Run! Godzilla's  Coming

(Fear and loathing born of ignorance)

SEABORNE FUKUSHIMA RADIATION PLUME HIT WEST COAST, CORPORATE MEDIA REPORTED IT DANGEROUSLY

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/seaborne-fukushima-radiation-plume-hit-west-coast-corporate-media-reported-it-dangerously/

        The original article (the link) contains some first-rate fear mongering based on the assumed ignorance of the audience. Pandering to and causing unrealistic consternation among the uninformed certainly isn't new, but it is, nonetheless, definitely irresponsible. The isotope in question is Cs 134, which, like Rubidium and Iodine, is a fission product. Wow, sounds dangerous, huh. And if you ingested a significant amount, it would be. 

    The issue here is twofold. First, the relatively short (2 year ) half life of Cs 134 (which does decay by relatively high energy Beta particle emission) and the fact that its decay product, Barium 134, is stable, means that after about ten years (5 half lives, assumed to be threshold for "none left") , assuming no additional releases from Fukushima, there will be no more Cs 134. More important, however, is that the effort required to detect ANY Ba 134 has been hampered by the fact that levels have been so low that only the most sophisticated detection equipment can even measure it. Canadian studies found levels of Ba 134 of 1000 times less than the allowable standards for drinking water.

        The "journalist" speaking of material "throwing off " radiation is statistically correct. One event could damage DNA and cause a mutation in a cell. So, if that's your concern, here is some really scary shit: Consuming Salmon which had Cs 134 in their flesh in a detectable amount at the highest level anyone, fear mongers included, has even suggested might, if you ate a lot of it, cause whole body radiation exposure of at the most around .5 millirem (mr) annually. That's half of a millirem. Remember this when you read the rest of this. Usually we measure exposure with dosimeters, but none in existence would measure this miniscule amount (remember this is over a year). So what can you do to limit your exposure?

        For starters, don't breathe or eat anything, because your annual exposure from the radon in air and assorted radioactive materials on food totals around 240 mr. That's correct, 480 times as much as the Salmon's potential. If you smoke as little as half a pack per day (and if you do, you are terminally stupid) add another 18 mr annually from the radium in tobacco. Now here's the kicker: If you don't eat, smoke or drink and live at sea level, cosmic radiation still zaps you another 15 mr. Worse, if you love that Colorado Rocky Mountain high, consider that the dose rate from cosmic radiation in Denver is 75 mr, yep, 5 times as great as sea level due to the lesser amount of attenuation from the atmosphere. Or you could retreat to a Lamasery in Bhutan at 15,000 feet and really suck up the millirem.

         Of course, all this sounds scary, but the national guidelines for lifetime radiation exposure are based on the formula:  Allowable lifetime exposure (in REM, [ 1 R = 1000 mr, duh]) = 5(n-18) where n is your age, not to exceed 5 R annually. So, my 50 year old friends, you could already have absorbed 170 Rem and not have exceeded any recognized dosage limit. Of course, if you really want to bump it up get a spinal x-ray (600 mr) and live dangerously.

        In summary, the average American is calculated (by those who actually know and do the math) to receive an exposure from all sources of about 600 mr annually. Consider the possible maximum .5 mr annually (assuming your salmon sucked up a shit load of Cs134), and then ask yourself if it's really worth losing sleep over.  The preceding public service announcement has been brought to you by someone (me) with actual training and 26 years' experience in the field. Enjoy the rest of your day (if you can, Bwahaaahaahaa!)   

New Rules: English language edition

 

New Rules: English language edition

      

It's been a while since I vented my semi-perpetual displeasure at the gross abuses of language (and other things). Accordingly, here are some recent peeves:

"'Nother." What the hell is a "nother? I recently saw and heard Jeff Foxworthy, a smart guy who, I suspect, speaks really good English out of character. His recent Golden Corral (all you can eat feeding trough /restaurant) commercial features the $1.29 take home box which, ole Jeff is quick to remind us, holds "a whole nother meal!"

I realize that fans who find Larry the Cable guy amusing actually know what he means because those toothless morons speak that way too. Foxworthy, former IBM employee and the guy who hosted "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader" and actually is, doesn't have to dumb it down to that level, does he?

Alphabet parity. In standard English, by actual analysis of a 40,000-word sample, the letter "E" is used almost 1/8 of the time, while "X", "Q", "J", and "Z" appear less than .0012 of the time. For the math challenged, that’s roughly 171 times as many "E"s as the bottom four. This ratio, common to essentially all English prose, is chucked out of the bus, however, if you are naming new drugs with catchy names for which consumers will beg their doctor by name. Forget the side effects which would scare any sane person if they bothered to read them. It's the name which hooks 'em and lands them. Use those Zs, Qs, Xs and Js, boys, we got plenty. I mean, doesn't "Zyprexa" just sound sexier than "olanzapine" that's what Zyprexa is, after all.

Closely related to this name game is the shameless "hook 'em" and reel 'em in" nature of much modern drug advertising. Probably the worst offender recently is a brand new drug (one of several) for treating a certain type of lung cancer. It features the words "Live Longer" projected on the sides of buildings in an urban setting. The drug's cute sounding name is "Opdivo” (Op as in optimistic, optimum, etc). So much sexier than nivolumab. There is a similar drug called "Keytruda." The adverts claim, and there is no reason to doubt, that test subjects with a 6-month prognosis lived an average of 9.2 months. Of course, everyone wants to live longer and, believe you me, Squibb and Merck really, really want you to! Know why? Because if you are on this drug protocol, even if it eventually fails for you, the 12-week initial phase will cost you (or someone) $141,000! If you stay on the protocol, look forward to $250,000 (yeah, that's a quarter of a mil) for the year. Opdivo has been recently approved in the UK. Wanna bet no one there pays that much for it?

Next rant: If you produce a drug, its initial cost should reflect your cost. There's no justification for subsequently jacking the price of a commonly prescribed drug to soak the consumer in the last years before the drug goes off patent. I'm not talking about our friend, Turing and its now incarcerated former CEO Martin Shkreli and his attempted price hike of a 62-year-old drug. He just got caught.

Eli Lilly, a major player, unlike Turing, has been guilty of similar practices with the much more widely prescribed and anti-psychotic, Zyprexa. As the years have passed and the 20-year patent protection waned, Lilly has jacked up the price of Zyprexa in increments, not because it cost more to make (it didn't, and we'll see just how little it really costs in a bit) but because they could, and without any sort of regulatory authority to call bullshit, insurers passed it along to the consumer. In 1996, Zxprexa cost $188 for a one-month supply. In 2003, Lilly raised that to $292. In 2006 the price jumped again to $368. In 2011, just before Lilly's patent lapsed, Zyprexa was priced at around $650 for a month's prescription. In 2012, patent having lapsed, a month's dose of generic olanzapine (exactly the same as Zyprexa) could be purchased using a printable coupon at our local Walmart for $10.90! Today (2023) olanzapine can be purchased at several local supermarket pharmacies for under $20. Surprisingly, the same 5mg 30 tablet prescription costs (with coupon) $118 at CVS Pharmacy, while other local sources are all in the $11 to $17 dollar range. Wouldn't it be interesting to know why the exact same drug costs 1100% more at 2 stores less than 1 mile apart?

Please stop using the word "hack" for everything you do in some slightly different manner. Maybe it's just me but changing your eating habits isn't a "life hack," it's just changing your eating habits. The word's original connotation conveyed some degree of brilliance and innovative thought, The things I see (admittedly, mostly on social media) styled as "Life Hacks" are almost never even clever, not to mention definitely not brilliant. I mean "lipstick hacks!" Really?

Finally, for now, I'm sick to death of "Organic" being ballyhooed as if any other method of farming was Satanic. First off cow manure is organic, it is also responsible for recent e-coli contamination of lettuce and celery crops. Know what doesn't do that? Chemical fertilizers which provide just the specific elements all plants need to thrive. By definition in chemistry, "organic" refers to compounds containing carbon, period. In food scamming it has come to mean  "More expensive because we have convinced you it is somehow better for you."

 There are things worth looking for in food, such as "non GMO" (the probable source of increased numbers of folks who are gluten intolerant is the widely increased amounts of GMO wheat commercially produced.) But "organic milk? Please! The only milk in the bovine world is organic, since the cow's body filters everything else non-essential to producing it. This is the same scam as the numerous "Toxin" cleanses. You know what actually does remove toxins for free? Your liver and kidneys. Interestingly enough you won't find "toxins" actually defined in these scam products. 

OK I'm better  for now.   

Unparalleled ignorance

 

                                 Unparalleled ignorance

        A recent OP-ED in the local rag hit a new low for rational discussion regarding climate change. After conceding that somewhere around 97% of the scientific community agrees that human activities are responsible for most of the current, and increasingly apparent,  global warming trend. “Ignore that, even if true”, they say, because reducing carbon emissions might be expensive. I'll save the really insane comment for later. read on, it's worth the wait.

        I've concluded that there are basically three separate schools of thought, if indeed any actual thought has occurred, in the climate change denier community, which are in some ways about as grounded as Holocaust deniers and “flat earthers.” They are:

        a: Climate change can't be “real” (they really mean caused by humans) because if we admit it is, our wealthy corporations which make money on energy and utilities will have to spend more and profit less. We're here, we want cheap gas and electricity, so f**k the next generation(s). The reality is that most of this group don't really care if climate change is real or, for that matter, strenuously deny it; they just don't want to act on it. The currently indicted ex-POTUS actually said this in 2020 during a debate with then President-elect Biden: “The fumes coming up, if you’re a believer in carbon emission … for these massive windmills is more than anything we’re talking about with natural gas which is very clean”. (Blatantly insane word salad! Wind produces zero “carbon emissions”)

        b: Since many major corporate donors to far-right causes and candidates are deniers (or ignorers), the sycophant candidates they own are also rabid deniers. It's in their financial interest to be so, and those who blindly listen to and parrot the rhetoric of the Greens, Boeberts, Perrys, Pences and Trumps become, reflexively and without critical analysis, global warming deniers, even to their own potential detriment.

        c: The third group and, in many cases, the most vociferous deniers, seem to be the Far-Right Evangelical fundamentalist Christians.  I believe that this knee jerk anti-global warming bias stems from their belief that 1. God made the Earth 2. God can do anything he/she/it wants, and therefore:  3. It borders on apostasy and sacrilege to believe that insignificant, puny mankind could ever have that same impact. (note: If they truly believe that, then they are also forced to believe that all natural disasters are just God’s way of randomly “thinning the herd”, right?)

 This is convenient for the Far Right since most Evangelicals lean that way. This quote from American Family Association director Bryan Fischer is self-explanatory: “That’s (climate change denial) kind of how we’re treating God when he’s given us these gifts of abundant and inexpensive and effective fuel sources, God has buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them.”  OK, Bryan, now I get it; your God wants us to foul the air by burning these “gifts” and it delights your God to see the side of a mountain strip-mined away and left to unchecked erosion, while the acid rain from coal burning power plants kills the trees, pollutes streams and fills fish?

        Now for the final and truly astounding wrinkle introduced by the writer:  In an act of hubris blended with equal portions of sheer gall and stupidity beyond anything I've ever even heard, the following assertion was made. I'll paraphrase to give it more flow and form. "Even if all these scientists around the world agree that Global warming is a real issue, that is relatively meaningless, since, after all Galileo and Einstein, both were going against the established beliefs of their day.”  The assertion here apparently being that Global warming deniers are analogous to Galileo and Albert Einstein!

         What the person obviously didn't think through, or more likely understand, is the fact that in Galileo's case, he wasn't arguing against science, he was using science (you know, hypothesis, observation, data accumulation, etc.) to refute Christian dogma "the earth is the center of the universe because we humans are God's creation, ergo more important than everything else." This is the diametric opposite of what he thinks he said!

        In the case of Einstein, he wasn't arguing against science, he was using higher math to explain and amplify some physics concepts that science hadn't yet explained.  Far from being opposed by the scientific community, Einstein was awarded the Nobel in theoretical Physics in 1921. Of course, the aforementioned Galileo was threatened with excommunication and forbidden to write.

        Seldom, if ever, has anyone been so drastically and diametrically incorrect and ill informed.  Hopefully, 2023 and beyond will bring serious change to US climate actions.       

Everything Right!

 

                                          Everything Right!

06/08/2023

If one needs proof of the mentality of the average Trump supporter, one need look no further than the recent rally out West where He actually stated, “I did everything right.” This has to be, by any definition, the most outrageous and false claim ever made by a United States President. In considering what I would say about it, I was swamped with examples of things that Trump did diametrically wrong which give the lie to his ludicrous statement. Even more ridiculous were the cheers of the people in the building who, knowing no better, (or not caring, since the result is the same) raised their arms and shouted loud huzzahs as their demagogue lied his ass off.

The task of selecting examples of Trump doing it categorically wrong is daunting and one has so many choices. I shall endeavor to only pick some of the blatantly flagrant ones.

 

Let's begin with economics. As we all know Trump was unable to get into grad school at Wharton and his economic policies clearly demonstrate why. When he met Professor Arthur Laffer at a social event, he alluded to having studied Laffer’s supply side economic theory at Wharton, when in fact Laffer hadn’t published yet when Trump was in school. Even so, his tax cut which he ballyhooed as the largest ever, which it wasn’t, was based on the flawed assumption that cutting taxes would increase federal revenues. This, in spite of the fact that, in practice, the theory had failed in both the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations. It continues to fail with the Trump tax cuts in effect. Among the results are three huge budget deficits.

According to a report released last May (2023) by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), extending the Trump tax cuts would add $3.5 trillion to the deficit through 2033.  Isn’t it amazing that the “Freedom Caucus” didn’t mention that while sniffing each other’s butts and howling at the moon over the debt ceiling??

        Also, still on the subject of Economics, we have Trump's insistence that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade treaty and NAFTA were both terribly flawed and needed to be replaced. Anyone interested in what replaced them would be hard pressed to find any differences in them because, after denouncing all the Obama era initiatives that he could, Trump essentially retreaded both treaties and actually weakened trade relations such that American intellectual property is in far greater jeopardy.  CPTPP (the replacement Trump version) is substantially the same as TPP but omits 20 provisions that had been added to TPP at US insistence and that are now no longer binding. These provisions were primarily related to investment, government and intellectual property. Yes, you guessed it, CTTP is worse for the US. Trump did it wrong!

Finally in an economic move that would leave the average high school junior shaking their head, we had Trump claiming that “China will pay the tariffs” on new import duties which he enacted against almost all economic advice. Any high school economics student should understand that tariffs are taxes on imports which are paid by the importer, not by the exporter. In the case of Trump's tariffs, and as predictably occurred, China retaliated by placing a tariff on American soybeans which placed them above the world market price of soybeans produced elsewhere in the world. The result of that has been an increase in agricultural subsidies to American farmers who can now no longer sell their product overseas. Agricultural subsidies have tripled as a result.

Overall, according to the American Association of Manufacturers, the tariff package enacted by Trump is costing every household in America about $850 per year. For the math challenged, that’s about $150 billion!  For added perspective, that is just over 10% of the 2022 federal deficit! Yeah, we're paying the tariff, not China. Prices are higher and supplies are lower. Trump was wrong.

On to policy in general. After dismantling the Obama pandemic preparedness mechanism and ignoring the “How to guide” (you know the “playbook” which Mitch McConnell claimed the Obama administration never prepared, even though his wife had been provided a presentation by the outgoing administration which used and explained it) Trump fiddled while COVID burned its way across America. I have written at length on this issue and for brevity’s sake it can be found here:   https://bubblehead1026.blogspot.com/2020/04/ineptitude-and-obfuscation-by-numbers.html

Compared to much of the developed world, Trump’s response to the pandemic was pathetic. His attitude also fueled the lunatic fringe’s unwillingness to do the right things. As a result, more Americans died as a percentage of population than in many more densely populated nations.

As a military retiree, it troubles me when I read that the President, never in the military, berates the Joint Chiefs in the presence of staffers. This was addressed in John Bolton’s book and is a good part of why he resigned. Again, as a leader, Trump is a pathetic failure. His removal from command of the C.O. of USS Theodore Roosevelt for his actions to protect his crew during a COVID outbreak is exemplary of the way he works. He had the acting SecNav do the job but, per staffers, it was at Trump’s insistence and direction. In like manner, he overrode the decision of a military court martial in the case of SEAL team murderer Senior Chief Eddie Gallagher, whose entire team turned him in for stabbing a 17year old captive and cutting off his head and holding it up while posing for a photo. Trump pardoned Gallagher. Regardless of conditions, the Military must be allowed to handle their own legal issues free from a grandstanding, publicity seeking POTUS.

Trump’s fetish for deregulation and personal poor relationship with banks spurred his attack on the Dodd-Frank legislation which was enacted during the Obama years as a response to the Housing bubble collapse and the earlier gradual GOP sponsored gutting of the Glass-Steagall banking act, which had evolved from the Great Depression to regulate commercial banks in the public interest. At Trump’s insistence Dodd-Frank was weakened, specifically the 2013 Volker Amendment, which provided oversight of how Commercial banks used deposited funds. The result? Banks like Silicon Valley Bank were free to make risky investments which led to bank failure. Trump was wrong.  

 

 These are major policy areas in which Trump has been shown to be in error.

 The list of his casual lies is epic:

“I’ll eliminate the Federal debt (Note: the entire 19 trillion debt, not the annual deficit) in 8 years.” Instead, he grew it by Trillions. Trump was wrong.

 “I won’t have time for golf” Played 3 times as much as Obama in half the time at twenty times the cost.

Numerous claims that COVID was “under control” (It wasn’t) He admitted the lie to Bob Woodward.

He didn’t payoff Stormy Daniels, the porn star he shtupped while his wife was pregnant, (He did) 

He “enacted Veteran’s Choice” (VA allowed use of non-VA doctors if closer) No, Barack Obama did that.

He claimed Biden wanted to end pre-existing condition coverage under the ACA. No, simply blatantly false, a campaign lie.

“Windmills cause cancer.” “I know more about windmills than anybody.” No, just no.

  Great Healthcare plan is “coming in two weeks” Still waiting.

 “My father was born in Germany (or Sweden)”. Fred Trump was born in the Bronx.

Mexico will pay for “The Wall”. No Donald, they won’t.

“I got the most electoral votes of anyone since Reagan.”  No, Bush 43, Clinton, and Obama all got more.  

Too many false claims about the 2000 election to count. Face it, he lost.

Bad character, bad record, miserable leader. Sums it up.  

A Matter of Perspective

 

A Matter of Perspective

(Written while, then president, Donald Trump was urging NFL owners to fire players who dared take a knee in silent protest against social injustice. It contains historical references of which I am sure Trump was, and remains, ignorant)

10/24/2018
        I recently read an excellent piece by a friend, who, as I did, served in the military during the Cold War. The gist of the piece involves the difference between one's "patriotic duties" as a person in uniform and that of a civilian member of a civilly aggrieved minority at a football game. His conclusion was that his responsibility as a man in uniform was different than that of a civilian. He concluded with the observation that, as a white male of the upper middle class, he respects the struggles of those less privileged and supports their right to peaceful protest, compared to say, marching, armed, onto a college campus with bad intent and fomenting physical confrontation, culminating in a death. (can you say Charlottesville?)

        At this juncture, I believe that it bears mentioning that we in the USA, not uniquely, but in a minority worldwide have (largely post WWI)  turned ordinary sporting events into shows of what have become almost mawkish “patriotic” displays. Of course, this is also manipulation by owners and leagues to spur ticket sales. What I find interesting is that the more inappropriate and ill advised the use and deployment of our military becomes, especially over the last 50 years, the more a certain segment foams at the mouth and repeats the totally inaccurate "fighting for our freedom" mantra. What a gross inaccuracy that statement represents!

        No single life wasted on Iraq was "fighting for our freedom." In like manner, as Ken Burns reaffirmed in his PBS Vietnam War series, not one of the 2 million plus (of all combatants) who died in Vietnam was "fighting for our freedom," while the North Vietnamese were fighting for theirs.

 It is critical to distinguish between what those military personnel were told they were there for and why they were actually sent. The abuse aimed at returning vets would have been far better aimed at Washington D.C. Many a brave military member died in a cause for which they had relatively little broad spectrum understanding. Moreover, if they had been well schooled in the history of the region, they might well have thought very differently about being there at all.  It is a massive emotional conflict and strongly against human nature to be confronted with the proof that what one did in good faith was in support of a worthless cause. We can see the results of this moral awakening manifested in the significantly increased number of PTSD cases and suicides among Vietnam and Mid-east overseas adventure conflict participants. 

        I would be the first to admit that I joined the US Navy in 1964 specifically to avoid getting drafted and sent to Vietnam, a war I already, at age 21, felt to be un-justified and ill advised. Why? Unlike many a prospective draftee, I was literate and intellectually curious. Yes, it's just that simple. Having seen racial division spawned and amplified by such scum as Strom Thurmond, and having been raised to know better, I was well aware that being lied to by the national government was a real-world possibility.

         My curiosity re: SE Asia went all the way back to a memory which is as clear today at age 77 as it was at age 8. That recollection is of seeing a newsreel (yeah, they used to show World News before the Saturday double feature westerns, and with a bad serial most times) depicting and commenting on the French army's withdrawal in defeat from "French Indo China." I had no idea what was happening, but, by the age of nineteen or twenty, I had learned much more. Another part of that is the memory of the Army-McCarthy (rabid anti-Communist rhetoric covering for blatant incompetence) hearings on television, the only time(s) I can ever recall my mom doing her ironing in the living room, where the gigantic 23-inch TV lived in its 200-pound console. 

        Vietnam is a difficult subject for my generation in general and could be a bit uncomfortable to teach to high school juniors, many of whom had relatives who had served in Southeast Asia. The reason? A literate and critically thinking person needs little more than objectivity and, to be transparent, some historical perspective, to see that the entire debacle in southeast Asia was avoidable. Had we made the same overtures to Vietnam (not our enemy in WWII) that we made to Japan (definitely our enemy) we could have helped Vietnam build a strong friendly economy in the 1950s and saved (literally) millions of lives, Vietnamese and American. Hell, had we simply allowed the free elections agreed upon by the 1954 Geneva accords the issue would be moot. Dwight Eisenhower himself admitted his belief that, had we done so, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote.

           Anti -Communist hysteria, among men who should have known better, precluded any such overtures. Ho Chi Minh's plea to Harry Truman to "not let the French steal his country back" fell on deaf ears, as the Red Scare mentality was prevalent among Republicans who had "suffered" 13 years of FDR and were now saddled with the civil rights supporting Harry S. Truman and willing to do or say almost anything to recapture the White House. Truman, facing the certainty that accepting any overture from Ho was political suicide, was forced to turn a deaf ear.

What is so frustrating about these events is that our actions directly contradicted our own earlier position statements. The Atlantic Charter, agreed to by Churchill and FDR, called for a post war end to colonialism and the self determination of these former colonies. In a similar manner, the United Nations charter does, as well. Ho referred to both of these documents in his February, 1946, telegram to President Harry Truman. Truman didn't answer and the rest, as they say, is history.

        So, before you froth at the mouth and throw about words like "patriotic" duty, try this simple exercise: Consider that the definition is situational, and that loving one's country has little to do with flag or military adventure. Season that with the realization that maybe, just maybe, your flames of "outrage " are being fanned by a malignant narcissist who is, himself, one of the least patriotic men ever to hold the title of POTUS.

         Not all Presidents are bad men. Truman and Eisenhower and Kennedy certainly weren't, yet those three sowed the seeds of the Vietnam war which LBJ liberally watered, and Nixon reaped. Political considerations, not "fighting for our freedom" were the basis for every decision they made in that process, just as Bush 43's insane invasion of Iraq was. We can venerate the actions of those who served, either by draft or voluntarily, while accepting that, sometimes, they are, as are all of us, as much political victim as aggressor.  In truth, all these things were done under the Star-Spangled Banner. In the here and now, racial and in truth social division was, and still is, being fueled by a former President who still is attempting to wrap his white supremacist agenda in the same flag.  The true patriot lives to see his country be better, not worse. "Taking a knee" to acknowledge that concern for the nation's moral well-being is larger than soothing the ego of one orange man with the IQ of low-fat yogurt is a patriotic act in and of itself.    

More Stupid Governor Tricks

 

More Stupid Governor Tricks

        Now that Ron DeSantis has sort of launched a presidential campaign might be a good time to revisit some of the things he has done and/or  wants to do here in Florida. Most of America is aware of the efforts he has made to dumb down and "whiten up" the educational system as well as his anti-everything not white, heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon, and Fundamentalist bias. But wait, there's more...!         

        Our illustrious governor, Ron DeSantis has, according to our local paper, stated his desire to revive and reactivate a World War Two organization, generally called the “State Guard” which was primarily aimed at civil defense and the possibility of resisting attack from a foreign power.

        The article says (and I quote) “Governor Ron DeSantis, citing a ‘yeoman performance’ by the Florida National Guard says the state’s vaunted 12,000-member air and land forces need some backup.” This might make sense, except for the fact that he is referring to, and desires to fund, a state guard of two hundred volunteers who would supplement the state’s quick responses during hurricanes and similar emergencies. So, get this right: he says our 12,000-member guard would benefit from adding two hundred more volunteers. Translating DeSantis speak, this really means “I want to create an organization that cannot be federalized and is under my direct control.”  If that doesn't scare the **** out of you, it should.

         The end of the Cold War saw a significant decrease, in general, of interest in state defense forces. While state defense forces and civil defense organizations had been so closely linked that they were almost one and the same, there was widely seen no “on the ground necessity” for them any longer.  The attacks of September 11th, 2001, did generate some additional interest, even though emergency personnel of highly trained and organized police and fire departments did heroic service, and didn't need to refresh themselves on what was required in an emergency as almost certainly any state defense force would under the circumstances. There is also some general scrutiny from some in the U.S. military who actually question the training and equipment of such units and whether they simply provide an outlet for “warrior wannabes,” who might would not otherwise qualify for service in the armed forces.

        The currently non-existent State Defense Force is a military entity described by the Florida Statutes as a state-authorized militia prepared to assume the state mission of the Florida National Guard in case all of Florida's National Guard units are federally mobilized and authorized by executive order when the situation requires. This implies that the only time activation of such a state guard would be valid when be in the circumstance that all 12,000 members of the Florida National Guard are otherwise occupied on federal orders. Presently only 450 members of the Florida National Guard are deployed or training outside the state. Make sure you understand the implication: our governor believes that although11 and a half thousand National Guardsmen are still within the state we desperately need two hundred more under the governor's control and outside federal regulation.

         A state guard might well have little or no actual military training and probably would see themselves as loyal to the governor, vice the federal government. Consider a recent New York Times report. The Times found that many senior officers of the New York guard had little, or no formal military training yet held, in some cases, the ranks of general. This harks back to the Civil War days when a senator could be a general simply for the asking. One former officer of the New York guard actually told a Times reporter, “If you’re friendly with the governor and you always wanted to be a general, you ask the governor to make you a general and "poof" you’re a Brigadier General."

        Reflecting on today’s political divisions among citizens’ points of view, I find it highly likely that those that volunteered for a state guard would be those who think it is their role to defy the federal government, not support it. Why do I feel that way? Simply because our governor, who wants to form this organization, has already defied government recommendations regarding masks in public, government regulations related to the safety of schoolchildren during the COVID pandemic and has tried to pass a law which while, on paper aimed at quelling violent protest, is so vague as to what constitutes “protest” that Mr. DeSantis could simply order almost any peaceful demonstration quashed.

         Thankfully, the initial appeal of this law found it to be unconstitutional; however if it goes to the Florida Supreme Court, DeSantis has friends there that might actually allow this bad legislation, even though the lower court’s 90 page ruling says, in part, the law is “vague and overbroad” and persons engaged in peaceful protest or innocently in the same area, if the demonstration became violent, could face criminal charges in his death penalties under the law.

        Lest you think even for a moment that no governor would do such a thing as misuse a state guard, consider this: in 1934, Louisiana Senator, Huey Long, actually had his political ally and pawn, the governor of Louisiana, mobilize members of the Louisiana National Guard, armed with submachine guns, to raid establishments in New Orleans that he considered immoral. He gave orders to “shoot without hesitation” if resistance occurred. Gambling equipment was burned, prostitutes were arrested and were actually frisked, nude, in public, and $25,000 which today is equivalent to $376,000 was seized from private individuals and put into government funds at Long's disposal. Authorities in the city had requested no assistance and the Louisiana Attorney General declared Long's actions illegal, but “The Kingfish”, in a very Ron DeSantis type statement, simply said “Nobody asked him for his opinion.”  While it is true that this was misuse of the National Guard, it is a shining example of what a demagogue might do with an even less regulated state guard, and what action they might take undertake against their own constituency without authority.

         And, before you cite the Second Amendment and the words a “well-regulated militia”, you must understand that the founding fathers viewed most militia performances as anything but well-regulated or acceptable. First President and Revolutionary War commander George Washington, himself referred the state militias as a “broken staff.” Additionally, from historical perspective, the Second Amendment was, as were many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, added by James Madison after the constitution was ratified, generally at the insistence of rabid anti-federalists such as Patrick Henry.

        Following ratification of the constitution, the militia generally underperformed again in the War of 1812 and in the following decades many militias would show up for musters with broom-sticks or cornstalks instead of rifles. This did not happen in the Southern states of which, I remind you, Florida is one, because they needed the militia to enforce slavery. What? a governor mobilizes a state security, force to suppress a portion of the population?  Never say never. And finally, consider that even an ardent believer in Federal power, Alexander Hamilton grudgingly opined that he thought militias were valid entities because, of course, militias would be composed of “individuals the average citizen knows and trusts.”

        Finally, consider this: the legal team for 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse referred to him throughout his trial as a member of “the militia” and a “minuteman” as if he were part of the patriotic forces fighting the British at Lexington in Concord in 1975. This terminology, although archaic, is still far too common in “gun circles” and we have seen more radicals acting as if the U.S. Constitution has somehow deputized them to form unregulated paramilitary groups. What Governor DeSantis proposes is little more than his own private paramilitary group, free to operate completely outside of federal control. 

     Might a “President DeSantis” (God forbid) attempt something similar at the federal level?

If you can think of a worse idea let me know.