Letters to the editor and other thoughts

I realized that I had not posted in here, in a while, and opened her up and took a look.
I guess that I have been too busy " replying" to FB posts, or commenting on them, as well as writing my marginally infamous letters to the editor of the Orange County Register.  Below is my latest effort, though I don't know if this one will be printed. It is after the terrible damage and death that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma has wrought upon Texas, Florida, and the Caribbean.

As I understood  him, Summers was eager to dispel the economic myth that disasters were good for the economy. Fair enough.

Yet, he stood in favor of price gouging during such a disaster, as a fair and useful practice in a free market. Apparently his definition of a "free market" includes those who have lost everything risking being priced out of essentials like the gasoline needed to escape, or food and water to sustain life when all provisions they had are gone.  A short version of this might be said to read, "If you can afford it, you can survive."

Or more succinctly, as Marie Antoinette was said to have replied when told the peasants had no bread, " then let them eat cake."

This second one is my answer to the Register editorial team asking if Trump was right to pardon the truly infamous , and without morals, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (This one got published) 

In a word , no. He was not. 

He was within his legal rights, but skirted every convention, courtesy, practice and control ever put in place regarding pardons. 

Pardon requests are usually submitted to the pardon office of the Dept of Justice which screens them and researches them, usually after a minimum waiting period of 5 yrs.  Usually the convicted person has served time, and expressed remorse.

Trump issued his pardon prior to sentencing, thus all but negating the conviction unilaterally. He made clear in his speech in Arizona the day prior that he thought the sheriff was just doing his job, and that violation of the court order (forbidding him and his officers from racially profiling Latinos) was no issue to him. He made it clear he was taking care of his good friend Joe, whom he thought should have not been convicted. His disregard for the court order, ( and for the rights of the people being profiled as possible illegal immigrants) and issuing of the pardon even before sentencing, sent a message of arrogance and disrespect.  And the former sheriff made it clear he had no remorse, and may even run for office again.  

The blatant disregard for the rule of law was palpable on both their parts.  It was not merely "somewhat unorthodox" timing, as you blandly put it.  

Trump has made clear that he will do what he wants, when he wants, no matter the appearance or consequences.  And also, apparently, no matter what the court has ruled. His supporters can only hope that the next person he sets free has not done something to compromise their own personal rights.