A Poorly Thought out Bill

Rep. Curtis Tarver, D-Chicago, has introduced House Bill 1727 in Springfield. His bill would abolish qualified immunity for police officers, and immunity for the governmental bodies that employ them, if the officers deprive any person of "rights" guaranteed in the Illinois Constitution, or fail to intervene to prevent the deprivation.

So what exactly is this qualified immunity that presently protects police officers?

The 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision Harlow v. Fitzgerald created the rule and remains operative today. Prior to Harlow, a public official enjoyed qualified immunity only if the official believed in good faith that his conduct was lawful, and the conduct was objectively reasonable.

But that rule created a serious problem if there was an allegation that the police officer acted in bad faith. What a person's state of mind was as he acted, is almost always a question of fact. Where a question of fact exists, either party is entitled to a jury trial and full pretrial discovery. The Supreme Court found that these jury proceedings distracted officials from performing their duties, inhibited discretionary action, and deterred able people from entering public service.

For those reasons, the court fashioned the current rule for qualified immunity: "We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

"Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred.

"If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to 'know' that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.

"If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

"Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors."

Rep. Tarver's poorly thought-out "bad apple" bill would deprive a police officer who exists to be sent into harm's way of all legal immunities. He could be sued not only for making a mistake, but also for his inaction. And he could be sued, even if he made no mistake, anytime a person he had dealings with believed himself aggrieved.

By the very nature of the job, police officers are the ones who are sent to deal with life-threatening emergencies. The primary purpose of having police officers is to protect the law-abiding citizens from criminals. In almost all cases, that is exactly what they do.

When a woman calls 911 pleading for police assistance because her husband is beating the hell out of her, it is the police officer who is dispatched. When there is a shooting spree in a school, it is the police officer who answers the desperate call. When there is an armed robbery in progress, when an alarm comes in, it is the police officer who responds. Even the speeder is stopped by a cop.

Every one of these situations has the potential for escalation — for the responding officer to be seriously injured or killed. Weekly we hear reports of an officer being shot or killed while responding to a domestic abuse call, an armed robbery, or a school shooting in progress. Even as they issue speeding tickets.

Without qualified immunity, every officer's traffic stop, every arrest, every use of force has the potential of seeing the responding officer facing a jury trial. All that is required is that the aggrieved person makes the allegation that the officer acted with an improper state of mind. A jury trial will probably follow — even if the allegation is entirely baseless.

The chance of the officer being sued is substantially aggravated because he is very often dealing with irrational people, major and minor criminals, and people who hate cops.

Tarver finds the necessity for HB 1727 in the George Floyd case in Minnesota. But Floyd's civil suit was just settled for $27 million, even though the officer enjoyed qualified immunity. So what is the necessity to deprive all good cops of their qualified immunity?

If an officer has to worry about being sued every time he believes he has cause to arrest, or to use force to stop a bar fight, or fire his weapon to stop a school shooting, why would he act? Why would he even take the job?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 9, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

How about a little Equal Justice

Since the Jan. 6 chaotic and criminal invasion of the halls of Congress in our nation's Capitol, the FBI has been diligently and properly investigating who was responsible for the criminal activity.


What bothers me is that other activity over the last couple years has denied other Americans' rights guaranteed to them by our U. S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, and the FBI and Department of Justice have turned a blind eye.


Where are the conspiracy prosecution of groups who have gone about in uniforms and masks on the public streets and highways, destroying, burning and looting businesses and shops and depriving the owners and leaseholders of those entities of their rights under the Fifth Amendment to own property?


Where are the conspiracy prosecutions against Silicon Valley billionaires and their minions who, under the guise of shutting down "unfactual" and/or "untruthful" speech, have taken it upon themselves on Twitter, Facebook and like sites, to police and censor the speech of their fellow Americans, and to deny them the right to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and free press on those alleged common carrier public forums?


On the FBI's website, the FBI states that it investigates violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights.

That statute provides:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

"If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

"They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."


In U.S. v. Guest, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 241 requires proof of "specific intent" to deprive the victim of a constitutional right. But "specific intent" can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

A "conspiracy" is an agreement between two or more persona to do an illegal act. That conspiracy becomes criminal when any member of the group does an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Given the agreement, the act of one becomes the act of all. And that agreement — like specific intent — can be proved by circumstantial evidence — circumstances tending to show there was an agreement.

Now consider the language of Section 241: "If two or more persons conspire to ... oppress, ... any person in any State ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right ... secured to him by the Constitution ... of the United States ...."

So when an order comes from on high at Twitter to block speech of an American who states an opinion that Covid-19 shut downs are "insane, unconstitutional and based on false science," and that that directive is executed by low-echelon employees, or by an algorithm created by them, why isn't this a Section 241 violation?

There is an "agreement" between the party who issues the order, and the lackeys who execute it, there is a specific intent to limit free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and there is an "overt act" in furtherance of the agreement/conspiracy. Result: an American citizen is denied his First Amendment rights to speak freely.

Now consider paragraph 2 of Section 24: "If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right ... so secured ...."

How can there be no conspiracy when a gang of thugs gets into "black uniforms," puts on matching masks, and takes to the streets after arranging for the delivery of rocks or incendiary materials to the location of the "protest," and when the weapons are used then by one or more of the similarly attired thugs to destroy property, commit arson, or loot businesses.

The jerks who broke into the Capitol, and wrecked it, richly deserve prosecution. But jerks who conspire to deprive ordinary Americans of their constitutional rights deserve the same attention from the FBI and Department of Justice. Or in America, does only Congress get protection?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 26, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Reaching across the aisle

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, and other "progressive" Democrats recently proposed a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million; a 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion.

They state that the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act aims at "reining in a widening U.S. wealth gap."

According to Warren, "The ultra-rich and powerful have "rigged the rules" in their favor so much that the top 1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 99%, and billionaire wealth is 40% higher than before the Covid crisis began."

Warren's statement implies that anybody who is "ultra-rich" has acquired the entirety of their "ultra-wealth" by "rigging the rules" — that their wealth is therefore "ill-gotten."

But if the"ultra rich" 1% have been looting the system to the detriment of the 99%, why impose a piddling 2% or 3% tax? If restitution is in order, returning 2% or 3% is not restitution. Warren and Sanders should be howling that "rigged rule wealth" be taxed at a rate of 100%. Or is it okay to steal a billion dollars, if you share 3% of the loot with the U.S. government?

But I suggest that there are even better reasons for imposing a 100% tax on "ultra-wealth." "Ultra-wealth" gives "the 1%" anti-democratic political power. The 1% can use their ultra-wealth to self-fund their political campaigns. And worse, once they buy their way into Congress, they make tax laws to help themselves and their cronies, and to acquire personal fortunes while holding public office that they never could amass on the salaries of their office.

Take a look at Illinois. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, has purported net worth of $400 million. Pritzker, a Democrat, has a reputed net worth of $3.4 billion. They both bought themselves governorships.

And what about our esteemed members of Congress. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, here are the 10 members with the highest estimated wealth in 2018: Mark Warner, D-Virgina, $214.1 million; Greg Gianforte, R-Montana, $189.3 million; Paul Mitchell, R-Michigan, $179.6 million; Vernon Buchanan, R-Florida, $157.2 million; Chris Collins, R-New York, $154.5 million; Don Beyer, D-Virginia, $124.9 million; Nancy Pelosi, D-California, $114.7 million; Dianne Feinstein, D-California, $87.9 million; Suzan DelBene, D-Delaware, $79.4 million; and Fred Upton, R-Michigan, $79 million.

Fifty members of Congress have a net worth of $10.7 million or greater.

According to an OpenSecrets.org report (April, 23, 2020), "a majority of lawmakers in the 116th Congress are millionaires." Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, is now the richest at $260 million. Scott bought/won an election after spending $64 million of his own money. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Indiana, with a net worth of $137 million, "donated" $10.5 million to obtain his office. Sen. Matt Romney, R-Utah, has a $174 million stash.

Between 2004 and 2020, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's wealth grew from $3 million to $34 million while Speaker Pelosi's grew from $41 million to $114 million. But even the poor get richer in Congress. Colin Peterson, D-Minn., chair of the House Agriculture Committee was worth $123,000 in 2008; now, he has net assets averaging $4.2 million.

Forbes estimated former President Donald Trump's wealth to be $2.5 billion. In 2016, he donated $66 million to his own campaign (but nothing in 2020!) Mike Bloomberg donated $1.1 billion to his 2020 campaign, while Tom Steyer gave $342 million.

If you wanted to be president, could you donate $1.1 billion to your own campaign?

So, if you really want to "even the playing field" in American politics, the proposal by Warren and Sanders won't do it. Money is power. You and I can't spend $28 million to buy political ads. But that's what the Silicon Valley's "ultra-rich" did to elect a Democrat in Texas.

If they really want "equality," they should be proposing a 100% excise tax on accumulated wealth over $2 million and a 100% graduated income tax rate on personal incomes of over $250,000.

If all "loot" derived by "rigging the rules" is taxed at the rate of 100%, "rigging the rules" to enable looting become pointless.

Better yet, it would effectively prevent "public servants" from becoming "rich" while in public office.

And one other benefit: All the ultra-rich who run Facebook, Twitter and other social medial platforms, who have used their wealth and power to trample the First Amendment speech rights of their fellow Americans, would suddenly find themselves as poor as the rest of us.

Of course, such taxes might permanently destroy our economy, but when has that ever bothered our "solons on the hill."

They could call their tax "The Ill-gotten Gains and Salvation of the Democracy Revenue Act." And unless inflation sets in, a person should get on reasonably well with $2 million in the bank and and annual income of $250,000.

The real beauty of my proposal is that it snags millionaire demagogues like Warren and Sanders. Think of me as a "progressive" conservative reaching across the aisle.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 19, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Can Eminent Domain by used to Protect Jobs?

           "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use
           without just compensation ...." IL. Constitution, Art. 1 §15

On his first day in office, President Biden revoked the permit to finish building the 1700 mile Keystone Pipeline to carry oil from Alberta, Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. The Laborers’ International Union of North America condemned Mr. Biden's action. The union says Mr. Biden's Executive Order will destroy 1,000 existing and 10,000 new construction jobs. AFL-CIO President Trumka agrees.


Sen. Joe Manchin (D. WV) has asked Mr. Biden to reconsider, and has set out facts to show that pipelines “continue to be the safest mode to transport our oil and natural gas resources, and they support thousands of high-paying, American union jobs.″ If Manchin is correct and the pipeline is the environ-mentally safest way to move oil and gas, it cannot honestly be regulated out of existence in the name of safety concerns.


But what remedy is available to Keystone workers whose jobs have been "taken" or destroyed by President Biden? How about Eminent Domain?

If the government takes your property for a public use. it has to pay you "just compensation." The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "nor shall property be taken for public use without just compensation."


If you own a house, and the government wants to build a new highway across your property, the government can take all or part of your property. This is known as the power of Eminent Domain. The government passes a law finding that it needs to take your property for a public purpose. But then, it must pay you the "fair cash market value" ("FCMV") for the whole, or for whatever portion of your property it takes. You have the right to have a jury trial to determine what the "just compensation" is for your loss.


And if the taking also diminishes the value of your property beyond the "just compensation" for the part actually taken, you are entitled to additional damages "to the remainder." 

Assume that your house and lot had a "FCMV" of $500K before the government takes of thirty feet of your lawn. Assume further that the "FCMV" of the parcel taken is $30K. Finally, assume that competent appraisers determine that the "FCMV" of your home and the remaining portion of your lot after the take is $400K. Therefore, besides being paid $30K for the portion of the land actually taken, you would be entitled to an additional $70K for "damages to the remainder."


And there are even times when a property owner may be entitled to damages when no part of his property has been taken. Assume you own a gas station. You have ingress/egress to an adjacent highway. You lose that access when the government makes it "limited access." Motorist to get to your station, now have to leave the highway 3 miles East of your station, and use winding back roads to get there. This reduces the "FCMV" of your property 75%. You are entitled to compensation.


From the above, it can be seen that the 5th Amendment affords the landowner whose real property has been taken/damaged broad protections.


But what if the property taken isn't "real estate?" The destruction of easements, leaseholds, or the taking/destruction of "personal property," including crops, franchise rights, patent rights, and trade secrets, all require the payment of "just compensation." 

But does a citizen whose job is destroyed by the President's Executive Order have a compensable property right in his employment?


In 1937, FDR's Labor Secretary, Frances Perkins, thought so when she said that striking "workers had a property right to their jobs."


In 1975, the California Supreme Court said that public employees, who have attained regular status, "have a property right to their jobs."


So, assume that the State of Illinois decides it "needs" the John Deere Administrative Center for a new executive office suite for Gov. J. B. Pritzker. Clearly John Deere would be entitled to just compensation for the taking of its lands and building. But what if Deere relocates to China, and 2000 of its employees permanently lose their employment? Would the employees be entitled to "just compensation" for the "taking" of their jobs for "public use?"


In 2005, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Kelo v. New London that "expropriation of private holdings as part of urban development is justified for the public purpose of increasing jobs and tax revenues."


I would suggest that when a President destroys thousands of jobs in an industry to "Save the Environment" and to create an unknown number of "High Paying Green Jobs," those "jobs"that are destroyed should be considered "property."


If Eminent Domain can be used for the "public purpose" of "increasing jobs" (as per Kelo), Eminent Domain should also be available to compensate workers when the government intentionally choses to their jobs.


If the government wants create a new group of workers, and destroy an older one, for the"benefit of the larger community," the benefiting community should compensate the workers who are being damaged. The purposes of Eminent Domain is to shift the burden of a public improvement from the person whose property is taken to the entire community for whose benefit the public improvement is allegedly being made.


If the Laborers’ Int'l Union, is worthy of its name, it should bring a "reverse" Eminent Domain class action on behalf of its members whose jobs are being destroyed. It should test whether under the Constitution, "just compensation" must be paid when the Government intentionally destroys those jobs for an alleged "public purpose," designed to benefit the entire community.


I find no precedents for such an action. But it's sure worth a try! There is nothing in the 5th Amendment that says "a man's job is not his property." 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 26, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea  

"Chicken Little is alive and well, and in Washington D.C.

Who said fairy tales never come true? Remember the story of "Chicken Little?"

       "Once upon a time there was a little chicken. Everybody called him-- 

        'Chicken Little.' One day, while he was out walking, a bird flew over and
        it dropped an acorn that bopped 'Chicken Little' on his head. 'Chicken
        Little' looked up, and didn’t see anything. And when he didn't, he
        panicked and began yelling, “Help, help the sky is falling! The sky is
        falling! I have to tell the King!” And he went running down the road,
        looking for the King."

Chicken Little, it seems, is alive and well. In fact, it appears he has taken employment within the Biden Administration, and is now running the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Here is the Department's version of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

        "Some ideologically-motivated extremists with objections to the exercise of
        governmental authority and presidential transition ... could continue to mobilize
        to incite or commit violence."

But wait, It's not only DHS that's gone bonkers! Our esteemed Governor, J. B. Pritzker (D) is dispatching 500 Illinois National Guardsmen to augment the 7000 National Guardsmen from sister states who are already in the District to insure that the Bogeyman (a/k/a former President Trump) and his minions (who haven't been seen or heard from since President Biden's Inauguration) don't rise out of the Washington Tidal Basin on a fogey night, and drag President Biden from the White House basement, and tow the Capitol building off to Texas with their pickups.

Now if only the Guardsmen can set up a few hundred machine guns in concrete pill boxes on the Capitol grounds, behind the concrete wall, "unscalable fence," and the guardhouses that have already been erected, our fearless Congressional representatives should be safe, from the hordes of "insurrectionists" wearing MAGA hats, their constituents, and time-wasting future elections.

For four years, the Democrats in Washington have been on a non-stop rant against President Trump's "despicable" southern Border Wall with President Biden leading the charge. That wall, designed to keep illegal aliens, drug dealers, and narco-terrorists out of the country, was an unnecessary "abomination." Ordinary Americans have been told they had to take their chances with drug dealers and murders who crossed out border illegally. The pleas of parents of murdered children were ignored in the halls of Congress. But now, the rule is different for Congress. Our esteemed Congressional representatives must protected with concrete walls, unscalable fences, and 7500 armed soldiers. 

But how can the same political hacks who supported the "defunding of police" all last summer as stores were being burned and looted, as people were being shot, and as neighborhoods were being declared "autonomous zones" by mobs of leftists, now demand extraordinary "police protection" by armed National Guardsmen? 

And why, at the same time as the Left demands a re-writing of the Second Amendment to take weapons from ordinary law-abiding Americans, are our elected representatives hunkered down en masse behind National Guardsman with "assault rifles?" 

Don't chose to misunderstand me. I don't in the least approve of a mob bursting into the halls of Congress and stealing or destroying the property of the American people — or causing death or bodily harm. They should be prosecuted. But what about the rioters — euphemistically described by the press as "mostly peaceful protesters" — who sacked Target Stores, burned down neighborhoods, and assaulted and shot people? Do they not deserve equal justice? 

The press labels the miscreants who desecrated the Capitol as "insurrectionists." So why aren't the miscreants who established "autonomous zones" in American cities and set up their own "governments" labeled "insurrections?" Why aren't the rioters who destroyed priceless American statues, and who burned and looted businesses labeled "rioters." If "the book" is to be thrown at the reprobates who trashed the Capitol, why is it not thrown at the reprobates who destroyed cities, businesses and homes? If the police and the FBI are going to "come down with both heels" on rioters at the Capitol, why aren't they coming down with both feet on rioters in the hinterlands? 

Unless there is "equal justice" for all, President Biden is going to have a devil of a time reuniting the country. You can't punish one group for insurrection and/or riot riot, and not the next.

Our First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The word "people" includes Republicans, Democrats and even Communists and Fascists. But the the Constitution no where guarantees anybody the right to engage in insurrection or riot, to harm or kill their neighbor, or to destroy public or private property. 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 7, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea    

They Were Wonderful Days

Hank Aaron has died at age 86. He was the last of the great players of the early 50s. He was an important part of my boyhood. His death is a period to that chapter of my life.

I first became aware of Major League Baseball in the autumn of 1948. My Aunt Nora was listening to the Cleveland Indians - Boston Braves World Series on her radio. As I listened, the announcer made repeated mention of Lou Boudreau and Tommy Holmes. Their names have stuck in my mind all these years.

But my real love of the game began in the early spring of 1949. The Cub game was on, at my grandfather's apartment, and Dutch Leonard was pitching, when the announcer said, "And there's a base hit through the box." A "box" on a baseball field? I asked my dad, "what that meant?" He explained that the pitcher pitched from a "Pitcher's Box" in the early days of baseball. And that in the late 1800s, the "box" was replaced by the "mound." So a "base hit through the box," was a ground ball or line drive that went over the mound and into center field. "Box" was just another term for "mound."

Then, near June 1, 1949, we got our first TV. It had been delivered and the chimney antenna had been hooked up earlier that morning. Dad took the afternoon off work to test it. When he turned it on - without even changing the channel - on came the Cubs' game. The first name I heard was that of Cub outfielder "Peanuts" Lowrey. Then a few days later "Peanuts" was gone - traded to Cincinnati. The Cubs acquired Hank Sauer, in that four-player deal. Sauer went on to hit 27 homers for the Cubs that year, and became my first baseball hero. Of course as a kid I didn't appreciate that "Hammerin' Hank" had the mobility of a printing press in left field.

In 1949, WGN-TV in Chicago broadcast both the Cub and White Sox home games. We watched both, but I preferred the Sox ... until my Dad pointed out that we lived on the north side, and that the Cubs were the northside team. That coupled with the fact that the Sox traded my two favorite Sox players, Guz Zernial and Cass Michaels, caused me to re-prioritize: the Cubs became my favorite; the Sox were relegated to second place! I have to this date remained a "closet-Sox fan!"

In those days there were only eight teams in each league. With all the Cubs and Sox home games on TV, it was easy to learn the names of all the players. At first, the best were two older players: Ted Williams and Stan Musial. But then the post-war stars emerged. Jackie Robinson in 1947; Billy Pierce, Roy Campanella and Robin Roberts in 1948; Whitey Ford, 1950; Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, 1951; Al Kaline, Ernie Banks and Henry Aaron, 1954; and Roberto Clemente, 1955.

In December 1948, we moved to Lincolnwood, just north of Devon Avenue. At first, there was prairie north of Devon. It was there that we spent our summers. We carved baseball fields on flat ground. We dragged our lawn mowers down to cut the weeds. Our bicycles became the left field wall. We'd play a double header (either baseball or 16" softball), starting at 8 a.m. the day after summer vacation began. We'd take a break for lunch, and then start a second double header around 1:30. Then after dinner, we'd play more ball until dark.

When the summers got too hot to play in the afternoon, we found substituted a table game: "All-Star Baseball." The game contained player disks of the "all-time greats" like Babe Ruth, Hack Wilson, Rogers Hornsby and Ty Cobb, as well as a new set of All- Stars each year. We studied the disks, as well as "Jack Brickhouse's Baseball Record Book," to put the "best possible" teams of hitters on the field. But "ASB" took no account of fielding or pitching. Eventually, we "graduated" to a more sophisticated game called"Big League Manager." Then we discovered"APBA." It was terrific. We spent hours, playing "APBA," while listening either to the Cubs or Sox on TV, or, if they weren't on, to "The Kingston Trio," Johnny Cash, or the "Limeliters."

Dad encouraged us in all this. He believed that "kids who were involved in sports didn't get into trouble." To that end, he supplied balls and bats, footballs, and basketballs, not only for Tom and me, but for the whole neighborhood. I don't think, any other dad, or any other kid ever once supplied a ball over that ten-year period.

And Dad's business had season tickets to the Sox Games. If on a Friday evening, Ford was pitching for the Yankees, and Pierce for the Sox, we'd be at Comiskey Park. The ending was always the same. Around the 8th inning, one of the Yanks would homer to break up the 1-1 tie.

And I can recall being at the 1950 All-Star game at Comiskey Park, when Williams ran into the left field wall and broke his collar bone, and being there again when he returned to the Red Sox lineup late in the season as a pinch hitter. He homered over the corner of the bullpen, to the deepest part of the park.

And I can recall being at Wrigley Field, in the first row of the right field bleachers. My friend "Squid" was taunting Aaron: "Henry, you're a bum!" The very next inning, Aaron belted one over our heads deep into the bleachers. When he returned to his position, "Squid" stood, bowed, and doffed his cap. Aaron smiled. 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 27, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

The power to ration is the power to destroy

How to allocate scarce resources is a problem as old as mankind, and indeed older.

The sinking of the Titanic on April 15, 1912 perfectly illustrates the problem. According to the official British Board of Trade Report, the passengers and crew aboard totaled 2224. That report shows that 710 were saved, and 1,514 perished. There were 20 lifeboats, rated to hold 1,178 people. Rationing of the lifeboats was therefore "necessary." The crew "rationed" the boats on the principle of "women and children first." But other principles could have been chosen: "First Class passengers first!" "Those in steerage (poor emigrants) first!" "Doctors and other 'essential workers' first!"


So in America, who should get the new COVID-19 vaccines first? There will necessarily be "rationing" because there will not initially be sufficient doses of the Covid vaccines for the entire U.S. population.


On December 3, the CDC recommended that initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines should be allocated to:

• Healthcare personnel and long-term care facility residents (Phase 1a).

On Dec. 22, the CDC recommended the next two allotments. In Phase 1b:

• Frontline essential workers such as fire fighters, police officers, corrections officers, food and agricultural workers, United States Postal Service workers, manufacturing workers, grocery store workers, public transit workers, and those who work in the educational sector (teachers, support staff and daycare workers).

• People aged 75 years and older because they are at high risk of hospitalization, illness, and death from COVID-19. (People aged 75 years and older who are also residents of long-term care facilities should be offered vaccination in Phase 1a).

In Phase 1c:

• People aged 65—74 years because they are at high risk of hospitalization, illness, and death from COVID-19. (People aged 65—74 years who are also residents of long-term care facilities should be offered vaccination in Phase 1a).

• People aged 16—64 years with underlying medical conditions which increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19.

• Other essential workers, such as people who work in transportation and logistics, food service, housing construction and finance, information technology, communications, energy, law, media, public safety, and public health.

As I look at the CDC's recommendations, I have no quarrels with their reasonableness.


Given the fact that federal officials have estimated that there will be only enough doses to vaccinate 20 million Americans in December, 30 million in January and 50 million in February (with more doses coming thereafter), some rationing plan is at present clearly necessary. The CDC plan, detailed above, seems both necessary and reasonable.


That being said, I am, nevertheless, extremely wary of the government's power to ration. The CDC did well, but just as the "power to tax is the power to destroy," so is the power to ration.


I gave the example of"rationing" aboard the Titanic advisedly. The Titanic's 20 life-boats were built to accommodate 1,178 people. Yet only 710 survived! Passengers and crew numbering 1,514 drowned. The fact that the boats were designed to accommodate 1,178 people and that only 710 survived, brings into question the wisdom of the "women and children first" rationing principle. Couple that with the fact that the ocean was dead calm that night, and that going into the 28 degree water meant death in minutes, I have always wondered why the boats weren't filled beyond their stated capacity?

Should not the principle of rationing have been, "Overfill the boats to almost the point where they would be in danger of taking on water?" Or at least, "Make sure every boat is filled to stated capacity; no half-filled boats!"


The danger in "government rationing" is also clearly illustrated in the proposal of other "experts" whose principle of vaccine distribution would have been to give "priority access" to people of color (Blacks and Hispanic people) because the pandemic has exacted a disproportionately heavy infection and death toll on their communities.

A rationing danger inevitably works its way in, when the government gives priority to"frontline essential workers such as fire fighters, police officers, corrections officers, food and agricultural workers, United States Postal Service workers, etc."

But who else is a "frontline essential worker?" Is a congressman a frontline "essential worker" such as a U.S Postal Service Worker? Or is a congressman even more essential?


Exactly how essential is Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican? Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat?
Rep. Larry Buschon, a Republican? Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat? Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Republican? They all jumped to the front of the vaccine line.


In W.S. Gilbert's, "The Mikado," Ko-ko, the "Lord High Executioner" sings, "I've got a little list of society offenders who might well be underground and who never would be missed!"


I suspect that W. S. Gilbert, rather than deeming Pelosi, Rubio, et al., essential, would have put all five on Ko-ko's little list.


When congressmen and bureaucrats start allotting benefits to those they deem "essential," it is never long before they start allocating them to themselves, their "friends," and their political supporters. Even worse, World War II history shows that rationing can easily morph into death panels. The rations provided those in the concentration camps were insufficient to sustain life. Still doubt? Visit Venezuela.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 1, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea