"The Law Is A Ass......"

I believe it was Mr. Bumble, in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, who said, "If the law supposes that, the the law is a ass--a idiot."  [sic] 

I don't particularly like when the courts get involved with many matters outside of the criminal system.  But I was hoping the legal avenue would right what I think is an egregious wrong in the instance of the local high school basketball player deemed ineligible by the state high school athletic association for transferring "for athletic purposes."

The kid, obviously, transferred from Macomb Dakota to Clarkston to play basketball.  I don't know the exact motivation.  The star All-State Clarkston player is a buddy of his.  The Clarkston coach is outstanding.  Clarkston is the defending state champion and will like be a strong contender again this March.  But the claim he transferred for academics seems very far-fetched to me.  Is Dakota that rotten?

But, I think, that is all irrelevant.  Who cares why the kid transferred?  Oh, I didn't mention that his parents moved (a condominium I think) into the Clarkston school district.  Yep, they (including the kid) are now legal residents of the Clarkston school district.  He is going to high school where he lives!

And yet the Michigan High School Athletic Association ruled him ineligible for 180 days, in effect the entire basketball season.  That is wrong, very wrong, on many counts.

First, who is the MHSAA to say a legal resident of a school district can't participate in his/her  school's programs?  If the courts are there to right wrongs, the judge yesterday should have at least stayed the MHSAA ruling.  I know even the kid's lawyers said she was "bound by case law."  But, well, Mr. Bumble was right.  "If the law supposes that......"

Second, Dakota apparently had a very similar situation in the recent past, where a star basketball player transferred there to play with one of his buddies, also a star.  (I think they even went on to play in college together.)  MHSAA rules state that the school from which the transfer is leaving must sign off on it.  The other school signed off on the Dakota transfer.  Dakota didn't sign off on the Clarkston transfer.  I think this goes beyond the ruling and the law and I think you know what I mean!  In fact, if real justice would be served, for being this way, other schools should call Dakota and refuse to play against them.  Of course, that won't happen.  Sports are far more important than principles.

Third, the MHSAA claimed the association wasn't "being selective" in its ruling on this case.  I presume he tried to say it with a straight face.  He cited a couple of other similar cases this year.  Gee, in the whole state of Michigan three or four such cases?  I hardly know where to start.  Why is there no investigation and ruling on the many high schools that, say, annually end up with as many as 11 or 12 Division 1 college signees? (The instances are legion.)  Why is there no investigation of, say, out-of-state transfers who miraculously end up at the same athletic powerhouse high schools?  (Well, it's obviously for the academics, certainly not athletics!)  I know the MHSAA said it can only investigate if there is a complaint.  That's hooey of the first degree.  So, if a known drug dealer is murdered, a prosecutor can't file charges against the perpetrator unless there is a complaint?  I know there is a difference here, between criminal law and MHSAA rules.  But I think the principle is the same.

Fourth, a kid is losing an entire year of his basketball life.  No doubt he'll be fine, move on to MSU next year and everyone will forget it.  But those of us who have played sports know those times, even a single year, are to be treasured throughout our lifetimes.  And he's getting cheated out of it by petty adults--both at Dakota and the MHSAA.  I suppose I could toss in the judge who refused to issue the injunction; case law be damned in this instance.  If case law perpetrates wrong-doing, then get rid of it.

Fifth, where is the leash on the MHSAA?  Again, it claims that it only enforces rules agreed upon by its member schools.  Again, that's hooey.  What other schools, other than Dakota, really care--or should care--if this kid plays at Clarkston?  Are they afraid of losing?  Then why don't they contact the MHSAA about the other high schools who have accumulated Division 1 talent?  I know from personal experience that the MHSAA acts arrogantly, knowing apparently, there is no rein, no check on it.  In the distant past, I have contacted it by maybe five or six letters (before computers/e-mails) about matters and didn't receive a peep from it.

In all, I think this is a travesty.  Maybe it's all about the undue important and emphasis placed on athletics in high school.  I'm willing to concede that, that sports have become, well, something that they shouldn't have become.  That's not just a high school problem, though.  I'm concerned here just about this instance, when a kid who has been wronged has not received the remedy to that wrong.  I think the most important thing to remember is, academics or athletics--who cares?--the kid and his family are legal residents of the school district where he attends school.

Again, as usual, forgive any typos and misspellings.  It's very early and I'm in a hurry to start my day.

It's Almost Funny...

...almost.  It happened again today.  The trash collectors left our receptacles right in the middle of the driveway so no car could enter.  Michael parked in the street and moved the can(s) out of the way.  I can only assume that the guys do this on purpose--it happens so often and to many in our neighborhood.  Maybe not, though.

After finishing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Allen Guelzo), I'm left with many impressions, most as one might guess, positive ones.  I think Guelzo is even more of a Lincoln fan than I am!  (I almost wrote "even more of a Lincoln apologist than I am."  But I don't think Lincoln needs any apologists.)  That was good to see/read.  It was cool to read of Lincoln's somewhat uneven signature on the EP.  Many have said it was because he was hesitant, almost losing his nerve at the last minute in issuing it.  He had no intention on going back on his word.  The unevenness of his signature, "Abraham Lincoln" which he rarely used in place of "A. Lincoln," was due to the January 1st handshakes for several hours at the White House.  Some have suggested he shook hundreds of hands that day, maybe as many as 700.  I think that might cause a hand to act up a bit.  I was also very glad to see Michigan's own Zachariah Chandler figure so prominently or, at least, far more prominently than he is usually depicted.  Chandler was a giant among the abolitionists, the Radical Republicans, but is most often ignored or subjugated to a lesser role than that of, say, Thaddeus Stevens, Ben Wade, and Charles Sumner.  (Chandler, a Detroit hardware store owner, was sued in the 1850s by one U.S. Grant, who was stationed there.  Grant fell on the slippery walkway in front of then Mayor Chandler's house and won a judgment of $5 (?). Grant held no hard feelings apparently, as he appointed Chandler to his Cabinet in 1875.)

I was repeatedly struck by the irony of this:  Southerners constantly argued that freedom included their right to own other people, their slaves.  Abolition, then, was stealing freedom from white southern slave owners.

I'm not a big fan of George McClellan, the Union general.  In fact, I'm no fan at all.  One of my favorite Lincoln comments came in the face of McClellan's notorious reluctance to engage the enemy.  "If you're not going to use the army, could I borrow it for a while?"  I've always considered McClellan one who likely lengthened the Civil War, leading to more casualties. (Of course, it's hard to prove things that don't happen, but......)  Guelzo paints him in an even darker light, almost a traitorous one.  And he includes some of McClellan's staff.  He cites threats of courts-martial and even some cashiering of officers.  Hmmm...... 

For whatever reason, I've thought about something I've not thought about--maybe ever.  Would I enjoy living in a city like New York or Boston?  I think in many ways, urban life in either of those two places is different from, say, Detroit or Chicago.  Living in the brownstones, able to walk through and shop the ethnic neighborhoods, etc., almost seemed compelling--almost.  How different such a life would be from the suburban lifestyle!

Another article in an ongoing series about life in the neighborhoods of Detroit depicted a far different image of the city's so-called "rebound."  Residents were interviewed and they cited the squatters and druggies living in abandoned houses, leading to robberies and shootings.  "It's not safe."  I know crime statistics, numerically, are down in Detroit.  But although murders were the lowest there in about 40 years, the population is barely 1/3 of what it was then.  As a percentage of population, the rate was way up.  Perhaps getting the downtown and entertainment areas will soon allow the city to devote more attention and resources to the neighborhoods.  I hope so.  I remember a great, great Detroit, a wonderful city to grow up in and near.

One last thing, how does this happen?  I am, I sheepishly admit, up about 10 pounds from my usual weight, even at this time of the year when it usually climbs a bit.  Yet, my trousers all a looser around the waist?!?!?!  In light of that, 10 pounds seems like a lot.

As usual, please forgive any typos and misspellings.  I'm too tired to proofread today.

Reflections on...

...turning 69 years old.  69?!?!?!  I am flooded with thoughts, some I likely won't reveal right now.  Still, it's very odd to consider, 69.  I suppose it's like 2018, as noted before.  

I ran, despite the low temperatures (5-6 degrees, a veritable heat wave compared to other AMs this week!), 6.9 miles.  I did it on purpose, but it also worked out with the strong winds that popped up overnight and another easy day/run while my injury is slowly, but surely healing.  And, coming only from a runner, I'm actually looking forward to next year.  Yep, 70 years old puts me in a new age-group for racing.  But 69 pits me against those youngsters who are 65......  

Nolan Finley had an interesting editorial in this AM's newspaper.  It went beyond, I think, the apparent subject, Jeff Sessions as attorney-general and his stance in opposing states' approval of recreational marijuana.  Finley questioned the attorney-general "...telling the states they can't exercise the constitutional authority assigned to them [under the principle of federalism] to adapt and enforce a system of laws regulating the activity of their citizens within their borders."  Yes, I agree with Finley, except......

I am curious.  Finley doesn't like that "...the states can't exercise the constitutional authority assigned to them to adapt and enforce a system of laws regulating the activity of their citizens within their borders."  Hmmm......The Civil War notwithstanding, might that "system of laws regulating activity of their citizens within their borders" include protecting and perpetuating slavery?  What about blocking civil rights?

Although I am opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana (even if by state actions), I agree with Finley regarding Sessions and his stance on the issue.  Actually, I agree with Sessions on the legalization, but not his attempts to prohibit state actions.  I believe in federalism and its principles, esp those which limit the power of the national government.  Yet, the specter of the past, that is slavery, civil rights, etc., looms.

Of course I rationalize, if only to appease my self-acknowledged contradictions.  It is mindful of the ruling in Brown v Board of Education.  Legally and constitutionally, the Supremes' ruling was/is suspect.  Yet, it was so clearly and inherently proper--and other/alternative paths to racial justice were just as clearly improbable or even impossible--that it was worth fracturing the Constitution.  Or was it?  Similarly, consider Lincoln's route to the Emancipation Proclamation and abolition.  The questionable (perhaps I'm being generous here?) executive actions came only after all other avenues to freedom, short of winning the Civil War which wasn't at all a given, had been blocked.  Both Brown and the EP fly in the face of my appreciation for federalism and my distaste for national government power, but...... 

That raises a difficult and dangerous question.  Is a worthy and desired outcome, one that might be inherently and clearly decent, justification for torturing the Constitution?  A "yes" answer puts one on a slippery slope indeed.

In reading a book on Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation last week, I came across a vignette that has stuck with me.  Washington, DC, during the Civil War and even up to the Second World War, was essentially a southern city, much like Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA.  Attitudes in DC toward slavery and blacks (free as well as slave) were those of the seceded South.  (Two things to note.  Exceptions were found in the abolitionists of both parties.  And there were many people i the North who were equally racist.)

In the midst of this racism, the extremely negative light in which blacks were held in the nation's capital, it was disconcerting to read of DC denizens who flocked to a minstrel show, "...twenty-two white men in blackface strumming banjos and washboards, free men pretending to be slaves."  I can't get that out of my head.  "...pretending to be slaves."

Regarding Gus's comment to my last post.  It's hard to argue the importance, good or bad, with the Kennedy family.  The Roosevelts, esp if we consider different branches of the family--Oyster Bay/TR and Hyde Park/FDR.  What about the Adams family, excluding Gomez (Addams), of course?  There were John and John Quincy, both Presidents.  Charles Francis Adams served the government in a long, distinguished career.  Then there were Henry Adams and his brother Brooks, historians/authors.  Let's not forget Abigail, too!!!!!!  Maybe she should have been the first woman President!  I think the different times lead us to the Kennedy family, though, for better or for worse.

And, thanks again, Joe!  It is appreciated.

Forgive any typos and other errors.  I don't have the time or inclination to proofread.

Happy New Year!

2018?  That, as Karen said very early Mon AM, "sounds weird."  Indeed it does.  I wonder how many of us in my age bracket thought we'd ever say "2018."   Well, we have and let's make the most of it.

There's so much to say/write, yet as I've pondered the past few weeks, there's nothing to say/write.  I know, I know......

I can't believe it's been four weeks since my last post.  But final exams, the kids, the holidays all added up.  Like I noted, so much to say, nothing to say.

I did manage to read a bit over that time and one book was about the Christmas Truce of 1914, when soldiers from Germany (the Central Powers) and from Britain and France (the Allies) put down their weapons on the Western  Front (No Man's Land it was coined) and celebrated.  They traded "gifts," chocolate, cigarettes, scarves, hats, etc.  There were even some "football" (soccer) games between sides, friendly games of course.  All this reminded me of something I read years ago, a tee shirt or bumper sticker, something.  "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came."  Naive?  Of course.  But, at the same time, hopeful.

New Year's Resolutions?  I'm not big on them.  I have goals, but they aren't really tied to any one single new year.  I would hope, though, that this year I pay more attention to what I read.  That is, reading or hearing something is something I should check out, double check, before accepting it as fact or legitimate.  I know it's easy to fall into that trap, of assuming something is so just because it's out there in print or the air waves--and then repeating it.  I suppose that is one of the pitfalls of all this technology in communication and I, like many, fall for it, too.  "But it's on the Internet."  We laugh at this, but sometimes it's not funny.

Tying the previous two paragraphs, I am currently into a book about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Even before all this social media (Oh, I dislike that term, but......), similar pitfalls have occurred.  One of the most celebrated of US historians was Richard Hofstadter.  His views on the Emancipation Proclamation became widespread, repeated in textbooks and lectures for decades without challenge.  And those views are wrong.  His claim that the EP had "all the eloquence of a bill of lading" was not just about the style of the document.  Certainly he was right that it doesn't have the "eloquence" of the Gettysburg Address or Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.  But his criticism wasn't just that or even primarily that.  It was that the EP was a posturing of sorts, that it really didn't free any slaves.  And that is demonstrably false.  In issuing it, Lincoln not only opened the door for the abolition of slavery, but actually succeeded in freeing tens of thousands, if not more, slaves.  Of course it was a wartime measure and Lincoln perceived it as such.  It was also a political move.  But it was also a legal document that had the force of law.  Yet, how many textbooks, how many lessons have indicated that the EP was an empty gesture, when it clearly wasn't?  Yet, because the noted Richard Hofstadter made such a claim, it was accepted. 

I also discovered something I didn't realize.  I've never been a big fan of John Kennedy.  I cringe when I hear or read that people think he was a great president.  No, he wasn't.  But I have grudgingly gained more, at least a little bit more, respect for him due to his spoken words.  He was a wonderful speaker, able to get/convince people to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do.  I certainly give him points for that.  Yet he refused to give a speech, in 1962 I think, at the Lincoln Memorial about the importance of the EP.  JFK was afraid of alienating southern Democrats/voters in the face of what he perceived would be a difficult re-election campaign in '64.  I'm not certain, but it might have been Truman, another Democrat, who said something about doing what's right and the rest will take care of itself.