the first place. I don’t fault consumers for buying more corn-based products after subsidies were introduced. That’s perfectly rational behavior. But thinking big papa government has your nutrition covered, seems a bit foolish given it’s track record.

    The Uglyer

    Through the 1990s on, consumers generally preferred health insurance to paying for health care themselves. There is more history here including government exempting employer-based health benefits from income taxes and wage controls after WWII, but the point is consumers preferred health insurance and the employer-sponsored variety was especially appealing. Health care costs had been increasing disproportionately to inflation for decades, and health providers looked for ways to stay profitable. The answer…consolidation.

    The first major consolidation in health care occurred in the 1990s, followed by another wave in 2010 forward. Proponents of consolidation claimed it would reduce costs, result in a higher quality of care and improve the health of affected populations. Studies showed otherwise. Consolidation leads to substantial increases in price and evidence suggests it harms the quality of care. So what is the real reason for consolidation? Consolidation gives hospitals more bargaining power in a local market. In consolidated markets, fees increase anywhere from 20% to 60%. These fees are passed on to the insurer who in turn pass the cost increases on to employers or directly to enrollees. Contrast this with non-consolidated markets where participants cut costs since they lack bargaining power to simply raise fees. So basically consolidation is a way for hospitals to maintain profitability against a rising tide of regulation and cost increases.

    The Uglyerer

    The Affordable Care Act (ACA) helped along consolidation too. Some claim recent ACA-related consolidation was to combat regulatory uncertainty and that may be true, but many Ocare requirements directly contributed to consolidation and the elimination of small providers.

    Under Obamacare medical coding changed to the ICD-10 standard. This meant switching from a standard with 13,000 medical billing codes to a standard with 70,000! The shocking result… cost increases. Survey results show a wide range of implementation costs for small practices, anywhere from $8,000 to over $100,000! There is also continued controversy over whether the new coding will reduce or increase billing costs. Early results indicate a higher rate of claim denials and about 25% less productivity under ICD-10. Additionally, in a survey of 38 medical billing companies, three went out of business due to problems in implementing ICD-10. [Applaud here]

    Now, in all fairness, some of these ICD-10 codes are quite good. Imagine a group of healthcare professionals, sitting around a conference table, coming up with gems like:

    Bitten by a turtle – W5921XS

    Hit or struck by falling object due to accident to canoe or kayak – V9135XA

    Struck by macaw – W6112XA

    Hurt walking into a lamppost – W2202XA (Who would actually admit this?)

    Pedestrian on foot injured in collision with roller-skater, subsequent encounter – V0001XD

    Spacecraft crash injuring occupant – V9542XA (Seriously?)

    Burn due to water-skis on fire – V9107XA (Has this happened even one time, ever?)

    Struck by duck, subsequent encounter – W6162XD

    Hurt at the library – Y92241

    Sucked into jet engine, subsequent encounter – V9733XD (Twice?)

    Unspecified balloon accident injuring occupant – V9600XS (Does this include accidents involving OMWC’s “balloon animals”?)

    Hurt at the opera – Y92253

    Bizarre personal appearance – R461 (…you talk like a fag, and your shit’s all retarded.)

    Problems in relationship with in-laws – Z631

    Stabbed while crocheting – Y93D1 (Why not stabbed by crochet needle?)

    Prolonged stay in weightless environment – X52

    Unspecified event, undetermined intent – Y34 (I’ll bet this one gets used a lot in ERs)
    At least these people can do better than the SNL writing staff, so credit where credit’s due!

    Of course, a sane person would wonder why it makes a difference whether you were bitten by a Macaw or a Sea Lion; or whether you suffered injuries during the re-entry of your spacecraft or a hard landing in a hot air balloon. Why doesn’t coding simply focus on injuries and treatment because that’s kind of the basis for billing? But that’s why I’m not a medical billing and coding expert I guess.

    Other claims about ICD-10 include cost savings from fewer errors, due to the more “granular” coding structure. But that claim is a bit difficult to swallow as one would logically think adopting tens of thousands of more specific codes would result in higher error rates, not lower. ICD-10 is also supposed to reduce fraud by combating over-coding. If anything ICD-10 provides more opportunities to squeeze the system. A fraudster could use closely-related codes, and if called on the gambit, simply claim they didn’t understand the minor difference between one code and the other: A very plausible explanation given a catalog of 70,000 codes to sort through.

    Ocare also included mandates for electronic medical records. The average cost of implementation for a single physician practice is a lowly $163,765. There are operational costs too, not to mention the cost of replacement systems when the old ones outlive their usefulness.

    Aside from costs, the complexity of implementing electronic medical records (EMR) is causing some doctors to close their practices entirely, opting for direct or concierge pay. Meanwhile, many doctors that comply with EMR are getting burned out, spending time filling out useless forms, troubleshooting computer problems, and typing information into screens. The result is more time spent on compliance and less time with patients.

    Large hospitals haven’t been immune from headaches over EMRs either. It turns out that digitizing someone’s entire medical history and putting it on a server is going to attract hackers. In 2015, 253 breaches exposed 113 million patient records. The number of breaches increased in 2016 to 450, while the total number of compromised records decreased to 27.3 million.

    One of the big incentives for hackers to target medical records is the potential payoff. While a stolen credit card number may fetch $1 to $3, a stolen EMR goes for around $60! That’s because these records contain such a detailed and diverse amount of information that they can be used in all kinds of schemes. Personally, I find the hacking trend surprising, considering how knowledgeable health care administrators and staff are of IT security.

    It’s Bad

    In a bid to one-up cancer, the ACA included even more hits for the health care industry. One issue is non-payment by Obamacare enrollees. Doctors have faced difficulty verifying whether a patient with Ocare actually paid their premium or not. Office staff either have to spend upwards of an hour on the phone to try to verify a premium is paid, or take the risk of not getting reimbursed for care. This is all thanks to the 90-day grace period under ACA.

    ACA included hefty cuts to Medicare and Medicaid payouts too. The former had average payouts reduced by 21.2% while the latter faced a 42.8% decrease in average payouts. I bet you’ll never guess what happened next! Shockingly, many doctors stopped accepting new Medicaid and Medicare patients, or just outright refused patients with the offending coverage. But while the little guys were either stuck with lower payouts or saying no to patients, good old market consolidation provided a great way for the big guys to make up the shortfalls. In consolidated markets, hospitals simply passed the lost reimbursement fees on to private insurance. What a way to win: Government saves money from entitlement programs by passing it on to private insurance, thanks to consolidated markets, which they helped enable. Win-win!

    Of course, there was also the obligatory dose of crony capitalism in ACA, but hell, that doesn’t seem very important when weighed against the other effects. And no Ocare criticism would be complete without mentioning that restricting insurers from considering pre-existing conditions, increased costs for everyone. It effectively punished healthy people for those that treat their bodies like progressives treat a black Republican, but let’s get back to consolidation.

    So to recap, consumers push for health insurance which kicks off the first big industry consolidation in the ’90s. Health care costs continue to rise and the light-bringer gives us Ocare, which pushes many small providers out of the market, and fuels even more consolidation of the big players. But maybe you’re not convinced consumers were really acting irrationally here. After all, if your employer is going to cover half of your health insurance cost, isn’t that better than trying to pay in cash? No.

    Health insurance by its very nature increases cost. First, you are pooling risk so healthy people pay for less healthy ones. There is nothing wrong with this for catastrophic coverage if you share costs with other responsible parties. However, when you’re paying for my uncle who drinks nothing but diet Coke and Vodka, you’re wasting your money. Then there is the expense of medical billing and coding, claim processing, customer service, all sorts of other administrative costs, and then profit. When you accept health insurance, you accept all the expensive baggage that goes with it.

    There is absolutely no sane reason to have health insurance cover your regular doctor’s visit or a trip to urgent care to get checked out for strep throat! If more people paid in cash, everyone would pay less. Of course, I’m aware of the challenges in trying to go all-in cash in today’s marketplace. Many providers just don’t get it and will offer you little to no discounts for cash payments, even though creating an insurance claim is costlier. So that’s the mess rational actors have to deal with. But, it boggles the mind how many Americans cannot grasp this principle: Insurance does not reduce costs, it increases them. Use it for the bankruptcy-inducing stuff only! I think it’s time to end this mental exercise and replace it with empirical evidence.

    Exhibit 1:

    Salvation lies in Oklahoma City, just off the 77. This is where Libertarianism is winning hearts, minds, and wallets. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma boasts of a praiseworthy 4.4 stars on Google Places and big savings on many surgical procedures. The savings are so big that Oklahoma’s public employee’s insurance fund covers 100% of the cost of any procedure performed there. Take that insurance to a regular a hospital and you’ll pay the deductible and co-pay. That’s because the prices at area hospitals are so much more expensive, the state will still pay more even if an employee covers the deductible and co-pay!

    Exhibit 2:

    If you are godly or care to fake it, cost-sharing ministries offer huge savings! Under Medi-Share a 30-year old would pay only $132 a month for medical sharing with a $5,000 annual household portion (basically a deductible). If you meet their health requirements your monthly payment drops to $117. Meanwhile, your average bronze plan on Obamacare has an average deductible of $6,000, an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,900, and a monthly premium of $311. Want to take a step up in coverage? An Ocare gold plan with a $1,200 deductible and a $4,900 out-of-pocket maximum, on average, costs $460 a month. But if the power of Christ compels you to buy a cost-sharing plan with a $1,250 annual household portion, you’ll pay only $235 a month, $207 if healthy. Bear in mind with cost sharing plans once you hit your annual household portion, covered medical procedures are 100% covered. Under normal insurance, once you hit your deductible, you’ll have to pay something like 20% of all medical costs until you hit the out-of-pocket maximum. That means with cost-sharing, you are saving in monthly costs and saving on big procedures!

    In a rational world, consumers would look at health sharing ministries and ask what are they doing to get costs that low? But alas, this is not a rational world. Insert one tale of corruption and another legitimate contract dispute, both of which can easily be settled in the courts, and politicians scream “see we must regulate.” Professor Tim Jost of Lee University School of Law is particularly “concerned that you have people joining because they’re trying to find cheap coverage or because they’re ideologically opposed to the Affordable Care Act, or people who aren’t committed.” Oh, the horror. In fact, the health sharing ministry, Medi-Share, ran into problems operating in Kentucky. Apparently, the issue was that all users were paying into one shared fund. Medi-Share solved the problem by having people pay into their own individual funds and then transferring money between accounts to cover medical expenses. Good thing government was there to avert that crisis. Imagine the horror of using one account instead of tens of thousands, to manage the same money.

    In a rational world, consumers would demand catastrophic coverage or none at all. In rationale world, employees would swamp HR departments and managers demanding they cut out insurance and save everyone some money. In a rational world, people would completely reject Obamacare and demand congress to allow secular medical sharing programs. In a rational world, those with extreme health conditions that can’t pay would rely on the charity of others to cover their bills, not government force. Irrationality is all around us.

    For decades economists assumed real humans acted perfectly rational, but behavioral economics won that debate. Today, we have many examples of human irrationality. Sometimes, people just don’t do the math. It seems this is one of those times.

    I think it’s time for one last recap: So government contributed to the obesity epidemic, which increased health care costs and probably increased demand for managed health care (health insurance). The gov’s food innovations seemingly influenced doctors to use the wrong solutions which cost a lot of money and a lot of lives. Consumers irrationally continued to view health insurance as the best way to pay for health care, even though if they did the math, cash-based options and catastrophic plans would have left them richer. Hospitals responded to increased costs and increased use of health insurance through consolidation: Consolidation gave them the power to demand higher fees from insurers, which insurers passed on to employers and private insurance enrollees. With costs on the rise, and the masses all in for health insurance or free coverage, Chocolate Jesus gave us all the STD known as the Affordable Care Act. This resulted in health insurance cost increases and more consolidation. So now we have a lower quality of care at a higher price with fewer options. But before you belligerently swear at Obama on your front lawn, remember to give a shout out to all the pricks that never realized health insurance was a bad deal. If people would have preferred direct or concierge pay options, with a little bit of catastrophic coverage, our health care landscape could like a lot more like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma Center, and a lot less like Lena Dunham.

    Irrationally Libertarian

    Many of us accepted Libertarianism into our hearts through logic and rational analysis. It could be a pragmatic perspective that government top men are incapable of making better decisions than individuals and free markets; and have completely failed to move the needle in a positive direction on society’s biggest problems. Or perhaps it is a strategic approach: The realization that the best way to deal with conflicting conservative and liberal ideologies, each wanting to impose their own views on everyone else, is to maximize freedom for all. Or it could be a moral approach, based on the fundamental right that no man has the right to rule over another. The point is most of us are driven to Libertarianism due to rationality. Irrationality is our enemy.

    A good test of consumer irrationality is what I like to call the Walmart test: How many people complain about Walmart’s use of foreign labor, worker exploitation, and terrible customer service, but refuse to take their money anywhere else? This disassociation in cause and effect is a huge problem for Libertarians, as many of these consumers will then call on government to solve the problems in which they believe the oppressed consumer is powerless to address directly. This is the Achilles’ heel to Libertarian governance, an ever-present desire to create utopia through big government. For sustainable Libertarian governance to work, we must have buy-in from a critical mass of mostly rational actors that understand their dollars and time are votes in a free market! The case of health insurance consolidation shows us that most irrationalities don’t see less government as a solution; they simply want a different flavor of government solutions.

    With this in mind, Libertarianism cannot succeed by responding to emotional appeals and inane political rhetoric in kind. Instead, we must continue to support logic and rational thought. Only that will fully convert the unbelievers and help us build a rational barricade against bubbles and government intervention, as we march for free markets. Simply getting regulatory victories is not enough. If we could enact a limited government tomorrow, in line with the original intent of the Constitution, the backlash would quickly destroy our gains in freedom. The people are not ready for Libertarianism. Joseph de Maistre said it best, “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” If we deserved Libertarian governance, we’d have it.

    Now bow before the best-sourced article in all of Glibertaria! I assume my honorary degree from Columbia is in the mail.

  • If Blazing Saddles Were a Serious Legal Drama

    by The Fusionist

    Here is a case resembling the plot of Blazing Saddles – if Blazing Saddles were a serious legal drama. The case, based on the “right” to compel service from a private business, ended up denying the right to jury trial.

    Just like this, but totally different

    It started in Reconstruction-era New Orleans, where the sheriff and a couple of his buddies faced a dilemma: it was around noon, and they hadn’t had any booze. One of the sheriff’s finicky friends, named Finnegan, said there wasn’t any good booze in the French Quarter, so the party decided to try the Bank Coffeehouse on Royal Street. They couldn’t get service there, and the Sheriff, Charles St. Albin Sauvinet, believed he knew the reason. The proprietor of the Bank Coffeehouse, Joseph A. Walker, had allegedly discovered the mixed-race heritage of the white-looking Sauvinet and didn’t want to serve the Sheriff for fear of alienating racist white customers.

    So Sauvinet sued Walker, accusing him of racial discrimination in violation of the constitution and laws of Louisiana.

    The state of Louisiana had certainly changed from prewar tines, when white people were a dominant caste and most black people were considered property. In the middle was a class of gens de couleur – free people of color, partly black and partly white. It was probably the French influence, and a Gallican “we understand zees things” tolerance in sexual matters, but there was a quasi-official system where white men took black or mixed-race mistresses and tried to set up their children in life – without all the privileges of the whites but also without the all-out slavery and oppression meted out to blacks.

    Charles Sauvinet was born into this community of gens de couleur, the son of a white father and black mother. Charles was provided with an extensive education, including learning several languages. This plus his white appearance gave him more than a foot in the white world. So when Louisiana seceded, Charles Sauvinet joined a Confederate military unit made up of free people of color from New Orleans – in which metropolis that community generally lived.

    Sauvinet didn’t have the chance to do much fighting – at least not on the Confederate side. When Union troops occupied New Orleans in 1862, Sauvinet and other free people of color joined the Union side. Sauvinet was first a translator for the occupiers and then an officer of black troops. Sauvinet apparently passed for white, because he was well-treated at a time when only the white officers were allowed much authority or respect. Sauvinet also registered his children as white.

    Henry C. Warmoth

    After the war, former slaves joined with the free persons of color and “Radical” whites to form the state Republican Party. Two young white Northerner lawyers who had been in the Union army – Henry Clay Warmoth and Henry C. Dibble – became leaders in this party, in which Sauvinet was also active. Warmoth became governor of a Reconstructed Louisiana. Dibble, while remaining an active Republican, was appointed judge of a trial court which the Republican legislature had created to hear challenges to the Republican program of Reconstruction. Dibble’s role – which he fulfilled ably – was to reject Democratic suits against Reconstruction laws.

    Sauvinet was elected as the civil sheriff in New Orleans. His job included serving and collecting rent from people in receivership, such as the landlord of the Bank Coffeehouse. It was while Sauvinet was collecting rent from Joseph A. Walker that the latter supposedly asked Sauvinet not to come to get served.

    The case got to Judge Dibble’s court, where a jury weighed the evidence. Walker claimed that Sauvinet wasn’t even black, and had professed to be white. Sauvinet replied that he’d been treated as black when whites wanted to oppress him.

    When the jury couldn’t agree on whether Walker had practiced illegal discrimination, Judge Dibble stepped in. A recent statute empowered the judge to give a verdict in a public-accommodation case if the jury couldn’t agree. Dibble, as it happened, knew Sauvinet, but this would certainly not have affected his impartiality. Dibble ruled against Walker and imposed $1,000 in damages, which was hardly loose change in those days.

    The case ended up in the U. S. Supreme Court. Walker said he’d been deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by jury in civil cases – a right spelled out in the Seventh Amendment: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…” This right was now part of the privileges and immunities of citizenship, and of due process of law, claimed Walker. Suits for damages, like Sauvinet’s, were generally considered suits at common law.

    Throughout Reconstruction, Louisiana politics was marred by often-deadly violence (on the part of white-supremacist Democrats) and fraud (on the part of Republicans). Elections were often disputed, leading to rival claimants for office and even rival legislative bodies.

    In the 1872 elections, Warmoth led a faction of Louisiana Republicans into coalition with the Democrats, while other “regular” Republicans still opposed the Democrats and stood up for Reconstruction principles. Judge Dibble stood with the regular Republicans and sought to block some of the actions of the Warmoth/Democratic faction. Writing to Warmoth, Dibble justified his position and made a fairly revealing remark – “in every act where I can justly and properly exercise discretion I will be found with the [R]epublican party.”

    In the mid-1870s, as Reconstruction was winding down, the Supreme Court ruled for Sauvinet, claiming that the states didn’t have to obey the Seventh Amendment. This was part of a series of decisions giving a narrow interpretation to the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions tended to come from Louisiana cases, probably reflecting the politico-legal turmoil in that state.

    Henry C. Dibble

    Dibble’s term of office had come to an end in 1872, and the ex-judge moved out West, becoming a prominent attorney and California state legislator (sponsoring an antidiscrimination law), and writing a western.

    The white-supremacist Louisiana Democrats took back the state from the Republicans and got rid of the public-accommodations laws. Their motive was pretty clearly racism rather than libertarianism, given that Louisiana’s Democratic government later supported forced segregation, not freedom of association. Sauvinet’s Supreme Court victory was fairly Pyrrhic: a short-lived triumph for equal accommodation was won at the expense of an important right of American citizenship, namely jury trial.

    Sauvinet later killed himself when his son became mortally ill during one of New Orleans’ periodic epidemics, not really the kind of amusing ending Mel Brooks would have gone for.

    Walker became head of an organization defending the right to do business on Sunday.

    Law professor Paul D. Carrington praised the Walker decision a century later – “it would have been somewhat ironic in the name of due process of law to command the states to employ an institution [the civil jury] designed in part to introduce elements of non-rational emotionalism into the making of decisions purporting to enforce the law.” Yet in the very case Carrington praises, the presiding judge whose rationality and impartiality supposedly excelled the emotionalism of the jury was a zealous Republican partisan scarcely twenty-five years old. Judge Dibble commendably set his face against white supremacy, but he was hardly judicious or evenhanded.

     

    Works Cited:

    Paul D. Carrington, “The Seventh Amendment: Some Bicentennial Reflections,” 1990 University of Chicago Legal Forum 33-86 (1990).

    “The Bank Coffeehouse: Sauvinet v. Walker,” Documentary & Oral History Studio, Loyola University New Orleans, https://docstudio.org/2016/01/02/the-bank-coffeehouse/

    Richard C. Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationalization of Civil Liberties. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.

    Richard Nelson Current, Those Terrible Carpetbaggers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

    Charles McClain, California Carpetbagger: The Career of Henry Dibble, 28 QLR 885 (2009),

    Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/660.

    Justin A. Nystrom, New Orleans After the Civil War: Race, Politics, and a New Birth of Freedom. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.

    Michael A. Ross, “Obstructing reconstruction: John Archibald Campbell and the legal campaign against Louisiana’s Reconstruction Government,” Civil War History, September 2003, pp. 235-53, at 248.

    Walker v Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90

  • The Haymarket Anarchists: Seeking to Break Up the United States and Start a War…But Enough About Their Lawyer

    By: The Fusionist

    In my discussion of the mad violinist, I mentioned an interview which Judge Roger Pryor gave to the New York Times in 1911. Now let us go back fifty years. Cue the scene-shifting special effects.

    It’s early in the morning of April 12, 1861. Pryor, now only in his early 30s, is on James Island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. He’s standing next to the Confederate batteries aimed at federally-occupied Fort Sumter. Guns in the James Island batteries have been ordered to start the firing on Fort Sumter. The captain commanding the battery offers Pryor the opportunity to fire the first shot.

    A young Roger Pryor

    Pryor was a perfectly logical candidate for the honor of firing the first shot in the Civil War. Born in the Petersburg, Virginia area he had become a Virginia lawyer but instead of practicing, he worked at several newspapers, where he provided an editorial voice in favor of slavery and secession. He served in the House of Representatives in the 36th Congress, from 1859 to 1861, where he used his national platform to make himself famous as a “fire-eating” Southerner. That is, he thought that if the North continued its hostility to slavery, that the South’s downright peculiar institution could no longer be safe inside the United States. Thus the Southern states would have to leave the Union and form their own country.

    Pryor thought the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the last straw. Since his own state of Virginia wouldn’t yet commit itself to secession, Pryor came to a state which had committed itself – South Carolina, which soon was joined by other “deep South” states to form the Confederacy. Virginia still remained in the Union, a technicality which somewhat bothered Pryor, so even though he accompanied a Confederate delegation to demand the surrender of Sumter’s federal commander, Major Anderson, Pryor stayed at a distance during the actual meeting with Anderson. But the delegation, including Pryor, decided that Anderson had not offered suitable surrender terms, so war it must be.

    But when offered the chance to literally start the war, Pryor held back for some reason. Another Virginian, even more fanatical than Pryor himself, was chosen to fire the first shot, this was Edmund Ruffin, an editor who had been crusading for years for more efficient agriculture…and a Southern republic.

    Interior of Fort Sumter 1860s

    Having helped start the war, Pryor decided he should fight in it, too. This decision, unusual for pro-war politicians today, was common among ambitious and/or patriotic statesmen on both sides of the Civil War. Pryor became one of the Confederacy’s “political generals” who made the transition from tough talk to actual battle. Like many other political generals, North and South, Pryor left something to be desired when it came to tactical skill, but there was no doubt of his bravery. He shunned none of the risks his men took, fighting courageously on the soil of his home state which had become the theater of much of the war.

    Pryor’s Confederate superiors were not satisfied with his generalship, and they transferred him to Richmond where he cooled his heels as a general without portfolio. He found this unsatisfying, and so he resigned his commission. Then he did something unusual among politicians-turned-soldiers: He rejoined the ranks not as an officer but as a private.

    Private Pryor was still able to show his battlefield courage without being responsible for tactical decisions which weren’t necessarily his forte. A true gentleman, he believed in fighting hard and playing hard. Just because he and the Yankee soldiers were trying to kill each other didn’t mean they couldn’t get along civilly – it was a civil war, after all. So Pryor sometimes ventured into the no-man’s land between the armies, chatting with the Northern soldiers and trading Southern papers for Northern ones so each side could keep up with the news. Pryor had been in the newspaper biz, remember.

    One day, while Pryor was in no-man’s land, some unchivalrous Northerners took the opportunity to capture him – like he was an enemy or something. And he wasn’t treated like an ordinary private, because the North hadn’t forgotten his role as a leading secessionist. Pryor was brought to the prison fortress of Fort Lafayette in New York harbor.

    The editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer visited Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to try and get Pryor released. Stanton had Bessie, his baby daughter, on his knee, and the Enquirer editor appealed to the Secretary’s paternal sympathies, suggesting that Pryor too had children who loved him. That sort of sentimental guff didn’t fly with Stanton. “He shall be hanged! Damn him!” Stanton said of Pryor. But President Lincoln, in these waning months of the war, agreed to release Pryor on “parole,” back to his home in Petersburg. Lincoln was apparently influenced by Pryor’s kindly treatment, back when he was a general, of Northern prisoners from Second Bull Run.

    With the Confederate defeat, Pryor was in a bad position. He didn’t despair like Edmund Ruffin, who had started the war when Pryor shied away from doing so. Ruffin killed himself rather than live under Yankee rule again. Pryor didn’t go to that extreme, but he faced poverty, he and his wife having pretty much lost, or had to sell off, all their possessions during the war.

    Pryor went to New York City on a visit, which changed into a permanent move. The city which the Confederates had tried to burn seemed a poor environment for him to get a friendly reception, or to get clients – for Pryor decided he would study to become a New York lawyer. In reality, though there were plenty of Gothamites embittered against the South, New York City still provided perhaps the friendliest environment in the North for ex-Confederates. With its prewar commercial ties to the South, and its status as a destination for wealthy Southern visitors, it isn’t surprising that the city had a large population of Southerners, Southern sympathizers and of “copperheads” Democrats who had opposed the Northern war effort (Teddy Roosevelt’s mother Martha, for example, was a Southerner and a Confederate sympathizer, which may explain why Teddy’s father bought himself a draft exemption rather than fight against his wife’s side).

    After being admitted to the New York bar, Pryor began building his practice. He initially had to fight the prejudice against “rebels,” but he got sympathy and help from some of the former “copperheads,” as well as from other Southerners who were moving to New York City at the time. The migrants, the so-called “Confederate carpetbaggers,” found that there were more opportunities in this Southern-leaning Northern metropolis than in the war-wracked South. It also helped that most Gothamites were Democrats like Pryor, though there were plenty of elite Republicans to win over as well.

    In 1868 Pryor was hit by what many white Southerners considered one of the most demeaning of the Reconstruction measures: The Fourteenth Amendment. Section Three of that amendment said that people who had held office before the war, and who then joined the Confederacy, were forbidden from holding state or federal office in the future. Within four years, Congress restored the political rights of most people covered by Section Three, but there were some exceptions. Pertinent to Pryor, people like him who had joined the Confederacy after service in the 36th Congress, the last peacetime Congress, would be denied office holding rights. This exception was aimed at fire-eating Southerners like Pryor, whose rhetoric on the House floor had exacerbated the divisions which led to the war. Supposedly all this wouldn’t make a difference to Pryor, who assured the public that he had no political ambitions and simply wanted to practice his profession, and to work – as a private citizen – for unity between North and South.

    In his speeches and writings, Pryor took a more conciliatory tone than he had before the war, suggesting that the North and South should get along better. Pryor conceded that his former divisive speeches had been less than helpful. He was even able to give a let’s-be-friends speech to a suspicious audience of members of the Grand Army of the Republic – the Union veterans’ organization. His reputation was considerably improving.

    Henry Ward Beecher

    Pryor was able to raise his profile among Northerners, and get in some thwacks against an old enemy of the white South, when he was retained in the famous Henry Ward Beecher/Theodore Tilton case of 1874-75. The powerful Protestant preacher Beecher had sermonized against slavery and for the Northern war effort. Now, Beecher was accused of seducing one of his parishioners – the wife of Pryor’s client Theodore Tilton. The country was fascinated by a saga of alleged adultery and even blackmail involving a top man of the cloth. The jury could not agree on a verdict, but the public’s verdict was that Pryor had displayed great professional skill.

    Pryor’s new profile – as a learned lawyer-statesman who had become acclimatized to the North – became significant because one of his neighbors was Winfield Scott Hancock, a former Northern general. The wives of the two men became fast friends, and when Hancock became the Democratic nominee for President in 1880 there were rumors that Pryor might be Attorney General of the United States under a Hancock administration. Congress passed a special resolution to finally restore Pryor’s office holding rights, so the Fourteenth Amendment was no longer a problem. What was a problem was that Hancock lost the election, and so Pryor remained in private practice.

    Visiting London on business in 1883, Pryor rescued a young American woman who was being attacked by hoodlums. The young lady’s name was Bessie Stanton, the grown-up edition of the baby whose father had vowed to hang Pryor.

    Haymarket Flier

    And now we go to Chicago, at or around Haymarket Square, where on May 4, 1886, the police were trying to break up a labor demonstration. Someone lobbed a bomb at the police, and when the bomb went off it killed eleven people, seven of whom were policemen. Several anarchists, mainly German but including an Englishman, were tried for murder, supposedly for inciting and helping the killings. Several death sentences resulted, and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the convictions. Supporters of the defendants, who believed they had been denied a fair trial, collected some money to bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Top-flight attorneys were hired, Pryor being one. There was an important attorney, Benjamin Butler, brought in as well. Butler, a former Union general, wasn’t popular in the South and was regarded as a war criminal, but Pryor maintained professional relations with him.

    It would be an uphill struggle to get the Supreme Court to interfere. Pryor placed his hopes in the very Fourteenth Amendment which had formerly branded him unfit to hold office. Section One of that amendment, of course, guaranteed due process of law and protected the privileges and immunities of American citizenship. So Pryor and his colleagues would argue that the trial of the anarchists had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them an impartial jury, using illegally-seized evidence, and so forth. Trouble was, over the past decade the Supreme Court had interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment quite narrowly, failing to include the rights in the Bill of Rights among the privileges or immunities of American citizens (which Pryor’s clients weren’t in any case). Nor had the Supremes been very vigorous in using due process to guarantee that state trials met Bill of Rights standards.

    In its decision, the Supreme Court reiterated its narrow view of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Justices went on to say that even if a more rigorous review of the case were required, the trial would still have been fair. Of eight defendants, four were hanged, one blew himself up before he could be hanged, and three were later pardoned by governor John Peter Altgeld based on the governor’s criticism of the trial’s fairness.

    Louis Lingg set a smuggled blasting cap off in his mouth while in prison

    As for the guilt of the defendants, historians have tended to view the trial as unfair or even as a frame-up, but historian Timothy Messer-Kruse changed his mind after reviewing the record and decided that the defendants were guilty (not to mention that at least one defendant – the one who blew himself up – had some knowledge of using bombs for deadly purposes).

    Pryor defended the innocence of his clients by attributing chivalry to them: “If there were a plot in existence, do you suppose that they would have had their wives and children [at the demonstration]?”

    At the end of his career Pryor got a Supreme Court (trial) judgeship through the influence of Tammany Hall, of which he was an ally. He retired but was still around to tell the New York Times that the U.S. Supreme Court (as Pryor knew too well) was not a big fan of making the states obey the Bill of Rights

    Citations

    Richard C. Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationalization of Civil Liberties. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.

    Jonathan Truman Dorris, Pardon and Amnesty under Lincoln and Johnson: The Restoration of the Confederates to their Rights and Privileges, 1861-1898. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1977.

    “Gen. Roger A. Pryor Dies in 91st Year,” New York Times, March 15, 1919, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9805E6D91E39E13ABC4D52DFB5668382609EDE.

    Barbara Goldsmith, Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998. [contains details of the Beecher-Tilton scandal]

    Robert S. Holzman, Adapt or Perish: The Life of General Roger A. Pryor, C. S. A. Hamden, Conn: Archon, 1976.

    Timothy Messer-Kruse, The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists: Terrorism and Innocence in the Guilded Age. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.

    Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131 (1887), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/123/131/

    John Strausbaugh, City of Sedition: The History of New York City During the Civil War. New York: Twelve, 2016.

    Daniel E. Sutherland, The Confederate Carpetbaggers. Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1988.

    “Theodore Roosevelt’s Divided House,” Washington Times, November 13, 2008, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/theodore-roosevelts-divided-house/

    John C., Waugh, Surviving the Confederacy: Rebellion, Ruin, and Recovery: Roger and Sara Pryor during the Civil War. New York: Harcourt 2002.

  • A Tammany Boss and a Mad Violinist Ruined Gun Rights for New Yorkers

    By: The Fusionist

    In May 1907, Timothy D. “Big Tim” Sullivan, a key leader in the powerful Tammany Democratic organization in New York City, spoke to a reporter from the New York Herald. “Help your neighbor, but keep your nose out of his affairs,” said Big Tim, seemingly libertarian-ly.

    Timothy Sullivan

    The former New York state legislator, who had recently resigned from Congress but not from his role as Tammany power-broker, wasn’t actually endorsing libertarianism. He was talking about his no-questions-asked policy of distributing charity to the poor who lived in the Bowery district – poor people whom the Democrats relied on to get elected and re-elected. Sullivan held an annual daylong summer extravaganza of food and entertainment for grateful voters and their families, and an annual Christmas dinner, too, plus clothing giveaways. He literally bailed out people who got in legal trouble, and helped job-seekers get employed in government or the private sector.

    A businessman who had ownership interests in saloons and theaters, Sullivan probably chipped in some of his own money for his charitable efforts. But he didn’t have to rely solely on the contents of his own pocketbook. Sullivan took a “regulate and tax” approach to gambling, liquor, and other kinds of vice – if by “tax” you mean payoffs to himself and his friends, plus help for his poor constituents.

    Often charged with being “King of the Underworld,” Sullivan denied it. He particularly denied shaking down prostitutes. At one point, in order to forcibly, as it were, rebut the allegations, Sullivan’s people raided some brothels and beat up some pimps.

    Sullivan was even more enthusiastic about practicing violence against Republican poll-watchers. To take one example: when political reformer William Travers Jerome in 1901 threatened to employ poll watchers in Sullivan’s territory, Big Tim told the press: “If Jerome brings down a lot of football playing, hair-mattressed college athletes to run the polls by force, I will say now that there won’t be enough ambulances in New York to carry them away.”

    And if Big Tim had to recruit from the criminal underworld to accomplish his dirty work, he would do so. As Professor Daniel Czitrom put it: “The Sullivan machine occasionally employed rival gangs for strong-arm support at election time, especially during the rare but bruising intra-Tammany primary fights. The largest and most notorious of these were the Jewish Monk Eastman gang and the Italian Paul Kelly Association, whose bitter feuding sometimes exploded into gunfire on Lower East Side streets.”

    Shortly after Sullivan gave his comments about keeping one’s nose out of people’s affairs, a prestigious Quaker school in Washington, D. C., held its graduation ceremonies. Friends School, as it was known, was presided over by the husband-and-wife team of Thomas and Frances Sidwell, after whom the school would later be renamed. The graduates were to be addressed by a very important, albeit non-Quaker figure: President Theodore Roosevelt, whose son went to the school (Roosevelt, incidentally, was an old adversary of Sullivan’s).

    While waiting for Roosevelt and his wife to arrive, the graduation crowd listened to a Friends School alumnus and Harvard graduate, who had studied in Berlin and Vienna to be a professional violinist and now shared his talent with the audience with solos by Vieuxtemps, Elgar, and Bazzini.

    The violinist, Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, was from a Southern family as distinguished as his name sounded. His doctor-father had financed his education and was probably relieved that Fitzhugh seemed to have settled down to a regular job. Fitzhugh’s sometimes strange and disturbing behavior made him unpleasant to have around the family home.

    President Roosevelt arrived and gave his speech. Goldsborough remained during the speech, as we know from a photograph of the event showing the violinist standing on the President’s right. A later search of Goldsborough’s notebook showed the violinst describing the Rough Rider as “An example of evolution from Politics to Barbarism,” but despite this, perhaps Goldsborough found something in Roosevelt’s speech worth listening to. Roosevelt gave a version of one of his favorite speeches, “The American Boy” (the graduating class had a handful of girls as well as boys). Roosevelt proclaimed: “When a boy grows up, I want him to be of such a type that when somebody wrongs him he will feel a good, healthy desire to show the wrongdoers that he can not be wronged with impunity.”

    With these not-fully-Quakerish sentiments echoing in their ears, the graduates, the President, and Goldsborough went their separate ways. Goldsborough got work playing first violin for the Pittsburgh Orchestra. He had undeniable musical talent. But he was not a talented poet. This was unfortunate, since Goldsborough insisted on reading his poetry to other members of the orchestra. His colleagues put up with it, until one day a fellow-musician said that Goldsborough’s poetry was terrible. Goldsborough broke his violin over the other musician’s head.

    [insert “sax and violins” joke here]

    Soon after this, in 1910, Goldsborough left Pittsburgh, explaining everything in a brief note so that nobody would worry: “The Pittsburgh smoke has driven me crazy. You will never see me again.”

    David Graham Phillips

    On January 23, 1911, around New York City’s Gramercy Park, the novelist David Graham Phillips was taking his regular walk in the high-toned neighborhood. Phillips was a “muckracker,” a term coined by President Roosevelt to describe writers like Phillips who focused on corruptions and abuses in society. Phillips had written several novels denouncing political abuses, and he had also written a novel of manners, The Fashionable Adventures of Joshua Craig, mocking the upper crust.

    One of the young ladies in the Joshua Craig novel was described as follows: “To her luxurious, sensuous nature every kind of pleasurable physical sensation made keen appeal, and she strove in every way to make it keener.” Someone had recently been bombarding Phillips with letters complaining that this character was a satire on his (the correspondent’s) sister. This was not true, and Phillips had rightly concluded that the letter-writer was a nut, but what Phillips didn’t know was that the letter-writer had taken up lodging nearby in order to stalk Phillips and seek “revenge.”

    And now the letter-writer, Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, was coming up to Phillips, shooting the novelist and then himself. Goldsborough died promptly; Phillips died the following day.

    Phillips’ murder was quite helpful to a bureaucrat named George P. LeBrun, a gun-control zealot who got together a coalition for a more restrictive firearms law. LeBrun recruited a committee consisting of John D. Rockefeller and other bigshots – the committee called itself the Legislation League for the Conservation of Human Life, of which LeBrun became secretary.

    To sponsor the gun law, LeBrun recruited Big Tim Sullivan, who by this time was back in the state Senate. Sullivan, who now represented in the Lower East Side, piously told LeBrun about the need to stop murderous gang rivalry. (Cynics to this day suggest that Sullivan wanted a legal weapon to keep his allies well-armed while disarming his adversaries, but what possible basis can there be for such a supposition?) Sullivan took the floor on behalf of his bill, which would require permits for concealable guns. The legislature voted with Sullivan and the bill became law.

    LeBrun credited Phillips’ murder: “Four shots fired by a maniac caused me to become the father of the Sullivan Law…” This law, of course, restricts the arms-bearing rights of perfectly sane people. Unless they have connections, like Big Tim Sullivan’s allies.

    The New York Times reported Sullivan’s reassurances: “Senator Sullivan said that householders and business men who desired to keep weapons in their homes and places of business as a measure of protection would not be inconvenienced by the new law.” As reported in the Times, Sullivan was sure of the law’s constitutionality because he had “consulted a Supreme Court Justice [i. e., state trial judge] in preparing it.”

    This justice may or may not have been the retired judge – and Tammany ally – Roger A. Pryor, who in an interview with the Times assured the reporter that the law was constitutional, because the state of New York did not have to obey the Second Amendment – “it is settled by uniform adjudication that [the Second Amendment] is a limitation on the authority and power of the Federal Government only….Senator Sullivan is entirely right and his critics are all wrong.”

    Judge Pryor had certainly come a long way since that April day in Charleston harbor half a century before, when he and others discussed whether to fire on Fort Sumter…but that is a story for another time.

    As for Sullivan, he was elected to Congress again in 1912, but went mad, and died mysteriously in 1913.

     

    Citations:

    “Bang, Bang, Your [sic] Dead,” The Public “I,” January 24, 2013, http://thepublici.blogspot.com/2013/01/bang-bang-your-dead.html

    Juan Ignacio Blanco, “Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough,” Murderpedia, http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/goldsborough-fitzhugh.htm

    Carl M. Cannon, “Clinton gives commencement address at daughter Chelsea’s private school ‘Dad, the girls want you to be wise the boys just want you to be funny.’” Baltimore Sun, June 07, 1997 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-06-07/news/1997158013_1_sidwell-friends-school-clinton-chelsea

    Sewell Chan, “Big Tim Sullivan, Tammany Kingmaker,” New York Times, City Room blog, December 18, 2009, https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/big-tim-sullivan-tammany-kingmaker/

    Commencement Exercises and President Roosevelt’s Address, May 24, 1907. Friends School, Washington, D.C.

    Richard C. Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationalization of Civil Liberties. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.

    Daniel Czitrom, “Underworlds and Underdogs: Big Tim Sullivan and Metropolitan Politics in New York, 1889- 1913.” The Journal of American History, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Sep., 1991), pp. 536-558

    Friends’ Intelligencer, Sixth month [June] 8, 1907, p. 366.

    George P. Le Brun, as told to Edward D. Radin, call me if it’s murder! New York: Bantam, 1965, pp. 69-77.

    “History,” Sidwell Friends School, http://www.sidwell.edu/about_sfs/history/index.aspx

    “Roger A. Pryor Finds New Gun Law Valid,” New York Times, September 5, 1911. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9800E4D91531E233A25756C0A96F9C946096D6CF

    “Sullivan Wants New Gun Law to Stand,” New York Times, September 7, 1911, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B00E6DA1E3EE033A25754C0A96F9C946096D6CF