Here We Go Again

I've written before about how the federal government laced alcohol-replacement drinks (?) with poisons such as strychnine and mercury during Prohibition.  Manufacturers were ordered to put these potentially fatal additives in anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, embalming fluid, and other liquids people substituted for booze.  In effect, the federal government was issuing death penalties to Americans, without benefit of charges, trials, or conviction for drinking something that was legal in every other country in the world, had been a socially accepting practice (usually in moderation) for centuries, and had been legal in the US up until a year or two before.  And, the government's attitude can be summed up by, "They shouldn't be drinking that stuff anyway."

On the same page of the newspaper this AM are two more examples of the perils of government with too much power, with the arrogance that comes with having too much power.  First, it is legal for government to seize people's property although they haven't been convicted of crimes.  I think the term is "civil asset forfeiture."  It can work like this.  Several years ago, an art gallery party was held in Detroit without possession of "a proper license to hold such an event."  More than three dozen cars parked on an adjacent street were seized and impounded by police.  No charges, no trials, no convictions--just a loss of property.  I even wonder if all of the cars that were taken belong to people at the party.

Second, a woman was tried and convicted of child abuse, sentenced to 25- to 50-years in prison.  After serving 7 years, recent evidence, including recanting of the charges, polygraphs, and other eyewitnesses, it's apparent the woman was wrong convicted, even wrongly charged.  Yet, the prosecutors are insisted on keeping the woman in prison, fighting the appeals. And, one court of appeals, already ruling, has supported this travesty.  The reasoning is based on a "procedural technicality."  No innocent person should be kept in jail merely because of a "procedural technicality."  Even a panel of former state and federal prosecutors have filed an amicus brief critical of the use of the "procedural technicality" to keep this woman imprisoned.

And there was a front page article about the Emergency Manager Law.  Yep, I am a critic of it.  I criticize the governor for employing it.  There may have been some successes (and I think Detroit would have pulled out of bankruptcy without an EM, like while Duggan was mayor), but the abject failures seen in Flint and the Detroit schools with little to no accountability is condemning.  OK, the governor is now taking responsibility.  That reminds me of some criminals who express sorrow and contrition.  They aren't sorry for their crimes; they are sorry they were caught.  And it sure looks like Snyder knew about the Flint tragedy long before he express his "sorrow."  He did nothing.  Maybe he is sorry the water has been poisoned; maybe, too he's sorry because the fingers are pointing at his administration.  Remember, for him, it's always been about the bottom line, "best practices" and all that crap.  What works in business doesn't necessarily work in the public sector.  Besides, what ever happened to the concept of democracy, that people can choose their leadership?  OK, if they continue to choose badly, then others shouldn't necessarily have to bail them out.  But in Flint, the only bad choices came from appointed officials, not elected ones, well, other than the elected ones who appointed the officials.  (Yeah, I think I just confused myself, too.)

Also in this AM's paper is an article with the headline, "Congress defined by inaction."  It's as if this is a bad thing, that Congress isn't doing something.  I know I've written about the vast number of laws that are passed each year.  I know I've cited the Wall Street Journal from years past, telling Congress, "Don't do something; just stand there."  (It's an obvious take-off of "Don't just stand there; do something.")  I, for one, would much prefer Congress and much of the rest of government to "just stand there."