CitizenSpeaking

Apr. 25, 2021

Jan. 5, 2021

Dec. 8, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

Oct. 24, 2020

Aug. 22, 2020

Jul. 14, 2020

May. 19, 2020

Apr. 6, 2020

Mar. 21, 2020

Feb. 17, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

Sep. 9, 2019

Aug. 5, 2019

Jun. 7, 2019

May. 20, 2019

Apr. 22, 2019

Feb. 24, 2019

Feb. 2, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Sep. 29, 2018

May. 2, 2018

Apr. 29, 2018

Apr. 13, 2018

Jan. 16, 2017

Jan. 7, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

Nov. 14, 2016

Nov. 9, 2016

Nov. 9, 2016

Oct. 10, 2016

Sep. 24, 2016

Sep. 21, 2016

Sep. 12, 2016

Aug. 28, 2016

Aug. 6, 2016

Jul. 2, 2016

Jun. 25, 2016

Jun. 25, 2016

Jun. 11, 2016

Mar. 13, 2016

Mar. 1, 2016

Feb. 27, 2016

Feb. 11, 2016

Nov. 28, 2015

Oct. 11, 2015

Aug. 22, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 7, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Jul. 21, 2015

Jul. 17, 2015

Jul. 13, 2015

Jul. 10, 2015

Jul. 8, 2015

Jul. 7, 2015

Jul. 3, 2015

Jul. 1, 2015

Jun. 30, 2015

Jun. 29, 2015

Jun. 26, 2015

Jun. 25, 2015

Jun. 24, 2015

Jun. 21, 2015

Jun. 20, 2015

Jun. 19, 2015

Jun. 16, 2015

Jun. 15, 2015

Jun. 12, 2015

Jun. 11, 2015

Jun. 10, 2015

Jun. 8, 2015

Jun. 7, 2015

Feb. 21, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

Dec. 4, 2014

Nov. 28, 2014

Nov. 23, 2014

Nov. 16, 2014

Nov. 15, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 5, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

Jul. 2, 2014

Jul. 1, 2014

Jun. 24, 2014

Jun. 18, 2014

Apr. 29, 2014

Apr. 29, 2014

Apr. 28, 2014

Apr. 28, 2014

Apr. 16, 2014

Apr. 4, 2014

Apr. 2, 2014

Mar. 31, 2014

Mar. 30, 2014

Mar. 29, 2014

Mar. 28, 2014

Mar. 25, 2014

Mar. 19, 2014

Mar. 18, 2014

Mar. 17, 2014

Mar. 16, 2014

Mar. 6, 2014

Mar. 4, 2014

Mar. 3, 2014

Feb. 16, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 1, 2014

Jan. 30, 2014

Jan. 24, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 21, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 16, 2014

Jan. 5, 2014

Dec. 27, 2013

Dec. 24, 2013

Dec. 19, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 13, 2013

Dec. 8, 2013

Dec. 3, 2013

Dec. 2, 2013

Nov. 30, 2013

Nov. 24, 2013

Nov. 22, 2013

Nov. 20, 2013

Nov. 15, 2013

Nov. 11, 2013

Nov. 7, 2013

Nov. 5, 2013

Nov. 1, 2013

Oct. 24, 2013

Oct. 22, 2013

Oct. 21, 2013

Oct. 18, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 14, 2013

Oct. 12, 2013

Oct. 11, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 8, 2013

Oct. 7, 2013

Oct. 4, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 2, 2013

Oct. 1, 2013

Sep. 30, 2013

Sep. 27, 2013

Sep. 26, 2013

Sep. 25, 2013

Sep. 24, 2013

Sep. 21, 2013

Sep. 19, 2013

Sep. 18, 2013

Sep. 17, 2013

Sep. 16, 2013

Sep. 13, 2013

Sep. 12, 2013

Sep. 6, 2013

Sep. 4, 2013

An Idealist Living in the Real World

****


I haven’t had the urge to write a blog post recently because post-Inauguration Day the sense of urgency has left my psyche. Looking back I see I did not write a single post on the shameful and horrific events of January 6. At the time it was too traumatic and seemed almost unreal. The idea that an insurrection would come about and achieve a breach of the Capital never entered my mind. As the trauma unfolded I was horrified at what did happened and also horrified of the thought of blood bath that could have happened had law enforcement officers opened fire. All of the possibilities were horrific. As it was, the death count was limited (thank God) and order was restored relatively quickly. I still do not understand why more insurrectionists were not arrested at the moment and allowed to simply go back to their homes. However, restraint in the use of deadly force was a good thing, as a the creation of martyrs would have likely been used to fuel supporters.

Most rational citizens understand how the “leader” at the top (Trump himself) fanned the flames of discontent and named targets for the aggrieved. Every act of insurrection which occurred on January 6 may not have been specifically called for by Trump, but it is clear that those who participated were his people. Now that Trump no longer has the bully pulpit it is far less likely that anti-government forces will gain the numbers and stature which allowed the January 6 disaster to occur.

Obviously, the country still has multiple wounds and hot spots that are cause for concern and deserve focused attention. However, with Biden and Harris at the helm I believe the country is in the hands of capable adults and that problems will be dealt with in a timely and reasonable fashion.

Under Trump, George Floyd was murdered opening up the potential for a nation-wide wildfire. Under Biden George Floyd’s murderer was convicted. Biden himself did not bring about the verdict (we gave mere bystanders to thank for that) but I knew that Biden would say appropriate things to Floyds family and to the country to help the healing begin. Unlike Floyd himself, the country can start to breathe again.

Race is only on area of concern the Biden/Harris administration must deal with, but whatever the issue I now trust that those at the very top will be doing what they can to move the country in the direction of peace, prosperity and justice for all. The left wing of the party may feel shortchanged that more is not being attempted, but the desired and the possible are not always identical. Biden is aware of history and understands Capital Hill processes well enough to do what he can, when he can.

Many posts ago, early in the 2020 Democratic primary, I stated my believed that 2020 would be Biden Time. Despite the early lack of enthusiasm among Democrats, most Democrats now believe this to be true. Obviously there will be successes and failures, as there are in any administration, but i sleep better at night knowing a person of good will, intelligence, empathy and experience will be the person with the best information and the ultimate responsibility to make a decision or have an impact. I describe myself as “an idealist living in the real world.” Biden is one, too. For that I am grateful.

The Tree of Life

Lately I have been thinking of trees as a metaphor for understanding how many things work. We speak of planting seeds (both money and ideas), developing roots (taking stabilizing actions) and branching out (undergoing healthy growth). A healthy tree inspires awe. However, a dying tree is a source of danger to everything in its neighborhood. Nobody wants to be in its shadow when it falls.

Describing our economic and social system as a tree is not at all far fetched. In fact a holistic organic model is the only model that has any connection to reality.

At its prime the American capitalist/democratic system was like an impressive tree, inspiring and nurturing newly planted offshoots around the world. But lately America has been looking like a dying tree. While there are still green leaves soaking up the sun near the top, the trunk has been hacked and gashed, and the roots are being systematically poisoned.

In non-metaphorical terms, our stewardship of the American economy has been horrible for some time. Decades of wrong-headed policy has left the ranks of the middle class severely damaged and diminished in number. The increasing number of people existing below the middle class have been neglected and abused by a system that focuses only on what can be gained by those at the top.

The foolishness of these priorities becomes more apparent with each passing year. If you poison a tree’s roots, the entire tree will die given time. If you damage the trunk or the branches so the leaves cannot be nourished from below, the tree cannot feed itself regardless of how much sun is received from above.

I heard today that Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US, yet Swedish society has avoided many of the problems present in the US. I suggest that Swedish society has remained healthier overall by paying attention to the basic needs of all residents, i.e., they have kept the whole tree healthy from the roots up.

The US is no longer the go-to model for developing countries. Before we attempt to reassert the level of global influence we formerly wielded we must demonstrate the will to heal ourselves. This does not mean we should abandon the world outside our borders, but it does mean our domestic priorities must be put in order. Democracy depends on the consent of those being governed and more and more citizens are refusing to consent to continuing abuse and mismanagement.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris certainly have their work cut out for them, after not only four years of Donald Trump but also 40 years of trickle down economics. Yet I remain optimistic. I have faith that this time we have chosen leaders who know what needs to be done and will make every effort to get it done.

It Ain't Over 'Til The Fat Baby Leaves

I have not put fingertips to keyboard since the election despite having experienced emotions worthy of a hefty novel. I wanted to wait until the election process felt complete. That did not happen on election night, or even in the weeks that followed as Biden was declared the winner and had received congratulations from around the globe. I have been denied the sense of completion by Donald Trump’s refusal to accept and acknowledge what the rest of the world already has: that Joe Biden will become the US President on January 20, 2021.

Instead, Trump has called his Boys, from Proud to Crazy, into service to contest the vote count and cast doubt on the entire process. For good measure, he has thrown national security under the bus by refusing to cooperate in an orderly transition. We should all be forever grateful to the US Courts and the election officials, many of them from Trump’s own party, who have refused to assist Trump in the destruction of democracy in the US. Thanks to their efforts, resolution of this debacle is within sight as the date for certification of the electoral college vote draws near. But I am still waiting to exhale because for me it ain’t over ‘til the fat baby leaves.

On the other hand, Joe Biden has lived up to every positive expectation I had from early on in the Demoratic primaries through the current transition. He has behaved like the capable civil servant I’ve always believed him to be. He was able to win the election by convincing diverse swaths of the electorate that the federal government can and will do more than serve narrow interests under his leadership. From selection of his VP to his cabinet picks he has shown a willingness to put his own ego aside in order to elevate whoever best serves the interests of the nation. Unlike people in power who have much to hide - who turn to their chums and people who will guard their secrets - people who serve the public turn to experts. Biden is consistently turning to experts.

Biden himself should be acknowledged as an expert in the workings of the federal government. After the lawlessness of Richard Nixon (not to mention his VP Spiro Agnew) was exposed the parties adopted a new approach, saying the country needed to elect outsiders, people who were untouched by the corrupt culture inside the beltway. As a result, only 2 of the next 7 Presidents had been elected to federal office prior to becoming the President, George Bush Sr. and Barack Obama. Four of the other 5 had been governors and one (Donal Trump) had no experience in elective office whatsoever. The problem of corruption has not diminished as a result of choosing outsiders but I would say the effectiveness of government has diminished.

I don’t know why the parties encouraged the movement towards outsiders. In fact I find it shocking that for the past few decades experience at the federal level has been considered all but irrelevant. Charisma may help get someone elected, but experience on Capitol Hill will help them govern. At this point in the transition I am sure Joe Biden is already reaching out to people he knows and has worked with while an outsider would likely be getting schooled in the finer points of how a policy initiative actually becomes law.

I hope the election of Biden/Harris and the administration they assemble will mark a seachange in federal politics, whereby experience and exertise will once again be considered a plus, not a minus.

Today is the day of Safe Harbour, and I’m starting to feel my anxiety recede. I am settling into my seat as I hear the orchestra warming up, waiting to play Hail to the Chief for Joe Biden. I feel reassured that in a very few weeks the fat lady will sing and the fat baby will leave - and none too soon.

The Cultural Trainwreck that is the Kardashians

I couldn’t help but be exposed to images from the lavish birthday bash Kim Kardashian threw for herself and members of her inner circle. I found the photos, and especially the people in them, particularly unattractive. Yet I couldn’t help but look at every photo - the same way it is hard not to look at photographs of a trainwreck.

The lavish lifestyle on display was criticized for being insensitive to the level of suffering being experienced by the country as a whole in this era of COVID. I don’t doubt that the photographs were intended to cause envy on the part of those who exist in universes other than the one the Kardashians inhabit. Insensitivity to the needs of others and the circumstances of ‘ordinary’ people is part and parcel of the Kardashian ethos. Making others envious is how they market themselves and their products.

But envy is not the word for what I felt. Revulsion comes closer. Indeed, I felt relief that I haven’t ended up with the mindset evident in the people present. For the most part, the women looked physically unhealthy and emotionally either very needy or completely vacant. Kim’s mother looked particularly pitiful - apparently trying to fight off the blues of being post-menopausal by indulging in too much plastic surgery and too much alcohol. I wonder if the younger generation doesn’t look at her with horror knowing that they will likely end up just like her in another 15 or 20 years.

Gold dresses - even if they cost $10,000 - cannot substitute for a psyche that knows looks aren’t everything - and neither is money. And that incredible beauty can be found by simply looking around, not by looking in the mirror.

I hope the Kardashians serve as a cautionary tale for the selfie generation. Kim’s birthday photos should be enough to scare everybody straight.

Is Amy Coney Barrett Clever or Clueless?

I tweeted that Amy Coney Barrett was dumb because she failed to demonstrate that she knew the difference between judging a specific case and discussing legal concepts. Because it is clear that she is not “dumb” in the usual sense of the word, I must explain my reasoning for fear of appearing “dumb” myself. Here goes.

At her confirmation hearings ACB (as I will call her) was asked a number of questions which could have been answered directly and succinctly. For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s straightforward question about whether voter intimidation was illegal brought about an evasive “I can’t answer” type response, when we all knew the accurate answer was “Yes, voter intimidation is illegal.”

I gather ACB was afraid that if Sen. Klobuchar had followed up with questions on what constitutes voter intimidation she might be asked to pass judgment on specifics in a hypothetical example. Had that happened (which it did not) then it would have been the time for ACB to respond with “I can’t answer questions on hypothetical situations.”

By refusing to answer a very simple, direct question about the existence of laws against voter intimidation it seemed she feared being drawn into murky waters where she might accidentally say something she later regretted. While that is a very human emotionally-based response in a tense situation, it does not bode well for her future on the highest court in the land. It is the very nature of the work she is about to take on to recognize when and where to draw the lines as they are subtly being crossed, and to be capable of articulating why one side of the line is acceptable while the other is not.

If she is afraid of having to draw lines and articulate distinctions as needed IN HER OWN HEARING, she does not have the intellectual heft to hear difficult cases in real time and draw the lines in her mind as need based on what is being put before her, rather than relying on her emotional reaction to the subject of the suit.

So that is my take. ACB is an intellectual lightweight ill-suited to craft sound decisions on the cases put before her. While “Dumb” may be an overstatement, it isn’t far from the mark.

The Democratic National Convention - The Republic in a Foxhole

As the Democratic Convention unfolded last week we were shown one inspiring montage after another and presented with speakers broadcasting messages of warning and hope. Citizens from across the spectrum of the Democratic Party and even into the Republican Party lent their voices to the cause of defeating Donald Trump and electing Joe Biden our next US President.

Two of the most powerful speeches came from former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, Michelle Obama laid out the need for change. Her assessment of Donald Trump’s shortcomings as President was reinforced by the Republican defectors who spoke at the convention in support of Biden.

Barack Obama reminded us that the struggle to make this country work for all its citizens is nothing new. He painted a picture of democracy in a foxhole, in need of someone who can lead us out. He reminded us that heroes of the past put their faith in what could be rather than what was, and were able to bring about structural reform.

These speeches were focused on character - the self-serving, amoral character of Donald Trump which has led us to a state of chaos, and the empathetic and diligent character exhibited by Joe Biden which will enable him to lead us to a better place.

Joe Biden’s acceptance speech was a knock-out by all accounts. His warmth of character and dedication to his life’s work as a public servant are undeniable. Biden’s choice of running mate says good things about his desire for an inclusive administration, and his record in supporting pro-gay rights legislation and authoring anti-domestic violence legislation speaks to his willingness to get ahead of the curve on issues he believes are moral imperatives. His capacity to persevere serves as a role model for us as individuals and as a nation. Joe Biden is undeniably a survivor, and if we trust him to lead us, maybe we will be too.

Biden/Harris will be a tough ticket to beat come November - at least I hope so. My only negative comment on the week’s proceedings was the over-use of quasi-religious imagery and language. If the word “soul” had been tied to a drinking game we all would have been totally wasted by the end of each night.

They say there are no atheists in a foxhole, but no doubt there are quite a few in the Democratic Party. Voters are unlikely to object to a President who holds strong religious convictions. In fact many of the heroes of the civil rights era were deeply committed to their personal faith in God. But it is not a good idea to leave the impression that the Party is pinning its hopes on a supreme being. When faith is tied too closely to a God concept - explicitly or implicitly - you will turn off some voters and bolster the cynics among us.

“Faith” will be necessary as we work our way out of the current morass, but it would be wise to make clear that where we must place our faith is in the “small d” democratic process. The definition of faith is a belief in things unseen. If we believe in our founding principles, that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights, and have faith in the democratic process, we can bring about a country far better than the one we see today. God willing.

BLM/Women/VP Selection

I have not posted since the BLM movement took to the streets following the horrific death of George Floyd. This movement gained world-wide momentum with the release of video showing how heartless, incompetent and criminally reckless policing led to the death of a non-violent and unarmed black man. The following few weeks brought not only the release of additional videos related to the deaths of other black men in Police custody, but also to additional deaths of black men at the hands of Police. The time is long past for Police to be held fully accountable for their acts while in uniform, and for the public to have access to police disciplinary records.

NO ONE is above the law - not Presidents - not Police. Sustained and comprehensive reform must happen at the state and national level. If Joe Biden becomes the next President, and if the Senate and House wind up with Democratic majorities, that is likely to happen. If we fail AGAIN as a nation and allow DJ Trump to remain in office, there is little likelihood that lasting change will come about in the next four years. That alone should be motivation enough for any civil-minded individual to make the effort to vote - and to vote for Democrats.

While I stand with the BLM movement and support its goals and principles, I cannot abide the recent adoption of the racist and sexist nickname "K***n" to describe white women who behave badly. I understand that "the K word" is not intended to refer to ALL white women, but only to those who demonstrate entitled behavior. However that hardly justifies the adoption of a slur where the primary identifiers are race and gender. Would it be OK to use "the N word" as long as I restricted it to black males who behave badly? Or "the F word" to refer to gay men who do something offensive? Using the "K word" is no different. I am shocked to see relatively main stream press (including the Washington Post) employ this slur as if it is an acceptable practice. Obviously NONE of these slurs should be offered as legitimate descriptions of individuals, regardless of their behavior.

The problem with race and/or gender based slurs is that they dehumanize large groups of people. It becomes easy to ASSUME every white woman is a "K word" (or every black man is an "N word") if they don't happen to look or act or speak in a way the you personally approve of. The last thing this society needs is another way to stereotype and scapegoat certain people due to in-born, superficial characteristics such as race or gender.

It seems obvious to me that the "K word" is both racist and misogynist. Why aren't millions of people speaking out against this!? If you haven't yet, I encourage you to do so!

The other critical topic for today is Joe Biden's selection of a running mate. In this case gender and quite possibly race will play a positive role. Biden has committed to selecting a woman, and I don't' know anyone who would seriously suggest he do otherwise. However, whether his running mate will be a woman of color remains an open question.

Given the current momentum of the BLM movement as it draws supporters from many races, cultures and backgrounds, I doubt there are Democratic voters who would object to giving extra weight to the women of color being considered. This has motivated me to reconsider whether Elizabeth Warren really is Joe Biden's best move for a VP pick. While a Biden/Warren ticket would be fine with me, I'm no longer convinced it is the best choice for both electability and governing. My new top choice is Susan Rice.

Among the women of color being considered, Kamala Harris is probably the most well-known at the moment. Announcing Kamala Harris as Biden's running mate might give the campaign a much needed boost when first announced, but I believe Susan Rice will fare better in the long run. While the general public might not know her well at this time, I believe they will come to admire and trust Susan Rice more with every interaction. By election day she could be a real asset, seen as a knowledgeable and reassuring presence.

Beyond electability, she would bring enormous expertise in international affairs. This is no small thing when the person at the top of the ticket is older. If (God forbid) something were to happen to Biden, the most pressing matters the No 2 person would be forced to handle in the immediate aftermath would be those related to national security. Her prior career has prepared her to handle whatever might come her way without being totally dependent on advisors. When she speaks, she speaks with an assurance that comes from experience. I cannot imagine a woman (or man) I would rather have in charge if the apple cart were suddenly upended. Not only that - I think she would way outshine Mike Pence in a VP Debate and help win over any remaining undecided voters.

So here's to true criminal justice and police reform thanks to BLM, to the abolition of racial, gender, or ethnic slurs including the K word, and to the announcement of Susan Rice as Joe Biden's VP!

In the mean time - Stay safe! Stay healthy! Stay Active! Stay Informed!

Considering the Alternatives

I have been delaying too long putting my thoughts on paper regarding a few pressing matters concerning the 2020 elections. The issues that get under my skin are the VP selection, the Trump v Biden Corona battle, and the allegations made by Tara Reid.

The VP selection is a big open issue, and one that will affect not only the race for the White House, but the battle for control of the House and Senate as well. This year needs to be the year Democrats regain control of government in order to restore the basic rules and levers required to keep the country even vaguely democractic (small “d”). If Trump is reelected any pretense of adherence to the principles of rule of law, balance of power and voting rights will be obliterated by his cronies and those seeking his favor. (And many undoubtedly will, as it is more personally efficacious to be a friend to an unbridled dictator than an enemy.)

With that in mind I keep thinking of what the VP selection could do. I’ve heard the names Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Val Demmings, Susan Rice, and Gretchen Whitmer come up, and all seem worthy but there is a lot to consider.

My personal first choice would be Elizabeth Warren because of her ability to be a governing partner. She could also inspire voter turnout on the left by bringing someone from the progressive wing of the party into the top tiers of government. However, some have voiced concerns over her age, and I agree that could be concerning. A younger VP might be better bridge to the future.

Amy Klobuchar would be an excellent VP, but she is also an excellent Senator. (As is Elizabeth Warren.) Despite her ample qualifications, I’m not sure she would broaden the appeal of the ticket, and it might be more helpful to the party and the country if she were to remain in the Senate for now. (Ditto Warren.)

Val Demings would be an interesting choice, and one that would probably broaden the appeal of the ticket. The fact that she would not have to vacate a Senate seat in order to assume office is also a plus. Add to that, Florida is a battleground state, and her presence on the ticket might help with turnout in that state.

Susan Rice seems a reasonably good choice to me, having served in government at high levels in trying times. On the plus side her selection would not leave any elected positions vulnerable. However I wonder about her ability to lead the executive branch if suddenly required to, simply because she has worked at high levels in it. She might not have sufficient knowledge of the “hows” and the “whos” of Congress to be as effective as she would need to be.

I have the same concern regarding the possible selection of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She has more governing experience than Susan Rice, but lacks direct experience with the daily workings of the White House. Also on the downside, her election would leave the Michigan State House vulnerable to a GOP takeover. Democrats cannot afford to lose statehouses!

I haven’t mentioned Kamala Harris here. Although some think she should be selected, I doubt she is in serious consideration. I never saw her as a good choice - even if she hadn’t gone after Biden in one of the early debates. She seems too malleable to whatever opportunity drifts in front of her. I believe she will continue to be a good Democratic Senator but I feel sure she will not be Biden’s VP pick.

The next most pressing issue is how the Biden campaign should be responding in real time to the Covid19 crisis. Many have criticized the Biden campaign for not putting their candidate out front more often to provide a contrasting image of what leadership would look like under a Biden administration. It seems to me that Biden has very little actual power to do more than speak, so I’m not sure if his ability to lead would be apparent. Occasional appearances on the airwaves to speak on what should be done is appropriate, but please, not a daily or even weekly briefing at this point. Enough words are being thrown about already. It is not all that comforting.

In the meantime, this crisis is handing Trump mile upon mile of rope with which to hang himself. Anybody who can witness Trump’s behavior and decide he is demonstrating competent leadership is a lost cause from the Democrats’ point of view anyway. There will be a time in the late summer and early fall, after the ticket is finalized and the immediate turmoil connected to Covid19 has settled down somewhat (hopefully) for Biden to make his case for how things should have been done in the past and how things will be done in the future.

As a side note, I think Trump is trying to get things open in hopes of easing the economic crunch in time to help him in November. If the economy doesn’t recover he will blame Democrats who want to keep more constraints in place in order to save lives. Either way Trump thinks he’ll get credit for being a better steward of the economy. People who survive the crisis without losing jobs or loved ones might buy those arguments, but not so the people who lost loved ones, or whose businesses folded because the banks gave priority to big businesses, or individuals who end up homeless or bankrupt because the Republican Senate failed to authorize an adequate relief package for average citizens while making sure big businesses were well fed at the government’s trough.

If it can be said that there is any silver lining in the Covid19 crisis it might be that it helps drive Donald Trump from office.

Given the moral bankruptcy of the GOP-led Senate and Trump-led White House, 2020 could not be a more critical election. With that in mind, it is important to consider the relevance and potential impact of the accusation of sexual assault against Joe Biden voiced by Tara Reid. I feel for her because I believe something did happen that caused her to turn on someone she once had admired. However, her personal story is a bit inconsistent when it comes to connections to Russia, which calls into question her motives. Biden, while denying the incident, has cautioned that she should be treated with respect, and that as with any claim of sexual assault, corroborating evidence should be sought. That is all he can or should say.

However, unless something more than this story emerges, Tara Reid alone should not be allowed to bring down a life-long public servant as he runs for President against a narcissistic bully. My feeling about the relevance of her account would change if she were one of many who had similar tales to tell. Thus far nobody else has come forward. You may think Biden has a handsy style that makes people uncomfortable, and he has made public errors which he has acknowledged, but I see no evidence that he has exhibited a pattern of sexually predatory behavior.

For Democrats to claim Biden’s character is not pure enough based on a single disputed incident would be ridiculous, considering in the last cycle they offered a candidate whose husband exhibited a pattern of predatory behavior and liked to hang out with the likes of the now-deceased child predator Jeffrey Epstein (as did Donald Trump). Of course the wife is not guilty of the husband’s acts, but she not only stuck by him publicly she seemed to go after the women who accused him. Biden does not project the party boy image that Bill Clinton seemed to cultivate. For Democrats, Joe Biden is a step in the right direction and compared to Donald Trump he’s a boy scout.

The public statements from Democratic leaders should focus on the lack of other incidents despite a very long public career. A single unproven incident is no reason to withdraw support from their candidate particularly if it seems out of character based on the rest of his career.

Given the truly frightening prospect of Trump’s re-election, I will give Joe Biden my full-throated endorsement at every opportunity.

Who's No 2?

With the arrival of COVID19 the Democratic primary process has all but ground to a halt. Bernie Sanders will not withdraw but he is no longer actively campaigning. I hope the primary season reaches its conclusion without divine intervention, but I have to wonder if these relatively old men are waiting to see if the coronavirus makes some of the big decisions for them - and for us.

Looking beyond the primary, (and assuming Joe Biden is the last man standing on the Democratic side) the big unanswered question is who will fill the VP slot. Before launching into an examination of particular individuals, general criteria should be set in place. Biden himself has stipulated that he will choose a woman and the party has responded favorably. So let’s assume that box will have to be checked.

There are other qualities that I also consider extremely important. There are three in particular that I consider non-negotiable. These qualities are intelligence, country-first patriotism and experience in government.

Joe Biden wants a VP who can step in if necessary on day one. He needs someone who can assess and process situations and people quickly, and contribute insight and analysis whether acting as No. 2 or No. 1. Joe Biden needs a partner, not a follower, so keen Intelligence an essential trait.

“Put the country first” patriotism is a quality harder to gauge but it will be crucial to the success of the team. Whether or not the VP candidate aligns perfectly with a President Biden on issues, a person possessing loyalty to the team would be willing to be an influence but stop short of undermining the broader goals for personal advancement. This is a quality Joe Biden himself exhibited as Obama’s VP. Picking a running mate who appeals to segments of the voters, but whose most passionate motivation is personal ambition would be an unwise choice. Joe Biden should be looking closely at individuals who have supported actions in line with progressive goals even when their own name isn’t front and center.

I consider it essential for a VP pick to have prior experience in government - preferably at the federal level. I cannot understand people who see government experience as irrelevant. If a VP without prior experience in federal government were to become President, s/he would be completely dependent on advisors. S/he would have no way to gauge whether aides are sharing information accurate and complete enough to form the basis for reasoned judgments. An inexperienced VP-turned-President would be an easy mark and highly susceptible to manipulation for unknown purposes.

The presence of all of three of these characteristics in a running mate would optimize the chances of policy success in a Biden administration, and minimize the likelihood of administration in-fighting. Only after a candidate can check off all of these boxes should political considerations enter into the deliberations.

Of the women whose names are frequently tossed about some do not meet the basic 3 criteria. Intelligence is not lacking among the top tier. ’ll consider that a given. As for the other characteristics, Kamala Harris makes an attractive running mate but I fear she is driven first and foremost by ambition. I question whether she would have the President’s back if she spots an opportunity for personal advancement by going through or around the President. Stacey Abrams may be a wonderful and intelligent woman with an open political future, but she lacks federal experience - or even statewide governing experience. Because of her inexperience, she should not be considered for VP in this cycle.

Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar both meet all the criteria, and either would make an excellent Vice President if she were to be elected. However, at this point political considerations should also be weighed. Despite being a highly capable choice worthy of a serious look, Amy Klobuchar does not significantly expand the appeal of a ticket with Biden at the top. On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren, were she to agree to the VP role, would be a base-widening choice. With her well thought out approach to policy, she would bring substantive value to the administration. Politically, a Biden/Warren ticket would be a powerful symbol that the party is truly unified and committed to moving in a progressive direction.

The only politically advantageous box that Warren does not check off is racial diversity. For those who insist on this, please note that gender diversity has been at least as hard to come by in politics as racial diversity. Still, if a woman of color who meets the criteria in all categories is available I would support that choice as a political plus. I just don’t know who that would be.
I had hoped Donna Edwards would be a woman to consider, despite having served only briefly in the US Congress. However her diagnosis of multiple sclerosis rules her out. We don’t need leaders whose health is perfect. FDR and JFK both had health problems which did not inhibit their ability to lead. However, putting candidates on the ballot who have health concerns which cannot easily be controlled and which run an unpredictable course would lead voters to question how that candidate would actually perform over the next four years.

Another impressive woman of color currently serving in the US Congress is Ayanna Pressley. Although she has worked for other members of Congress over the years, her own experience as an elected official in the federal government is also minimal, which I find concerning. It is also an open question whether her reputation as a member of ‘the Squad’ would help or hurt a national ticket.

I feel sure the Biden team is searching in earnest now. I will be interested to know what they decide. The next few months will bring about a changed landscape in so many ways. Political calculations made now will have to be adjusted then, but that should not prevent us from keeping our eyes focused on the long view. I believe there will be an election in November and I’d like the opportunity to vote for the best and the brightest at No. 1 and No. 2.

Biden Beats Bernie

It looks like the 2020 Democratic primary is heading towards closure, with former Vice President Biden inspiring adequate confidence to surpass Sen. Bernie Sanders in the delegate count as the convention draws closer. I both predicted and endorse this outcome.

Biden is more the anti-Trump than Bernie, thanks to his preference for collaboration over confrontation. He has demonstrated a willingness to move his policy positions to the left over the course of the campaign (a good thing!) and we have both Bernie and Senator Warren to thank for that, but the primary battle is all but over.

The contrast of styles between Biden and Bernie is clear. Bernie consistently emphasizes his willingness to vote NO on legislation which fails to meet his rigorous standards. A record of NO votes, however, is the antithesis of a record of accomplishments. I believe Joe Biden when he says he added amendments to lessen the draconian impacts of a bankruptcy bill that would have passed overwhelmingly with or without his vote. His approach has been to use what power he does have to make legislation less offensive rather than simply get his NO vote of record for the sake of his own ideological purity. Three steps backwards, one step forward is better than three steps backwards - period.

Bernie says real leadership would be to rally additional NO votes sufficient to block passage of offensive legislation. That may be, but that is not the record Bernie is running on either. Where is the evidence that Bernie was able to lead a charge that blocked offensive legislation rather than simply voting NO for the record?

The work of government is work, not an academic exercise. I believe Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are both patriots at heart and would do whatever they can to improve the lives of working class Americans, but Joe Biden appears more versed and skilled in the reality of governing in a far from homogenous society.

Assuming the delegate trends continue as expected the biggest make or break question left to answer before November is who Biden will select as his running mate. Biden’s pledge to select a woman is a good one. There are many qualified women to consider. But thinking back to John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate gives me the chills. Deciding who to choose as a running mate is a decision that should not be rushed. In my next post I’ll discuss the non-negotiable qualities I believe Biden’s running mate must embody.

Where's the Heart?

First off, I want to congratulate Berne Sanders on his recent successes in Iowa and New Hampshire. His “truth to power” approach strikes a chord with those who feel disenfranchised under the current system. His words offer inspiration to many, particularly younger voters. I believe he has done the party and the country a favor by forcing difficult conversations and pulling Democratic policy aspirations leftward. However, I do not support making Bernie the party’s candidate and standard bearer this election cycle.

In fact, I am not even sure his strong showing is an accurate representation of where the Democratic party as a whole falls on the ideological spectrum. A blog post of mine written many months ago lamented the fact that the cream does not always rise to the top when it’s dispersed throughout the batter. I fear that is happening here. To get a more accurate picture of where the heart of the party falls on the ideological spectrum, we should be looking at the totals for the candidates who occupy the center lane (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar) and those who occupy positions farther to the left (Warren, Sanders). Only then will we know who might be the strongest single candidate in the post-convention race - even among Democrats.

Another problem with the current primary coverage is the criticism-offered-as-comment that voters are citing “electability” as their primary priority - as if that is a bad thing. In other election cycles I might agree that voting for your personal preference is a better way of making preferences public but in this particular instance - when so much is on the line - voting strategically is not only wise, it should be MANDATORY for people of conscience.

This election is not about any one individual, or any one group. It is about forming coalitions strong enough to soundly defeat the disastrous cabal who currently holds sway on Capitol Hill. Each and every voter must consider how other voters feel about things when selecting the person whose name will appear at the top of the Party’s ballots in November, because those other people have votes that will count just as much as theirs. How can any sane Democrat claim that it is more important to push for far left policies than it is to avoid far right policies? This year my vote in the primary will be used to show the party who I believe should head the Democratic ticket in the general election come November, not to demonstrate my personal fine-point policy preferences.

I still believe a ticket of Biden/Warren would be a winner in the general election, but there are no guarantees that the Democratic party will see things my way. I fear, not just the party but for the country, if Democrats allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and let ideological purity tests have the final say.

A Vote For Survival of Our Government

I have kept silent during most of this primary season for several reasons, many of them unrelated to politics. Now that Iowa is here the polls that matter take center stage. Regardless of the results in Iowa I am likely to ignore the heat of the moment and remain in the Biden camp. The qualities that make Biden the superior candidate for a general election will not change. And those are experience and character.

Joe Biden is nothing if not a survivor. Over his many years in office he appears to have been driven by a practical combination of principle and compromise. He has paid his dues and learned lessons along the way. He has been willing to criticize his own past actions and his positions have grown with the times. His instincts have been good enough to keep him active and relevant without abandoning the healing threads of decency and public service that define his life’s work. A look around the political landscape will reveal just how rare this is.

The current state of the union has been brought to this ugly place by men and women driven by avarice and ego. It would be a welcome change to have someone at the helm who has not used his office for personal enrichment (it is not reasonable for one man to be called to question for the actions of a grown son who was not on his payroll) and has the maturity to avoid intra-party conflict unless attacked.

The man in office now exhibits the personality characteristics of an out-of-control toddler. Wouldn’t it be great to have an adult sitting in the Oval Office instead? An imperfect human being for sure (as we all are) but one who has made the effort to serve causes higher than himself? Someone who has earned respect over the years and across the aisles for his character? Wouldn’t allies be relieved to know that the person in charge is unlikely to be saying one thing one day and something else the next? Or to be using behind the scenes channels to undermine relationships?

Today’s climate does not inspire trust in anyone connected to the current system. However, the problems currently playing out on Capitol Hill stem less from the basic structures of government (e.g., the separation of powers) but in the control of these structures by individuals motivated by greed. Looking back to eras when our society was able to make great strides towards the humanistic goals we publicly claim, it was seasoned political insiders who made these things happen. FDR gave us the New Deal. LBJ brought us the Civil Rights Act. Barack Obama - with the help of Nancy Pelosi - brought us the ACA. Being a career politician should not be a disqualifier.

All that said, there are two other Democratic Primary candidates who are near the top (and one in the middle of the pack) who can include political experience and knowledge of Capitol Hill processes on their resume. Why not Bernie? Or Elizabeth? Or even Amy?

It is hard for me to make the case against Bernie, having supported him over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary. I knew that outside the big donor class the Clintons are not that popular. While Bernie’s biggest weapon was speaking truth to power, the DNC and Clinton campaign employed the kind of smear tactics and bias that leave a bad taste in voter’s mouths.

So why not support Bernie in 2020? For one, Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, the political climate was different in 2016. The effects of the economic crisis of 2008 were still affecting people’s outlook and voters were eager to see things shaken up. I’m not sure that is so true today. The radical change brought on by Donald Trump leaves many feeling queasy and less secure. To attempt to pull the country to the other ideological edge with policies on the left end of the spectrum might be more upheaval than voters can stomach.

Two examples of far left policies that may not fly in a general election (as cited over and over by pundits across the media spectrum) are Medicare for All and decriminalization of illegal border crossings. All Democratic candidates support a healthcare system which includes a public option, but forcing Medicare on everyone could prove highly unpopular. Furthermore, it smacks of left-leaning authoritarian technocrats telling people what they need without giving them a choice.

Similarly, decriminalizing illegal border crossings would not be a winning platform in the general election. Humane treatment of all individuals, regardless of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, sexual identity or sexual orientation, is a core value for Democratic and many Independent voters, but allowing illegal activity which affects the life of the entire society to be trivialized is not. An overhaul of the immigration system is in order, not an abandonment of its goals and enforcement mechanisms.

So while Bernie would have been a better pick than Hillary in 2016, Biden is the better pick in 2020. (It is also interesting to note that Bernie split from the mainstream Democratic party years ago to run as an Independent. While I fully understand his reasons for doing so, and I admire his ideological consistency over the years, I do wonder what this has done to his ability to build coalitions on the Hill that can actually get legislation passed.)

So what about Elizabeth Warren? With her intelligent approach to policy, her principled messaging, her Capitol Hill experience, and frankly her gender, she is close to the perfect candidate for our times. However, she does have a few strikes against her. The two policy policy positions I mentioned above in connection with Bernie, present general election problems for Elizabeth Warren too. With Warren there is also the question of temperament.

When Warren first began her presidential run she toned down her previously angry demeanor and came across as a professorial adult. As her campaign progressed, however, she seemed bolstered by her enthusiastic fans. Her angry side came back to the fore, and this time the anger was not just directed at the super wealthy but also at Democrats who did not share her progressive ideological zeal. This may sound like a sexist critique but I say it’s not. Donald Trump is about as angry a politician as we have ever had - and I don’t see that anger as a plus in him or her. The question for voters - in the primary and the general - will be, in part, do we want our politics fueled by anger or by reason and compromise. As the old saying goes, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I had truly hoped that after a positive energy Democratic primary the party would wind up with the ticket of Biden/Warren. Unfortunately with the way the primary has played out there may be too much bad blood between these two for that to happen. (BTW, this is the same pairing I would have preferred in 2016, but the Clinton machine was discouraging - to say the least - of any challengers. I find this a a shame because I am convinced Biden/Warren would have won in a landslide over Donald Trump in 2016 - which is something Hillary Clinton failed to do.)

Amy Klobuchar occupies the center lane with Joe Biden and coud be viewed as a viable alternative should the Biden campaign hit insurmountable obstacles on the way to the convention. Although I believe she is qualified and principled, I do not believe she has the force of personality that would sway a national audience largely unfamiliar with her as a person or as a politician. Furthermore, because the country is becoming more urban, not less, her midwestern charm would be more helpful in the No. 2 slot than at the top of the ticket. I am glad she is putting herself out there and hope that she remains a leading voice for a reasoned approach to politics, but I don’t think she’s the right person to back in the primaries.

Which leads us back to Joe Biden. Should he be nominated and elected, he would bring with him extensive knowledge of the processes that result in legislative change, and his many years on the Hill have no doubt left him with good instincts about who can be trusted both domestically and abroad. I believe the election of Joe Biden would be the best case scenario for the future of the American political system. But whether this happens or not, the legacy Joe Biden will leave is a life of public service for which we should all be grateful.

Why Biden?

While Joe Biden continues to lead in most polls there is a fog about his candidacy that various elements of the left keep pointing to as evidence that he does not offer the clearest path forward for the party. There are self-serving elements to such criticism but there are also threads of truth. To get a clear picture, both the positives and the negatives of Biden’s candidacy should be examined.

In today’s New York Times, op-ed columnist David Leonhardt pointed out problems with the prevalent Democratic strategy this primary season. (“Democrats, Stop Helping Trump”) I couldn’t agree more with his assessment. Currently, two of the three front runners are seeking to rise in stature and popularity among the primary base by promoting policies that simply will not sell well come the general election in November 2020. Mr. Leonhardt’s column points to the two most striking examples of policies which I also believe could diminish the likelihood that the White House - or the Senate - will return to Democratic control. They are 1) decriminalization of entering the country illegally and 2) offering only ‘Medicare for All’ as the approach to healthcare and making it equally accessible to undocumented residents and citizens alike.

The rationale for decriminalization of illegal entry doesn’t even make sense. The way you prevent a corrupt President from abusing the law is to remove that President from office, not to remove the law from the books. If a candidates who argues for this policy were to win the office the statutory shift would not be necessary. Trying to convince the country as that the borders should be made less secure by law will work against them in 2020.

The argument for ‘Medicare for All’ takes us into more complex emotional territory for most people. I believe there would be little resistance to having a system that offers a public option alongside private insurance, but taking away private insurance as currently offered would drag many into an unknown they have no desire to explore. For decades people have made life decisions based on the benefits offered through various employers. They have made tough choices and worked hard for these benefits and could well be offended to think that people who have chosen easier paths are suddenly offered equal coverage.

If the goal is to expand the Medicare for All policy to extend coverage to all residents regardless of their legal status, that would only add injury to insult. A friend from many years ago whose political leanings are obviously not mine (although I know her to be a decent human being) recently put up a FB post that noted “First Democrats wanted to FORCE you to BUY insurance, now they want to GIVE it FREE to people who entered the country illegally.” I get why this is a misleading statement of Democratic policy proposals but that won’t stop it from being a highly effective GOP talking point if Democrats try to run in November with this policy in their platform.

On these two policies I believe Joe Biden gets it right. Decriminalization of illegal entry into the country is not necessary in order to stop the draconian practices employed under the current President, and although everyone who is sick must be treated - for the sake of the community’s health if nothing else - it is taking the system too far too fast to ask that all residents be treated equally in every way by the medical community. This is particularly relevant given the wide variety of costly treatments potentially available for conditions which may or may not be life threatening. Among the top tier Democrats these policies are where Biden is the candidate most able to face the general election on sure footing.

When looking at non-policy factors, people have recently questioned why Biden is running. That answer seems clear enough to me. He is a public servant - more so than an egomaniac or a profiteer. He has spent his entire career working in government and sees this as one more opportunity to serve his country at a time when he is needed.

The length of his career leaves him vulnerable to attack on various missteps in his past. His opponents might point to his vote to go to war in Iraq as one of his missteps, but to see it that way is to take it out of context. I was actually listening to C-Span at a time when the debates were playing out on the Senate floor. I heard Joe Biden speak of the potential dangers with intelligence and wisdom. I was impressed. I would not be surprised if the junior Senator Barack Obama heard him as well, and knowing that the war in Iraq would still be a hot issue on his plate when he assumed office, considered this when selecting Joe Biden as his running mate. The fact that Biden ultimately voted with George Bush and the majority might be explained (at least in part) by his patriotic sense that knowing he was in the minority and could not prevent the country from taking military action, it would be better from an international perspective for the President to have the support of Congress.

Other missteps were true missteps (e.g., Anita Hill) and he has offered apologies for some. It is hard to remain in public life for decades without messing up from time to time. It is also true tat at times he misspeaks, including recently where he got some of the details wrong but not the essence of the story. Overall, I see little of the prevarications, wholesale fabrications and intentional misrepresentations that lie at the very heart of many if not most of Donald Trump’s public statements.

When it comes to personality, it is true he came of age when being a touchy-feely hugging politician was more of a plus than a sign of creepiness. His actions for the most part paint him as a decent human being who has sought to do more good than harm with his life, so I’m not so sure the stylistic elements would detract from his ability to govern effectively.

Then there is excitement factor - or rather the lack of it - in connection with the Biden campaign. If this were a more typical election - where a center-right Republican was being challenged by a center-left Democrat, excitement could be key. Donald Trump is certainly counting on excitement from his base, but I’m not sure this is a fire that should be fought with fire. The country might be better served today by promoting the message that effective government comes through rational leaders implementing rational policies.

As far as winning elections, Democrats seem to think voter turnout is their biggest challenge. While excitement can help with turnout, that might not be the most worrisome factor in this cycle. It important for Democrats to consider the ‘not-necessarily-excited-but-likely-to-vote’ segments of the general electorate as well. These voters don’t pay full attention to politics year-round and they are unlikely to campaign or even contribute to an individual candidate, but come November they show up at the polls.

Older people in particular see voting as a civic duty and turn out at significantly higher rates than younger age groups. And, by the way, the segment of the population aged 65+ is still increasing. Democrats should beware of ignoring them in hopes of exciting enough young people to turn out in sufficient numbers to win the election.

Barack Obama ran promising to be a President for everyone, and he won - big - twice. Hillary Clinton ran on her gender and lost. (Not big, but she lost.) If Democrats want to win in November they must once again offer a candidate who attempts to speak to the country as a whole. An older civil servant running to help the country return to sane process and humane policies might not be as hard a sell as one might imagine.

The Primary Perspective

The debate season has been a riot. By that I mean in some ways it has been funny, but also that in some ways it has been mean spirited. In the most recent debate it seemed the young people came out in force ready to take on their elders for being less than perfect without acknowledging that progress was in fact made under their watch and glossing over the fact that they, too, have made mistakes in their efforts to lead.

It is easier for a newcomer to claim purity than for someone who has survived reality but continued to do the work of government year after year. I still think experience counts for something and character counts even more. Attacking the front runner seems a no-brainer for candidates clustered near the top but wiser still (for the party and for the candidates) would be for each to set out their own case. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case in the most recent debate.

Joe Biden is the adult most under attack because he leads in the polls and he has deep history to mine looking for vulnerabilities. I will look at the Biden candidacy this time around in a separate post. I still believe he is the candidate most likely to succeed in the general, but it is not a simple or obvious call. Carving a path away from Trumpism in 2020 will not be easy but it is the critical issue of this campaign cycle so it deserves thorough examination.

Policy differences are less critical to electability in the primary than they are in the general (where distinctions become Republican talking points) because it is clear any of these Democrats would promote policies less offensive than Trump’s. But for now, the primary is still the primary, and personality will count as much as policy. I hate (kind of) to reduce the rest of the field to two or three sentence judgments, but here goes.

Kamala Harris comes out swinging. She is ready to take on the role of super-hero to the oppressed, but I fear it’s more of a character she plays than a character trait. She is ready to bark loudly at establishment leaders but I expect as her own record is more fully explored we’ll see her muzzle herself a bit more often.

Bernie Sanders continues to remind us that his record has been largely consistent over his decades in public offices, letting us know that “he gets it” - and always has. The party and the country owe him a debt of gratitude for making his case time and time again, thereby moving the party and the country in a progressive direction. But whether he is electable in this cycle is questionable. Furthermore, I question the wisdom of attempting to swing the country from one pole of the ideological scale to the other. Would that be helpful or simply further inflame the deep divisions opened up by the Trump administration?

Elizabeth Warren has adopted the persona of an American Angela Merkel. IMHO that is not at all a bad approach. In fact America would do well to elect a knowledgeable, intelligent leader who advocates for reasoned policies for a change (i.e., an adult) rather than a rock star.

Cory Booker gave us his best Obama impression in his opening remarks, and tried to maintain an Obama-like cool in his remarks. The substantive yield of this approach is not bad but attempting to be another Obama is unlikely to get him elected. Obama has already done it - and done it better. Cory Booker must become a character in his own right who can demonstrate appeal to a wide spectrum of the electorate if he wants to advance.

Amy Klobuchar also came across as an adult, as she apparently does in her work on Capital Hill. She is not flashy or pushy at this point (except perhaps with her staff?) but she comes prepared with information, skills and a work ethic, This would no doubt play well to what is left of the middle class.

Tulsi Gabbard is a bit too unknown to register on most people’s radar, but I believe she comported herself well in both debates. She presents a polished figure but it isn’t clear what lies beneath the polished surface. I don’t think anyone should consider her a top-tier contender but she may elevate her national standing through the exposure the primary campaign provides. Should she advance further at any point we can be sure opponents will scratch the surface to see what’s there.

Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro are individuals with no doubt loyal but limited constituencies. I don’t see any of them gaining a larger base in this crowded field and I believe their campaigns are already on the downswing. I, for one, am grateful because IMHO none of them has sufficient experience at the Federal level to step into the top job in the government, which is a truly an international stage.

Kirstin Gillibrand does not appear to have damaged herself by running (thus far) but her chances of advancing seem slim. Her ideological positions have not been made central to her public persona so it’s not clear why people should vote for her. Still, I am grateful for the work she has done supporting women who speak out in the “#MeToo” era. I expect she will continue to contribute as a Senator beyond 2020.

Mayor Bill DiBlasio’s campaign is a mystery to me, unless he simply wants an excuse to get out of town more often. I say that as a New York City resident who daily experiences the hassles of transportation delays, witnesses the horror of people passed out and/or dying on streets and trains in all parts of town, and reads of the violence I have narrowly escaped in my Brooklyn neighborhood. He has added little to the depth or breadth of the primary debate and his time away from his day job seems unjustified.

Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson are both originals, bringing interesting ideas and energy to the stage. Both make insightful comments which seem intuitively on-track, especially to those outside the DC policy machine who must nonetheless live with the consequences of decisions made by DC actors. I don’t expect either will last too much longer in the race, but I am glad they have had their turn at the microphone. Their next stop may well be the TEDTalk circuit.

The rest of the field consists mostly of oder white men who may have a particular ax to grind, but who do not have a national resume or enough charisma to carry them farther. They represent parts of the country mostly away from the coasts. Their presence has been a useful reminder that as diversity dilutes the influence of the old guard Democrats, it does not erase them entirely, and, furthermore, that there are issues beyond diversity which the electorate must take seriously - chief among them: climate change.

I expect the primary free for all will become a bit more restrained as the field narrows. I look forward to a more sophisticated and focused effort on behalf of the younger candidates moving forward, where the sharpest zingers are reserved for the real target - Donald Trump.

The Case for Biden/Warren

We all know it is technically correct to say the Democratic primary season is too far from over to call, but I am becoming more and more certain of my own selection. My dream ticket for 2020 would be Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Here’s why.

Elizabeth Warren is smart, sincere, and consistent. Her policy proposals are thoughtful, detailed and principled. If the US President were only called on to handle domestic policy matters I might consider her my top choice for the top of the ticket. But the US plays on a much larger stage. In a Biden/Warren administration I would like to see her in charge of steering domestic policy.

It is on the global stage where Biden has an edge over the other primary hopefuls. The current President has rattled and insulted our allies around the world. He has given aide and comfort to the rogue actions of corrupt leaders and corrupt states, and then rewarded them financially. He has praised and encouraged the ascent of right-wing strongmen in formerly centrist societies. I imagine center and center-left leaders (maybe even center-right leaders) around the world would breathe a sigh of relief should Joe Biden become the next US President.

Joe Biden is not a man who would drag the world backwards. He is the man to re-establish the Obama Coalition. His role would be to put politics back on more solid ground so the younger generation of globally aware citizens has something more solid to work with.

And Elizabeth Warren is the woman to reestablish a sense of civid duty here at home and move us towards a more progressive future. Her campaign messages remind us all that businesses and government cannot succeed if the average American cannot succeed.

I could spell out the reasons I believe other top candidates (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg as I see it) are not suited for the Democratic ticket this time around, but I will leave that for another post.

Leaders of the Pack

The fog on the Democratic Primary field keeps getting denser and denser. New York City’s Mayor DiBlasio is one of the latest to join swarm. For the life of me it makes no sense (at last from the perspective of what is good of the party and the country) for so many never-will-be’s to formally declare. It occurs to me that perhaps the lure is matching Federal campaign dollars which could be used to build their name recognition on the national landscape. Worse yet, the cynic in me wonders if the majority of the (not-really) contenders has already given up on a Democratic Presidential win in 2020. In this case, the effect of an extremely crowded field on the party’s chances in November isn’t a consideration - so why not run? It might be fun! Besides, there’s even the possibility for some of Secret Service protection. In this day of crazy acting out over political differences that could sound appealing.

I, however, refuse to cave entirely to my inner cynic, so I will make my assessments with a straight face in hopes that the Democrats succeed in sticking their foot in the door of the White House before its current residents slam it shut and lock out “little d” democracy entirely. So here are the figures I see emerging through the fog, although it is still early enough for the picture to change radically before the actual convention.

The three candidates rising above the crowd in my view (and sitting atop most polls) are Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Of these 3, Sanders is falling and Warren is rising. I expect this trend will continue.

The effect of Bernie’s 2016 presidential bid was to let the DNC know 1) just how much many of its own voters disliked the Clinton dynasty and 2) how desperate many people were for meaningful change. He now only pushed Clinton herself to the left, he pulled the party machinery there too. For that we should all be grateful.

This time, however, there are many factors to consider, and now that the party itself has swung left Bernie himself is less pivotal. And at this point he is another older white man, which is not the ideal optic for this time in history.

If the Dems are to put another older white guy at the top of their ticket I believe Joe Biden would be the better choice, from the stand point of the general election. In 2020 it will be crucial to win back a portion of the voting public that went from voting Democratic to voting for Trump. I think Biden is better placed to do that than Sanders.

The other person moving to the front of the pack is Elizabeth Warren. I foresee her continuing to rise through the ranks thanks to the consistency and thoughtfulness of her message. The fact that she is a woman helps the optics for the party. Too much has been made of the idea that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a woman without enough consideration for the idea that she lost because she was a Clinton, and because she lacked effective campaign messaging or skills. It would be a mistake to think that the message of Hillary Clinton’s loss is the women are not electable.

As strong as Elizabeth Warren is, her message and her experience is in the area of domestic policy. On the other hand, with the international crises Donald Trump appears to be stirring up in every corner of the globe 2020 might be a year to consider foreign policy experience as a huge plus. In that area Biden would have an edge come the general election.

Despite the positive response of Trump’s hard-core base I believe in general voters can detect sincerity and respond positively to candidates whose words ring true. Biden, Warren and Sanders come across as sincere. Biden might even be guileless to a fault on the campaign trail. Warren and Sanders have the added benefit of policy consistency, but with Biden’s long history the argument can be made that he continues to grow with the times.

All this brings me to a thought I had as long ago as 2014, when contemplating the 2016 presidential field as a graduate student in Political Science. Most of my cohort were expecting Hillary Clinton to run away with the nomination and the Office. I, on the other hand, considered Joe Biden at the top and Elizabeth Warren at #2 as my dream ticket. With his foreign policy experience and her economic fairness message I believe they would have blown Donald Trump out of the water in the general. Unfortunately they did not have that opportunity in 2016 but I could still imagine that would be an effective ticket in 2020.

While there may be many other talented individuals in the Democratic field, most of them lack substantial experience at the Federal level. It may not be a popular notion to think experience matters, but I believe the American people can be convinced that it matters, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.

If I were to advise the top tier candidates on how to appeal to those portions of the electorate which have not already made up their minds, I suggest these two themes: Restoring Sanity and Reviving Spirit. (“We need to get rid of DonaldTrump” is not a winning message any more than “Vote for me because I am a women” was.) Restoring Sanity includes not only offering more considered and realistic policies, but also pledging to adhere to procedures that protect the balance of power between The White House, the Congress and the Courts. Reviving Spirit means changing perspective to prevent the carving out “us vs. them” at every turn and leveling the playing field to offer opportunity to any and all who wish to advance their life through education and effort.

The Democratic convention may be months away and the fate of Donald Trump may still uncertain, but Democrats must start now demonstrating to the electorate their willingness to set their personal and policy priorities to value the fate of humanity over the size of corporate bank accounts.

The Democratic Primaries - Chapter 3

The field of contenders continues to grow, but I’d be surprised if the electorate is still listening. Popularity and electability are qualities that must be reassessed almost weekly, but I believe the major players are already in the news, if not actually in the race. At this point a top tier beginning to emerge. Here is my take on where things stand.

Although Pete Buttigieg is getting a lot of press, I find it incredible that the mayor of a small midwestern city believes he is ready for the challenges he would face as President of the United States. He may be intelligent and reasonable, but the mere fact that he would place himself on the ballot with his limited background tells me he is either clueless, or overly egotistical or simply opportunistic and planning to write a book.

Voters and candidates alike must realized that if an inexperienced outsider assumes the office while ignorant of the processes involved in federal governance s/he will be at the mercy of his or her advisors S/he would be an easy target for manipulation and the country would be subject to deception at the highest levels as a result. I hope Mayor Pete takes his moment of fame and goes home in short order.

Joe Biden still has not announced, and I worry that this delay does not bode well for his chances. If he is hoping for some behind the scenes guarantees, I am surprised he doesn’t realize by now that there are no guarantees. Being anti-Trump will not be enough for any Democratic candidate, and if Biden is to win he must have the internal certainty and the fire within to run in such a crowded field with or without guarantees. His hesitancy in the last cycle, so soon after the death of his son, was understandable, but it is harder to rationalize this time.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both offer the public that fire within. Both have the requisite knowledge and experience to make credible claims of readiness and their policy positions have remained consistent at least more-so than most of the candidates. I believe their chances are rising.

At first I questioned their electability in a country that elected Trump, but my thoughts on that are changing. People may be ready to reject Trump, but there is no indication they are ready to return to the party of the Clintons either. Bernie and Elizabeth may be able to win over the Obama then Trump voters who clearly seek change, but found the change Trump has offered while in office was not to their liking. Warren and Sanders both seem authentic in their desire to restore opportunities to the middle class and to hold the super-wealthy to account.

On Warren’s plus side, her rhetoric has lost much of its angry edge while maintaining its ideological purity. Warren in particular seems intent on requiring the wealthiest individuals and corporations to change their ways and pay their civic fair share.

Sanders’ message on the other hand seems more focused on the programs aimed at propping up the safety net without explaining how policy should be restructured to hold the wealthy accountable. On his plus side, I believe the term “socialism” is as unlikely to dissuade voters otherwise convinced any more than speaking of “while supremacy” scares off Trump supporters. I give voters more credit than that. Most people look past labels when they are offered policies they want.

Kamala Harris still remains a strong contender in many ways, but she lacks the long, consistent history of a Sanders a Warren. After an additional term or two in the Senate she would have a record of her own to run on. Even more important she would have gained experience which would help her to implement her chosen policies. In the current climate her gender and her ethnicity both work in her favor, but again believe the majority of voters are more clear sighted than that. I believe they will put personality (sincerity and trust worthiness) and policies ahead of gender and ethnicity at the voting booth.

Amy Klobuchar has a good record on paper but I just don’t see her candidacy taking off. While she makes credible claims of readiness and electability I don’t see it happening for her. (Sorry but I can’t get the icky image of her eating a salad with a comb out of my mind when I hear her name.)

I wish I could say that out of the crowded field of announced candidates I see other exciting possibilities rearing their heads, but frankly I don’t. For now, i think this is it.

The 2020 Democratic Primary - Take 2: The Cream Does Not Always Rise to the Top

Since my last post a few more would-be Presidents have thrown their hat into the ring, and I have had the opportunity to take a second look at some of the already running candidates. Here are my updated thoughts on the 2020 Democratic Primaries.

First, while I continue to maintain that Cory Booker does not have an electable national profile, I want to stress that my previous assessment was not meant as a criticism of him personally. He might be a truly admirable guy but I don’t believe he comes across as seriously presidential. He may have done terrific acts of kindness as Mayor and he may even be effective as a Senator, but saving homeless animals and entering burning buildings does not have a relevant parallel at the Federal level. No matter how great a guy he is I do not believe he would be effective atop the national ticket.

Second, Amy Klobuchar has started to lift her profile in a way that makes her seem strange on one the hand, but more serious on the other. I’m not sure how she will continue to evolve as a candidate but I wouldn’t totally write her off. The Dems need to win back some of the Obama/Trump voters if they hope to win in 2020 and she might draw some of them back.

Third, although Joe Biden has yet to announce, I previously believed he would be the most effective candidate to run against Trump or other likely Republican candidates, That still may be true. However I am getting emails pairing Biden with Beto O’Rourke. If Biden/O[Rourke is the ticket presented to the American public I would not be so optimistic. If Biden (or any other male candidate) ascends to the top of the ticket I believe he truly MUST place a woman in the No. 2 spot. There are plenty of credible and capable women to choose from. There’s not a single Sarah Palin among them. If Biden can’t find a women among the hopefuls that he would feel confident naming as his running mate, that would say something negative about him - and the party in general. Biden/O’Rourke is a no-go in my book.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has announced his candidacy. I feel sure he will be a strong contender thanks to his 2016 showing. Many Sanders supporters who felt burned by the DNC’s clear favoritism in 2016 may excited to come back and demand more equitable treatment this time. The fact that he has a roster of small donors in place doesn’t hurt. Some Democrats believe Bernie is not electable in the general, but many of them are the same people who believed Hillary would win in a landslide. I personally believe Bernie would have won against Trump in 2016, and I am not alone in that assessment. Still, it remains to be seen whether he can hold his own and rise above the crowd of younger folks running in this cycle.

Which brings me to the final point of this post. Common wisdom states that the cream will rise to the top as time goes on. But that is not always the case. The cream does not rise when it is dispersed throughout the batter. As Dems bake the cake for 2020 I fear the party’s electorate will be spread so thin that it will be difficult for the strongest general election candidates to assert themselves. While last cycle’s 2 person race was not ideal, a 10 person race it not great either.

I sincerely hope that candidates with minimal experience working in government at the federal level (e.g., people who have not served any time in the Senate) will choose to drop out sooner rather than later. I hope once they have raised their profile enough to help them sell their pet project (e.g., a book or a cause) they will do the country a favor and withdraw. To stay longer without a reasonable chance to not only garner the nomination but win in the general would do a disservice to the Democratic cause.

I don’t look forward watching the blood run on the Democratic battlefield that lies ahead but I sincerely hope that the best wo/man wins.

I Do Believe It’s Biden Time

The shock and awe of the mid-terms are over and the newcomers and returnees have taken their seats. Looking around the table the the group seems almost shockingly diverse but that is a good thing.

I was of course relieved by the results but it was not at all clear to me how priorities would be set for the next 2 years. Then came the government shutdown, which dragged on for over a month. During that month I was frankly too haunted by the fear that the government would NEVER reopen to worry about the 2020 election.

Thankfully that sense of impending dread has lessened now that the government is open (for now) and it seems reasonable to talk about policy and politics going forward. The non-policy priority for the party (as opposed to the Congress) is vetting the field for 2020.

Many have already thrown their hats into the ring or at least have their hat in their hand. (Too many in my opinion.) It is way too early to say who will emerge as the strongest candidate in the home stretch but I have a few comments I’d like to add now, before citizen Democrats start tucking their dollars into the belts of their fav.

Cory Booker - Please, nobody waste their money on this guy. He looks like the joker and comes across as hardly more trustworthy. You may love the words that come out of his mouth but he is completely lacking in the broad appeal that could get him elected without some questionable big-money backers.

Beto O’Rourke - Please - NO. Even if he has all the right stuff in terms of raw materials, he needs to stick around and work his way up a few more years before presenting himself as anywhere near qualified enough to handle the position. Doesn’t anybody besides me believe that experience in the Congress and/or the Senate (more than 2 years) is part of the necessary training which would prepare a President-elect to hit the ground running once in office?

Kamala Harris - I am concerned by her lack of experience as well, although in many ways I see her as a more worthy contender. However, this year more than most the Dems MUST consider how their candidate will play in the General election because we really cannot afford another surprise Republican victory. (I believe the lesson of 2016 is that you cannot ignore the so-called Independents if you want to win. Ms. Clinton should have won in a landslide but she is a divisive candidate, even within her own party.) Ms. Harris has an edge that appeals to the left (particularly the “I told you so” anti-Trumpers) but it might come across as angry and divisive to a country longing for less toxic political dialog. Because she is still young, I hope for now she remains in the Senate using her ire to fight the good fight there. The Presidency may come later for her.

Amy Klobuchar - This name has been bandied about and I understand why. She is smart, non-confrontational and apparently sane. When the 2016 primary was just getting underway I did some independent research on women I thought would make good candidates and I came up with her name based on her record, education and the fact that she hails from a battleground state. However, she is not a vibrant personality, although she’d make a great VP who would be capable of contributing and stepping in in times of crisis. Furthermore, since she does not appear to crave center stage I can’t see her carrying the top of the ticket successfully. If she remains in the Senate I am sure she’ll be extremely useful there.

Sherrod Brown - This name also is being raised. He is an interesting case. He seems to have a good blend of experience and policy consistency. He comes across as authentic but very low-key compared to many of the go-getters who have already declared. If he is timid about stepping forward it is not clear how well he would weather the slings and arrows that would come his way should he win. Also, I have no idea how he would play to the broader audience of unaligned voters. Should he throw his hat in the ring, time will tell.

Elizabeth Warren - This is one candidate I truly hate discourage in her presidential run but I don’t think I’ll be supporting her early on. In 2016 I was hoping Hillary Clinton would not run and that the Democratic ticket would be Biden for President with Warren for Vice President. Had the party run that ticket I don’t doubt they would have had much wider support than Clinton & Kaine. Not only that, they would have made an awesome governing pair, assuming that Warren had been allowed to continue her work on behalf of Americans who do not fall within the top tier of economic elites. (Which is to say, all of us.)

However, that didn’t happen in 2016 and for 2020 the climate has changed. Ms. Warren exhibits the same personality negatives as Ms. Harris. Anger was a motivating factor in 2016, but after the chaos and turmoil of Trump’s presidency the public might be yearning for someone more qualified but also less steam-driven. I’m not sure Ms. Warren would fill that bill.

Kirsten Gillibrand - I had hoped to feel more enthused about her candidacy than I actually feel now that she has announced. I love the fact that she has repeatedly stepped up to the plate to defend women’s issues related to sexual harassment and sexual assault (particularly in the military) and I admire the fact that she balked at toeing the party line when it comes to Bill Clinton. (I agree with her Bill Clinton should have resigned - and not just because of the consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky. Once inquiries revealed he had a history of harassment and there was a credible allegation of rape out there he should have quickly left - but he didn’t. I believe his actions diminished the standing of the party for years to come. His actions while in the White House demonstrated disrespect for the office itself and his denials were ridiculous. In face I heard a replica of Clinton’s denials about Juanita Broderick in Bret Kavanaugh’s opening statement about the allegations made by Christine Blasey-Ford.)

As for Ms. Gillibrand, as much as I like her outspokenness I’m not so sure her personna will play well in the general. She comes across as almost pleadingly passionate, but perhaps a bit too studied - as if she’s aiming her performance at a group of faith-based women activists. While the party should attempt to keep such women active and involved I fear her candidacy will cast too narrow a net and will be uninspiring to the younger, more culturally diverse population who MUST turn out in 2020 if the Democrats are to win.

Bernie Sanders - He has not yet announced and I wonder if he will choose to stay out of the race if candidates he believes in appear to be doing well. I am thrilled with his contributions to the democratic process in 2016 which energized young people to get involved with politics. I won’t say he shouldn’t run, but I don't see him as my top choice in the primaries, primarily because there are younger, more ethnically distinct candidates who share his liberal policy positions among those who have already announced.

Cuomo, Bloomberg, Schultz and other local politicians and business people - I implore you, PLEASE DO NOT RUN. There is such a thing as working your way up the ladder within any field, and any candidate who has never been a member of Congress (House or Senate) is simply not qualified in my opinion. Even if you are smart and your heart is in the right place (which I would question with regard to many of these individuals) the learning curve would be too steep and too much time would be wasted. Please do us all a favor and stick to your lane.

Which brings me to Joe Biden. I am almost surprised to have arrived at this conclusion but I agree with Biden himself that at this point he appears to be the Democrat with the best chance of beating Trump - or Pence - or even Romney or Christie - in the 2020 general. The fact that he is older is somewhat concerning to me, not because his age would prevent him from perform well on the job but because it might limit his appeal to a younger crowd. However, that did not seem to be an issue for Bernie Sanders in 2016. With the right messaging it might not be a problem for Mr. Biden either.

Younger voters should see in Biden a leader wiling to co-operate and collaborate with the next generation based on his role as right-hand VP to President Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi recently demonstrated that experience and expertise in the relevant role are important tools in the toolbox and the same would apply to a Biden presidency. Older voters (the age group who regularly casts their ballots) would be even more likely to see Biden’s experience as a plus.

Outside of his public record, his life offers a portrait of a man of character who chose public service as a calling and who has remained loyal to his family and his country throughout. It doesn’t appear that becoming fabulously wealthy was ever his primary objective. A similar nobleness of character helped propel Doug Jones to a senate seat in deep red Alabama and could help propel Joe Biden into the White House as POTUS in 2020 despite a deeply divided electorate.

I am sure there are nuggets in his long record of service that will make one group or another call into question his acceptability for the highest office in the land, but he has already publicly acknowledged and apologized for some of these mistakes (e.g., his behavior towards Anita Hill). Overall, his record is less divisive among not only party loyalists but the public at large, when compared to many of the declared and undeclared Democratic candidates.

Some believe that to win in November Democrats must fight Trump’s right-wing fervor with left-wing fervor of their own, but I disagree. Joe Biden represents qualities that are the polar opposite of Trump. He has been a tireless public servant all of his adult life -as opposed to a self-serving bully. For many who either regret their vote for Trump or regret not voting at all (thereby enabling Trump’s election) casting a vote for Biden could provide an opportunity to assuage their sense of guilt. If we want the larger pool of independents, leaners and ‘can’t be bothered’ voters to cast a ballot at all, it might be better to offer someone who can quell the turmoil rather than fan the flames.

Voters across the country on the right and left acknowledge that the country has never been more divided and that we must focus on that which unites us as Americans. Joe Biden as a candidate and as an individual represents knowledge, experience and a return to civility and sanity, qualities which we all should value. He might not be every Democrats first choice on their fantasy team, but he just might be what the country as a whole needs at this point in time.

RUN JOE RUN!

Movie Madness Caused by Vice

I saw the movie Vice this weekend and walked out mad as hell. I have seen the movie advertised as a comedy but it’s not. At best it is a grainy, gritty and occasionally funny overview of George W Bush’s power-behind-the-throne Vice President, Dick Cheney. I was not totally unfamiliar with the points being made about Cheney’s dark-sided manipulations of our hapless Commander-in-Chief, but the movie did fill in some gaps in my knowledge of Cheney’s pre-VP days.

As a movie, I give Vice a B at best. The structure and presentation were only partially successful, and although the performances were good (at times really good) I left the theater feeling angry and bothered.

So why did a luke-warm movie cause such a hot reaction? Because the truth of the Bush/Cheney years highlights the disastrous choices made (apparently) by the US electorate. From Nixon, to Regan, to W. Bush and now to Trump, I have a hard time imaging how such people made it into high elective office.

Were we really so ignorant or ill-informed or naive as to think these individuals offered our country our best and brightest hope? Or is the bigger problem the fact that large segments of the voting-eligible population simply stay home, apparently believing they can keep their lives above the fray and untouched by politics?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE - THE ONES WHO NEVER VOTE? DON’T PEOPLE REALIZE THAT IT MATTERS WHO IS IN OFFICE?

That is why I left the theater so angry. I cannot relate to a culture that believes politics is irrelevant, as I suspect many of my country(wo)men do. Politics may be nasty and phony and politicians may be corrupt and hypocritical, but elected officials will influence your life - and mine - whether you vote for them or not. IT MATTERS WHO IS IN OFFICE!

To those non-voters I must reiterate, you owe it to yourself and your neighbors to get off the fence, pay attention to candidates and policy and make as informed a choice as you possibly can. Then register your choice by casting a ballot come election day. If you can’t do that much we will all bear the consequences, and you should consider yourself complicit in the atrocities perpetrated by those at the top in your name.

IT MATTERS WHO IS IN OFFICE!

Kavanaugh Hearings: The Reason and the Result

First, let me state that I am glad there will be an FBI investigation into the matters discussed in the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. However, after watching Thursdays hearing play out in real time, I hardly think further investigation is required to arrive at the conclusion that Brett Kavanaugh is not fit for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The allegation of attempted rape made by Dr. Ford is quite serious, but it is far outside the scope of the Senate hearings to deliver a verdict on the guilt or innocence of Judge Kavanaugh when it comes to these charges. Nor were the hearings designed to conclude whether either Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford committed acts of perjury. Matters of truth, falsehood, guilt and innocence are not for the Senate to decide when it comes to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.

Simply put, the purpose of Thursday’s hearings was to gain insight into the character of the man who has been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the Land. By that measure Judge Kavanaugh failed to pass the test. One can question the veracity of his statements but his behavior revealed his character for all the world to see - and it wasn’t pretty.

The fact that Dr. Ford came across as intelligent, dignified and interested in behaving “collegially” (her words) spoke well of her character. In contrast, Judge Kavanaugh appeared angry, combative and emotionally unstable. Whereas Dr. Ford attempted to answer each and every question accurately and thoroughly, Judge Kavanaugh spent most of his air time evading direct answers and throwing hostility in the direction of Democrats. Even his opening statement went wildly off-topic and into the territory of non-sequitur when he asserted that the allegation of attempted rape (which Dr. Ford had discussed with her husband and her therapist years before) was part of a Democratic conspiracy fueled by revenge. If he is truly innocent, his anger could be forgiven - but not his immature ranting.

Where reason should rule, Brett Kavanaugh allowed emotion to call the shots. This is not how someone with a “judicial temperament” behaves.

If this were not enough to disqualify him, there is the question of whether he will be able to think and act independently while on the bench. During Thursday’s hearings multiple Democratic senators asked him if he would request an independent FBI investigation into the accuracy of Dr. Ford’s allegations. His oft-repeated response that he was willing to do “whatever the committee wants.” He stated this assuming that the only thing the GOP-dominated committee wanted was a quickie approval. It appeared he was taking the opportunity to hide behind the GOP senators at this confirmation hearing. Might he feel obligated to return the favor once he is seated if a case regarding executive privilege were to come before the Court?

We should all question the maneuvering of the GOP good ol' boys’ club and its ability to undermine the rule of law. As a sitting federal judge, Mr. Kavanaugh should have been able to form and offer his own opinion on the value of a full FBI investigation to efforts to reveal the truth. The fact that he could not/did not indicates his acceptance of his status as a pawn of the men who are attempting to move him up the ladder.

Thursday’s hearings were sufficient to demonstrate to all but the most hard-line partisans and issue-oriented voters that Brett Kavanaugh is not a man well-suited to a lifetime position where he will be called upon to render reasoned judgments on issues where emotions may run high on both sides — judgments which may affect the country’s future for decades.

Nonetheless, as I noted up front, I welcome further investigations into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. While they are not necessary to ascertain his unsuitability for elevation to the Supreme Court, they may influence the willingness of reasonable citizens to tolerate his continued presence on the DC Circuit.

The Trump Presidency: Nothing right. Nothing left.

Impeachment has been a topic discussed in connection with Donald Trump since at least the day he was inaugurated. Now, over one year later, many have been wondering what’s taking so long. It seems inconceivable that there aren’t ample legal grounds to take him to task based on the emoluments clause alone.

While an early impeachment, had it been successful, might have ridded us of Donald Trump sooner (no doubt a good thing) it would have precluded the investigations currently underway which are bringing to light the depth and breadth of control over international affairs being exerted by kleptocratic leaders. Maybe it is a good thing that investigations are continuing. However, the longer the likes of Donald Trump maintain their wealth and status, the more damage they are able to inflict. Which begs the question - again - What’s taking so long?

The topic of impeachment has been raised in the left leaning media and to a lesser degree on Capital Hill. The drive to impeachment could be fueled by public opinion, but the public is not yet there. If lawmakers and the press believe in the sanctity of their institutions I question why they are not working harder to keep the dual “I-Words” (Immediate Impeachment) on the tip of everybody’s tongue. But that hasn’t happened. As horrible as the daily revelations are what we’re not hearing is a direct and open discussion of the hows and the whys of Immediate Impeachment.

Members of Congress may wish to wait for the Mueller investigation to conclude before becoming proactive about impeachment. The case for impeachment would certainly be easier to make if either 1) the President attempts to shut down the Mueller Investigation, or 2)the Investigation’s final report reveals the President’s involvement in illegal activities. But there’s another problem for representatives living in the glass houses of Capital Hill. They are afraid to throw stones.

Both Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate know that whoever starts lobbing bricks will no doubt receive return fire. Once the bricks start flying and a full-scale partisan battle breaks out, who knows how many on both sides will be felled in the crossfire. Democrats who have campaign finance issues or abuse of power issues of their own, or who have an internet browsing history they would rather not see revealed, or who have clandestine relationships to paramours or business associates that would be destroyed by public exposure, are in no position to lead or join a charge against Trump on the Hill unless victory in an impeachment proceeding is more or less certain. Hiding behind the Mueller investigation seems a safer bet.

Democrats everywhere are no doubt praying that the Mueller Investigation supports impeachment and that mid-term election results leave them with enough of a numerical edge to guarantee a victory. Under those circumstances a focused push to rid the Hill of Trump would limit casualties on both sides. It might even be welcomed by the Trump-loathing sector of the GOP who would be happy to let Democrats do the dirty work rather than take a public stand against the current ‘head’ of their party.

Of course there is a huge problem with this strategy. Mr. Trump’s transgressions against the American government began even before election day, with his campaign’s connection to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and the damage to US institutions of government has only increased since he assumed office. President Trump is effectively dismantling those aspects of government which protect democracy and its citizens (other than Trump cronies) - not to mention the environment. His administration is hollowing out the legal system and the State Department. Regulatory agencies are being robbed of the people and policies needed to carry out their public mandate and instead are becoming vehicles using taxpayer dollars to benefit Trump appointees. Internationally, President Trump has offended allies and congratulated enemies while increasing fear of rash American action. Even at the granular level of his administration, the circus of White House advisors and staff coming and going reveals an environment in constant chaos showing no sign of stabilizing.

Whether in micro or macro view it is hard to point to things Trump and his political operatives are doing right when it comes to governing. Unfortunately, if this trend continues unabated until after the midterms I fear there will be nothing left of government.

Of Monsters and Men: Humanity and Humility - Part 2

Bill Cosby has now been convicted of sexual assault. He may spend the rest of his life in prison. Although sentencing and of course appeals still lie ahead, it seems like a good time to re-post my entry from November 23, 2014.

I confess that I feel empathy for Bill Cosby despite that fact that apparently he still cannot feel empathy for the women he assaulted. I suspect he did not then, and does not now, understand the gravity of his actions. The culture in which he was formed routinely saw women as objects to be employed for sexual satisfaction. Period. Their emotions, dreams and desires were rarely on any man's radar. His defense isn't just temporary insanity - it is cultural insanity. But times changed and he did not. For that he has paid a price.

Here is the older post:

Of Monsters and Men: Humanity and Humility (November 23, 2014)

A (wo)man is in danger of becoming a monster once s/he believes right and wrong is a function of what you can get away with and acts accordingly. Conscience and compassion become irrelevant concepts and humility is nowhere to be found.

Forging a society of (wo)men rather than monsters is no small task. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People who pick on people with less social status and/or less physical strength often get away with (fill-in-the-blank) for years. Given that power is always in play in human relations is it possible to create a path to success that isn’t littered with corruption?

That is hard to say but that does not imply that the powerful, whether it be Bill Cosby or Officer Darren Wilson, deserve a blank check. When a person with power is caught in the act of abusing that power consequences should follow. Often (though not always) they do. Powerful people can become powerless, and when that happens, people who have abused their power for fun or profit may wake up in an unfamiliar reality finding that the tables have turned against them.

Most people accept that nobody is perfect. However, most people try to restrict their faults to less destructive pursuits than drugging and raping unsuspecting women. On the other hand, such crimes are continually being enabled by the community’s willingness to look the other way. Beliefs are shaped by personal experience and Bill Cosby is not the first — and won’t be the last man of any color — to get away with taking advantage of vulnerable women. After years of receiving a wink and a nod for bad behavior while riches and accolades were being offered for ‘good’ behavior is it any wonder that famous perpetrators such as Bill Cosby actually believe they’ve done nothing wrong?

If there is redemption for Cosby (the kind of healing that keeps the admirable aspects of his legacy from being destroyed by his personal failings) it must start with Cosby himself. He must understand his own humanity and offer a bit of humility. Based on the number of accusations out there he should consider himself lucky if he is never prosecuted in a court of law. But the court of public opinion is already in session. Clinging with all his might to a public persona of perfection will only make his legacy crumble faster.

Fanning the Flames Before Mid-terms

As the first mid-term elections of the Trump era approach, all sides are gearing up to fan the flames still burning among their constituents. The hardcore pro-Trump and the hardcore anti-Trump voters will no doubt show up ready to cast their vote motivated by both anger and enthusiasm. The political direction of the country in the future, however, will be determined by cooler heads in the middle.

The Dems seem to be making solid gains in local elections which have been held since November 2016, but it is not entirely clear that the gains can be sustained across the country and at the national level.

I would like to think the election of Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama is a harbinger of things to come but it is clear that his victory came about thanks to his personal appeal. He was always way more than the anti-Moore. In bringing about the convictions of two men involved in the bombing of a Birmingham church which killed four young black girls, he had a prosecutorial history that all but the most racist Alabamians could respect. Roy Moore was accused of pursuing under-age girls while working as a District Attorney, whereas Doug Jones was responsible for bringing to justice men who were responsible for the killing of underage girls in a church bombing. You can leave “Democrat” and “Republican” (and also race) out of this discussion and the choice is still pretty clear.

Both parties are in the midst of serious rebranding efforts. Democrats have had to thoroughly examine how Hilary Clinton failed to triumph in a landslide over someone like Trump, and the GOP is having to cope with administrative chaos, kleptocracy and the assimilation of white supremacists at the top of their party thanks to Trump.

Paul Ryan’s departure from the Speakership is evidence of just how deep the identity crisis runs in the GOP. Ryan no doubt still considers himself a Republican but he wants to make it clear he is not one of “those” Republicans. Unfortunately, nearly two years after the election I fear Democrats, too, are not quite sure how to brand themselves other than anti-Trump. That wasn’t enough for Hilary Clinton, and it won’t be enough going forward.

Having witnessed Trumpian Republicanism first hand, it is possible that an anti-Trump backlash will be enough draw voters to the polls and flip control of the House in 2018. However, Democrats must be clear that the cooler heads in the middle look at more than than party affiliation when casting their vote. If they don’t see anyone worth showing up for in a given race, they still may choose to stay home.

The Self-Evident Truth of Donald Trump

The most exasperating aspect of trying to speak intelligently about Donald Trump is that most of what needs to be said actually shouldn’t need to be said at all. Pointing out the obvious seems like an exercise in futility. The insanity which shapes Donald Trump’s persona as a politician is so glaring that people who need to have it brought to their attention are likely incapable of grasping its implications.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: Donald Trump is a self-serving ego maniac who shows no regard for the truth, let alone precedent or civility, and who cannot distinguish between public service and serving his blood relatives.

I had hoped that Mr. Trump would alter his approach as his audience broadened from his hard-core base in the primaries, to the GOP electorate, to the national and now the world stage. Unfortunately time has proven me wrong. We have seen him transition from a primary candidate to a President-elect without significant change in his intemperate bellicosity. I am now convinced that what you see is all you will ever get; he is still the vacuous, ego-oozing hairball of a man that he has always been. (Now that he is President-elect I should probably watch what I say, but the unvarnished truth is called for in the face of all the twisted lies he spews.)

As far as policy goes, Donald Trump seems driven more by ego reactions and self-interest than by ideology. He has made for himself a nest of advisers with far-right viewpoints who may or may not have any expertise in the area of their assignment. However, it remains to be seen whether he will take their advice when push comes to shove. It is possible that the first time The Donald senses a personal slight coming his way from a particular advisor that individual will be banished from the inner sanctum. With his own world view devoid of information, experience and principle, The Donald will then be forced to cast his gaze about in search of a new source of (ego) inspiration.

Who knows what policy decisions will result in such an unmoored and reckless environment? People who actually believed Trump would be a friend to the disadvantaged 'average' citizen (of any color) should have been brought to their senses by his appointment of a foreclosure vampire to serve as Treasury Secretary. Not to mention the fact that Rick Perry has been chosen as the Energy Secretary, despite having previously expressed a desire to abolish that department. And, to head the Department of State Trump has chosen a man without governmental or foreign policy experience whose claim to fame is a career built on maximizing his wealth through continual drilling for fossil fuels without regard for the negative effects on the global environment. What do these choices say about Trump’s stewardship of the American way of life and the gifts given to all of us by the God he claims to revere?

Trump’s disregard for the political machinery that makes Washington tick means that attempting to battle his policy initiatives through legislative maneuvering is likely to be ineffective. The best way to limit his ability to do damage to the country and the world is to remove him from office (through impeachment) as soon as possible - if at all possible. I am sure there are people on both sides of the Congressional aisle working on that now. I wish them Godspeed.

(Of course the problem with that for left leaners is that the second and third string would-be Presidents are highly offensive from a policy point of view, but at least they are not bat-sh*t crazy in the same free-floating way as President-elect Trump.)

The self-evident truth of Donald Trump is that he is intellectually unprepared and emotionally unfit to hold the office which he is about to assume. As long as Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office, we can only hope and pray that the world does not catch fire and that the damage he might inflict on the home front will be curtailed by domestic checks and balances. I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

The 'Ignorance is Bliss' President

America and Americans have long been viewed by much of the world as ‘ignorant’. The fact that our country extends from coast to coast and exists between officially friendly neighbors to the north and south of her continental boundaries has given Americans a free pass when it came to understanding global events and conflicting cultures. When I lived in Europe I regularly encountered waiters who spoke 5 or 6 languages fluently, while in the US the formal study of language could be called into question. Learning to communicate within your chosen community was enough when circumstances allowed you to live your entire life within that insular world.

While Heartland America may not have sought contact with the world at large, global realities eventually caught up to them. The events of 9-11 reminded us that we are citizens of the world, not just of our own country. The rest of the world sees us even when we don’t see them. Nonetheless, when it came to fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan George W. Bush advised everybody to go about their business as if nothing had happened. One soldier characterized it this way: “America is not at war. America is at the mall.” Telling ourselves to ‘ignore what just happened’ may keep fear at bay but it won’t help us elect competent leaders. (Interestingly, the war in Viet Nam had an impact on that generation’s awareness of world events. The possibility of being drafted leant value to learning something about events taking place half a world away. Without the draft in place, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do not appear to have had the same broad effect.)

What we have in Donald Trump is leader who ascribes to the ‘Ignorance is bliss’ approach. He says he ‘doesn’t need’ daily security briefings. While he may be happier not having to confront the complexities of the real world I can’t see how that will help him govern. Do you want a pilot who has never been to flight school operating a plane? Do you want a surgeon who thinks it is preferable to just cut you open and take a look around inside your body before examining the information available through diagnostic imaging and blood work? If our government has been infected by the hacking of a foreign government shouldn’t we demand that our leaders make the effort to gather as much information as possible in order to remove the threat? For Trump to say simply that what happened during the election is already in the past - and by the way I (Trump) was the beneficiary so mentioning it is only sour grapes - is like finding a cancer on the body politic and ignoring the reality that left untreated the cancer will spread.

Not every individual who voted for Donald Trump was motivated by his 'outsider status' (his cozying up to white supremacists no doubt appealed to some) but I do think his appeal was broadened among those who prefer to view their options through an ignorance is bliss lens. If we say “la… la… la…” loud enough we may be able to drown out the voices telling us that the Russian government is messing with our elections… or that there is a pattern of abuses of power by police in many urban areas against people of color… or that sexual harassment is still common in the workplace… or that individuals are being targeted for abuse due to their sexual orientation or the color of their skin… or that the President-elect’s business interests may influence public policy in ways that enrich his family while running counter to the interests of the county he leads… or that we can't simply bomb ISIS out of existence… or that climate change is real.

The ‘Ignorance is bliss’ faction helped put Donald Trump in power but their approach cannot help him lead. Ignorance-based bliss depends on illusions. History has shown us that sooner or later the illusions give way under the weight of reality. Truth wins out in the end.

Choosing to Hope - And Act

The depression that followed the 2016 election was deep among my friends. Most quickly refocused on things they can honestly feel grateful for - above all, family and friends. There is always more you can do to enrich your life in the personal arena and the benefits are often long-lasting. The same is not always true in the political arena. During the last election cycle many of us spent emotional energy there, as it seemed to be the more pressing need, yet what we reaped was disappointment.

Now that the bubble has burst - and its hot air has been let loose to contaminate the globe - people of conscience have 2 choices: 1) continue to focus on personal relationships without investing emotionally in big picture outcomes, or 2) gather enough energy to start fighting back. I’m choosing the latter, although I seriously considered sticking with option 1.

I hear some rumblings in the Democratic party's upper echelons which give me hope that they, too, are ready to fight back - under new leadership. It’s about time that the DNC to open its eyes to the broad base of their potential support in contrast to the recent narrowing of their power network. This, I believe, is at the heart of the recent defeat. The Democratic power structure had become a closed system - diverse in its demographics but not deep in its appeal. The party was unable to appeal to ‘average’ citizens who are (or were) middle class, or who would like to attain ‘middle class’ status without blindly pledging allegiance to the existing DNC power structure. Liberal leaning individuals tend to reject authoritarianism whether it’s coming from the right or the left.

In the wake of the recent defeat and with the shake up of the Democratic Party now underway, it is a good time to once again get involved. The chances that your voice will have an impact may be greater when many are being afforded an opportunity to speaking than when the microphone is only being offered to a few individuals whose voices are all too familiar.

Given the urgency of the threat posed by Donald Trump not just to Democratic ideals, but also to the Office of President and to the country (if not the world) at large, this is no time to stay silent. I am hopeful an infusion of new voices and fresh energy will pull more people in to help with the political fight going on at all levels of government, from local to national. Choosing to hope is not enough. Now it’s time to act.

Talking Trump: How Could He Fail to Lose?

The public post-mortem analysis among Democrats has been interesting to watch. The blame-game played by Clinton loyalists has been predictable- Comey placed an anti-Clinton thumb on the scales, the right had been all too quick to point to Clinton’s foibles while ignoring Trump’s, Obama did not do enough, the list could go on.

For me the analysis of why Clinton lost is not tough. She carried a lot of baggage as a candidate, she represented ‘more of the same’ when people were looking for something different, and she lacked a positive message. Her personality and her rhetoric were not inspirational when presented before large audiences. (She does better one-on-one.) Her unwavering belief in her own worthiness came across as smug, making her seem oblivious to the very real needs of much of her coalition.

Hillary might have made a much better President than she did candidate but unfortunately we will never know. I believe low voter turnout is to blame for Trump’s victory. People who could not muster enthusiasm for either candidate apparently stayed home this time. Those who typically do not vote because over the years they have felt disenfranchised by both major parties may have also stayed home.

Under the circumstances, how Hillary failed to win is less a mystery than how Trump failed to lose. I believed most 21st century Americans would react so negatively to his various outbursts that the thought of voting for him was abhorrent. Personally, I take Trump at his word and the words he spoke disqualified him. I believe he is every bit as racist, misogynistic, and bullying as his own words paint him to be. I am ashamed and embarrassed to call him my President.

Still, I question whether all the people who voted for him actually agree with his stated opinions on immigrants, decorated veterans, Gold Star families, women who have abortions, and women he encounters in the course of his day. Some do I’m sure, but maybe not all. Maybe not even most. So why did he fail to lose?

Among the the people you know and encounter every day either at work or at play are likely some who say and do things that you find embarrassing. Nonetheless, many of us keep silent on their verbal transgressions and continue to interact with them because the relationship is useful. Some voters may consider Trump that embarrassing neighbor/colleague/friend that you tolerate in spite of, not because of, his outbursts. Trump voters may be counting on him to shake things up, not necessarily to bring his wacky vision into being.

How far right a Trump presidency will manage to pull the country is an open question. Some even question how far right he wants to lean. He has demonstrated a willingness to carve his own path, without regard to his past positions or other people's expectations. He is nothing if not a salesman, and he now has a different audience to sell to. President Obama is right to play nice with him at this point. It might be better to make him feel welcome among left-leaning Washington elites rather than rejected, in hopes they will have some influence over him once he’s in office. Paul Ryan will no doubt be pushing his case with President Trump, so it wouldn’t hurt to have a few Democrats also whispering in his ear.

Race to the Bottom - Revisited (reprinted from March 1, 2016)

I stumbled upon an opinion article at reuters.com that I wanted to share: ”How America Became the Love Child of Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump" written by Lynn Stuart Parramore and posted on Reuters.com on 2-24-2016.

A few pertinent excerpts appear below, followed by a post I wrote about Kim Kardashian entitled "Race to the Bottom" which was posted on November 16, 2014.

(Note: I wouldn't fault The Donald or adding "nothing" to the culture - he did at least get some buildings built -but his fame is less a result of his buildings than it is of his over-blown personality as revealed on his reality television show. Regarding his personality I find Ms. Parramore's analysis deft.)

Excerpts from "How America Became the Love Child of Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump"
by Lynn Stuart Parramore

“Trump and Kardashian have both acted as barometers for how far a person can go and how low a culture can sink.”

“The only skills required to keep the American public’s attention are self-promotion and conspicuous consumption.”

“Trump and Kardashian share the values of opportunism, image-obsession and materialism, but where they really rise above the celebrity pack is their knack for making oodles of money simply telling the world how awesome they are.”

“In a better system, those who take advantage of a rigged set-up wouldn’t be seen as heroes. But when there seems no hope of transformation, watching celebrities who float free from any kind of social responsibility becomes hypnotically compelling. Not only can you be famous doing nothing of value for society, you can even be president! How awesome is that?”

“Trump’s loud talk of building walls and roughing up those who get in the way is really the whisper of an authoritarian future where the freedom and abundance are reserved for elites who will protect their privileges at any cost.”

“The real wall will be around us — to keep us in our place.”

Race to the Bottom (www.citizenspeaking.net, November 16, 2014)

Every time I hear about Kim Kardashian or see another of her racy photos I have to wonder if what passes for culture in America can sink any lower. Kim’s latest bare-bottomed exposure does present a modern-day take on a prior iconic photo, but I find it hard to imagine that Kim was aware of the prior work's iconic implications.

Unlike Lady Gaga or Madonna, who also like to test the boundaries of public taste, the Kardashians on the whole seem pretty un-self-aware. They know they can market their naked assets and they do so, grinning all the way to the bank. They are concerned only with what they add to their wealth without concern for what they add to the culture. They seem as clueless and self-absorbed as Mama June but being far, far prettier and better off to begin with, none of the Kardashians are likely to suffer a similar fall from atop their television pedestals.

The question of whether a naked Kardashian is an objectified and exploited woman is often asked. Using the recent photo as a case in point let’s see if we can spot exploitation. It is clear Kim is thrilled (what exhibitionist doesn’t like getting a huge audience while being paid big bucks?), her husband is thrilled (I think he likes the idea that other men will be drooling over what he claims as his own), the photographer is thrilled (he gets some great publicity and maybe a good paycheck) and the publication’s editors are thrilled (publicity and sales both good). Do you see anybody here who is being exploited? I don’t.

At least not yet. Unless you expand your view to include the Kardashian’s role in the culture you will miss it. What about those who view the image or buy the publication? Who are they and are they being exploited? They spend their time and plunk their money down of their own free will, but I’m not sure that prevents the situation from being exploitative.

Women, in particular young women, may see Kim’s path and think their own path to success may be found in making sex tapes and posing nude. Maybe 1 in a million times that’s a recipe for success but most of the time it’s a recipe for disaster. Don’t forget Kim already had lots of things going for her before she stepped in front of Hugh Hefner’s cameras and throughout she had wealthy parents shielding her from annihilation at the hands of sexual predators. Young men are also being misled by the barrage of photographic garbage if they come to believe that having sex with women bearing (and baring) over-sized erogenous zones is the key to happiness in life.

None of this is new, except for the fact that in today’s world sexual icons get to keep more of their cash and make a few more of their own decisions. I guess that should be considered a plus but the message still sucks. Having an ass is rarely a woman’s greatest asset and striving to bury oneself in a crack was never man’s highest calling.

A Flawed Campaign Leads to a Gracious Exit

I just watched Hillary Clinton’s concession speech in full. I was truly moved. I have never seen her appear more genuine, more inspirational or more powerful. Despite my reservations about her candidacy in the primaries, I had no reservations about voting for her in the general. I believe that while she had to contort her soul to ascend to the top of the ticket she would have tried to make good on her promises towards minorities and people of all genders and sexual orientations. I still question whether she would have moved against rule by economic elites but at least she didn’t spout racist, homophobic and sexist language throughout her campaign.

With Donald Trump in charge - the biggest liar the American public has ever had to deal with at the Presidential level - I have no doubt that the rich will only get richer and discrimination and bullying will seem more acceptable. I am heartbroken that our society at large has allowed a snake oil salesman like Donald Trump, who peddles hatred as a cure, to ascend to the highest office in the land. What a sad, sad, day.

I hate to offer negativity towards our fallen heroine on this day of mourning, but I feel the need to speak out before the Clinton machine starts casting blame for her loss on Donald Trump, or FBI Director Comey,- or even President Obama. We should be looking at the big picture dynamics which have been in play since the start of this election cycle - which thanks to the Ready for Hillary crew started the moment the 2012 election was over - to understand how this happened.

Lets go from the present back to the past. Most recently Hillary’s campaign tried to go after FBI Director Comey for apparently interfering in the electoral process. However, pushing that button too hard could have caused the GOP to highlight the appearance of interference with the FBI investigation brought about by Bill Clinton’s meeting on the tarmac with Atty. General Loretta Lynch. What on earth was Bill Clinton thinking!? It was a totally bonehead move that reflected badly on the whole Clinton team. Talk about the appearance of interference!!!

That move only piled onto the problems Hillary brought onto herself by depending on a private email server while Secretary of State. She has admitted the mistake but that does not negate the damage done to her personal reputation by her own actions, and those of her husband and her inner circle.

Then there are the allegations of sexual abuse against Donald Trump - including an allegation of statutory (at least) rape against Donald Trump leveled by someone who was underage when he slept with her. No doubt the Clinton campaign would have liked to push that button harder, but to do so would risk bringing more light to what appear to be credible allegations of actual rape against Bill Clinton. We all know Bill has misbehaved sexually and with Monica Lewinsky and others, and attempted to cover it up, but the allegation of flat out rape has been kept out of the headlines when it comes to Bill, just as the claim of statutory rape has when it comes to The Donald. Obnoxious sexual harassment in public is one thing, but forcible rape in private, and/or sleeping with underage girls, is quite another thing. Most Americans find these actions abhorrent.

Of course there is also the on-going evidence of the Clinton machine’s cozy relations with both Wall Street big-wigs and possibly drug traffickers. Americans know that politics is a dirty business. But they also understand that just because claims have not been proven does not mean they are not credible. The public wants more from their candidates than words when it comes to cleaning up government.

Hillary chose to run as a 'status quo' candidate when the status quo has not been working for many, many Americans - and not just uneducated white men. Young people also know they've been handed a raw deal, which is why Bernie Sanders' populist message held such appeal. Although Bernie pushed Hillary's stated positions to the left, some may not have believed her sincerity in actively pursuing policies which would benefit them at the expense of economic elites, whereas Bernie had a more consistent record of supporting a principled approach to governing. More recent revelations of DNC manipulations in the primary did little to draw Bernie supporters to the polls to vote for Hillary.

From the beginning of this election cycle the Democratic establishment as embodied by the DNC pushed for Hillary’s nomination. They actively worked to discourage or discredit her potential Democratic challengers. The baseless attacks leveled by the Clinton team against Bernie Sanders - implying that he was pro-gun-lobby or anti-Planned Parenthood - made me ashamed to call myself a Democratic and certainly discouraged me from donating to the DNC. The resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not enough. There needs to be a major shake up at the DNC. The Clinton machine can no longer be trusted to lead the party. All of the Clinton team should withdraw from the political arena every bit as much as Mitt Romney did following his defeat.

When it came to election day I voted for Hillary. I held to the hope that once she grabbed the reins of power she would use them to curb abuses of power. It makes me sad that having become the nominee she will not get the opportunity to show the American public how progressive she actually could be. But make no mistake - the problems with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the factors which contributed to her defeat, all belong to Hillary herself. She was forced to carry the baggage of herself, her husband, and the Democratic machine that put her atop the ticket. In the end that baggage proved to be too much.

Personally I wish Hillary nothing but the best. She spent her life putting herself out there in an environment that was no doubt hostile to women. I’m sure she took it from all sides. Her efforts did, in fact, make a difference for the women who will come after her. I am grateful there was a Hillary Clinton and I’m grateful for the efforts she made.

Thank you, Hillary, for your service. Now it’s time to put your remaining energy to work in some other arena.

Follow the Leader?

The contortions of GOP leadership in the era of Donald Trump have been truly a sight to see. The opening round began when The Donald was forced to sign on to a loyalty pledge to assure the leadership that he would not hijack his base into a third party candidacy which could play the spoiler to the eventual GOP nominee. After some huffing and puffing DJT agreed.

Then things got interesting. The GOP establishment was forced to spin away from their top tier choices as poor primary performances left their campaigns crippled. While the establishment kept groping in the dark (pun intended) for a viable nominee, Trump’s loud and annoying base kept building. In the end Trump supporters did not have to break away to put their man at the top of the ballot. Instead they hijacked their party away from their elite.

The loyalty pledge has come back to haunt the RNC. What choice to they have now other than to support the GOP nominee?

Given that history I am about to say words I would have sworn a few months ago that I would never say: I have sympathy for Paul Ryan. He reluctantly agreed to take the House leadership role and now he is stuck - COMPLETELY STUCK - in the unenviable position of either 1) joining the lemmings in the GOP who are willing to follow their presidential nominee over a virtual cliff or 2) leading a charge against the likes of Donald Trump. He has chosen Option 2. Whether or not he can find a tribe willing to follow him in another direction remains to be seen. In the meantime, the moving swarms are interesting to watch.

The show runs through November 8 nationwide.

Seeking Justice. Demanding Change.

It is truly awful to hear about another incident of armed police shooting unthreatening black citizens. Terence Crutcher in Tulsa and Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte are just the most recent in a string of questionable killings of black men at the hands of police. When I see the images of protests afterwards I feel sorrow for the communities’ loss and frustration at the lack of progress in this area, but watching citizens take to the street also inspires hope.

I’m a bit baffled at how things got this bad. Don’t individuals who sign up for police work know that they’re entering a dangerous profession? I have a feeling a a firefighter who refuses to enter a burning building because they are afraid they might be burned would be driven off the force by his or her colleagues in no time flat. There are times when that might be an appropriate response but for the most part danger is accepted as part of the job. Some may even enjoy the adrenaline rush of engaging in high states situations. If you are overly fearful of potentially dangerous situations, neither firefighting nor policing is a good career choice for you. Think twice before accepting the badge because risk of death will always be part of the job. That’s what citizens pay you for.

Pressing for accountability should help bring about change. When officers understand that there are risks to discharging their weapon, just as there are risks to not discharging their weapon, they may start making different calculations on when to shoot.

By now citizens surely realize that justice is never guaranteed, it must be won on a case-by-case basis. This means the fight for tools which make convictions of trigger happy officers more likely is every bit as important as the fight for indictments and convictions in specific cases.

Body cams are one such tool. Although they certainly don’t tell the full story, it helps when there is a visual record of events as they unfold. Body cameras should be required on every officer in every major urban environment. Furthermore, if the on-duty officer has control of when the camera is turned on, any officer involved in any shooting (fatal or not) whose body cam was not operational at the time should be dismissed immediately without negotiation. Let it be up to partners to help each other ensure that the cameras are on when they should be. Transparency and accountability must apply to the team and not just the individual.

That leads to the question of who owns the recorded footage. Citizens must have equal access to view what is on the tapes. It should not take weeks, months, or court orders for the footage to become available. After all, it has been bought and paid for by tax dollars, and when the lives of both citizens and officers are at stake, equal access is not too much to ask.

Another tool citizens must demand in the fight for police accountability is the creation of a structure for prosecution of police misconduct that does not expect the police department to impartially investigate its own. That’s like asking someone if they abuse their spouse. The public answer will always be no.

There is nothing new to these suggestions. As another round of protests and discussions gears up and grinds forward in the quest for justice for Terence Crutcher and Keith Lamont Scott, let’s not forget to keep up the fight for the tools we need to keep police accountable.

Election 2016: An Alter Call for Humanists Who Believe in Democracy

This election cycle is off the charts in oddity and ickiness. The campaign of the better candidate has focused on the fact that her opponent is an out-of-control lunatic. (True). The lesser candidate has used his campaign to not only smear his opponent but also to repeatedly blow dog whistles that appeal to the worst nature of certain vulnerable sectors of American society. (Ick.)

I find it ironic that Donald Trump (the lesser candidate described above) says he will root out of our society and deny entry to the country to anyone who doesn’t accept ‘American Values’ while his campaign repeatedly calls on us to abandon traditional ‘American Values’ and engage in prejudice - if not actual violence. Freedom to claim as your own the religion of your choice, equal treatment under the law, and due process are ALL essential ‘American Values,’ yet Donald Trump is ready to toss them out in the America he envisions. Many of us would like to have a President who could snap his fingers and make problems disappear in the time it takes to say “You’re fired!” but most of us understand that Donald Trump cannot dictate the outcome in the real world. Sorry Trump supporters, the world is more complex than reality television would have you believe, and Donald Trump is no magician.

Hillary Clinton approaches the concept of governing from quite another angle. She hopes to maintain the structural integrity of established democratic systems while attempting to make them more functionally democratic. Some voters may doubt the ability (and the willingness?) of Hillary Clinton to carry through on her campaign commitments, particularly when it comes to protecting the lower and middle classes from the financial predators still controlling our big banks and large corporations. But you have to give her credit for this: at least for the most part she gets the rhetoric right. She argues that basic democratic principles can and should be maintained while the gears in the small-d democratic machine grind away towards change the edges us towards a better future.

So this is the choice we have in 2016. On one side we have a carnival barker named Trump selling nasty-tasting snake oil that promises to cure all ills - as long as you are someone who looks and talks like him and his friends. On the other we have a preacher named Clinton calling us to believe in the possibilities of representative democracy regardless of our race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Come November I’ll be headed to the alter. I urge others to also answer the call.

How I Learned to Love Hillary Clinton

Anyone who has read my prior posts about the 2016 election knows that I was not a Clinton supporter in the primaries. In fact I was hoping that someone else would throw their hat in the ring even before Bernie Sanders announced. My reasons for not being Ready for Hillary lay largely in her connections to the past - including her husband’s administration. I have also questioned her tendency to go with the flow rather than forge her own unique path, wondering whether as President she would be driven by vision or consensus. (When you are surrounded by short-sighted people, decisions based on consensus may not lead to the best path. Case in point - Iraq.)

Now that she is the Democratic nominee, not only have I accepted that she is the better choice (given that no independent candidate stands a snowball’s chance in hell in the current climate) I have come to see her as a leader. She is speaking more consistently and coherently about policy - on those rare occasions when policy is the topic. She seems confident and knowledgable in ways that appear totally Presidential. Compared to the ‘vacuous ego-oozing hair ball’ that is the Republican nominee (sorry if that sounds like a trivial way to describe a man who theoretically could become our next President, but that’s how I see him) Hillary Clinton comes across as downright exceptional in every way.

The questions now swirling around her health seem a bit beside the point. After all, JFK had major health issues, as did FDR. From The Donald’s point of view, however, planting seeds of doubt about Hillary’s physical fitness for office distracts from his own weaknesses in the areas of knowledge, experience and cogent analysis. The Hillary must be nothing if not tough - both physically and mentally. No woman could have withstood the slings and arrows of our misogynist culture if she wasn’t tough. Some people are sick of hearing about Hilary Clinton’s emails; I for one am sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s health.

Some Presidents have been said to grow into the Office after they take the oath. History may judge Barack Obama as one of these Presidents. Hillary Clinton is starting her growth early, as a candidate. Godspeed Hillary. I believe I hear Hail to the Chief in your future.

Catch the Wave?

I feel alternately optimistic and queasy when I imagine what a Hillary Clinton presidency will look like. I get a similar feeling when thinking about the Clinton Foundation. I do believe it has done some very good work. That’s the pretty froth that floats atop the wave. On the other hand, I also believe it has served to front some very questionable political and business practices that undermine the development of healthy societies. That’s the hidden but treacherous undertow. Nobody really knows where all the undercurrents are flowing, and what they are dragging in their path.

A Hillary Clinton presidency will likely be the same kind of wave. She will always stand out as the first female President and if she gets a supportive Congress she may gain a progressive legislative legacy to add to her title. I hope she succeeds on that front.

Beyond gender, whether a Hillary Clinton presidency is viewed by history as a success will depend largely on who she chooses as her advisors. Dear Madam Soon-to-be-President, please choose carefully in this regard. I hope your team stays focused on policy goals, not simply on getting something - anything - on the books. I hope you surround yourself with people who can recognize good ideas, wherever they come from. And I also hope your team is creative and flexible enough to constantly reassess and help the administration adjust course as needed.

One decision that must be made early on in a Hillary Clinton presidency is to determine the fate of the Clinton Foundation. If Hillary should become the US President it would be wise to close it down. Ties to the sitting US President, both symbolic and functional, must be eliminated. What has gone on in the past beneath the surface will never be fully revealed - but that’s not really the point. Going forward, however, if there are doubts about who is helping Hillary Clinton steer the ship, it will call into question both her motivation and theirs.

So please, Madam Soon-to-be President, shut down the Clinton Foundation as rapidly as functionally possible. Let it re-form under another label to continue its worthwhile functions. Like it or not, the same currents of influence may continue to function in the hidden undertow, but if the Foundation’s purpose is truly charitable (rather than political or as an ego legacy) why would Presidents Clinton object to removing their name? If, when, and how this is done could set the public tone for a Hillary Clinton administration.

This could be the first big test of Hillary Clinton’s judgment as President. I hope she decides to do right by the Office. Given the potential for abuse, removing the even the appearance of conflict of interest is a step in the right direction.

Donald Trump: A Man of Unlimited Potential

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”
-- Albert Einstein

The Donald Trump emerging as the Primary season ends and the General campaign begins is not the Donald Trump I expected to see. I knew his basic narcism would be ever-present. It is no surprise that he frames every issue, every event, in terms of his own relationship to it. “I was right.” “I told you so.” “This will be great for me.” These phrases will forever be part of Donald Trump’s go to lexicon.

However, I thought The Donald would be lighter on his feet when it comes to positioning himself within the mindset of the electorate-at-large. In the past he has moderated his positions and his speech as he moved from the stage at one of his rallies to the interviewee’s chair on a major news network. I anticipated something similar happening as he moved out of the primaries and into the general. I thought he would realize that he needs a different audience to do well come November, and, I thought he would be nimble enough to accomplish a pivot to the center in pursuit of this goal. Boy was I wrong.

Apparently The Donald doesn’t know how to play to a broader audience. Either that, or he doesn’t understand that the frenzied crowds at his rallies will not, by themselves, bring him more than a humiliating defeat at the hands of Crooked Hillary (as he likes to describe his opponent). His missteps keep getting wider and wider off the mark. His statements are so absurd that erasing them from voters’ memories will not possible. Criticizing the father and mother of a decorated war hero (one for what he said, the other for what she did not say) is the latest example of the Trump hot-air machine releasing toxic fumes which send the vast majority of patriotic Americans running in the other direction. I’d be surprised if it is the last.

The sliver lining of the Trump candidacy is that it may actually help moderate and left of center candidates up and down the ticket. If Trump is the standard-bearer of the Republican Party, the Party itself will suffer. For that I am grateful.

Can You Hear the Trumpettes?

Allegations have surfaced that Donald Trump has a taste for raping underage girls. Apparently very young girls have been taken in by force - or enticed by the trappings of his wealth - and have end up notches on Donald Trump’s headboard.

This comes as no surprise. It is obvious he prefers to surround himself with individuals either unwilling or unable to stand up to him. Young girls would certainly fit that bill. Some may have found their way in life and eventually categorized the encounter as a stepping stone on life’s journey. But others have lived to label it for what it is - child abuse. One of them has decided to speak up and has filed a law suit. I applaud her courage and wish her success in the courts.

Trump supporters who believe Donald Trump actually speaks for them and supports causes that will further their lot in life should look closely at the child abuse charges. Trump’s boundless narcissism is nurtured by his personal fortune. His wealth allows him to function in fantasy land where everyone he encounters is simply a prop to be used for his personal purposes, whether based in business or in pleasure. His own children may be an exception because they are in fact a piece of him, but he grants personhood almost nobody else. The electorate is there to serve him, not the other way around.

Voters must not be swayed by The Donald’s promises or the mirage he creates in his immediate environment. He is simply a user. He serves his own purposes - period. The rest of the world be damned.

Is Brexit the Capitalist Equivalent of the Fall of The Berlin Wall?

I remember vividly when the Berlin Wall came down. Everybody was shocked. The world had changed over night. The sand castles built under the old world order were either washed away or damaged. The project of crafting new structures around the world stable enough to sustain social order for the long haul is an unfinished project.

I wonder if the West wasn’t a bit too emboldened by the Fall of the Wall. Perhaps the continuing instability is the result - at least in part - of Western over-reach. It is true that populations in the East had had enough of Soviet-style repression, but that does not mean they will tolerate forever the unfettered predatory capitalism preferred by the West.

Before the Wall fell, the balance of power between the West and the East maintained a certain stable, if unequal, peace for many years. Over time however the pressures brought to bear on the system by those who felt oppressed forced a change. The economic imbalance present today is creating a similar tension. The haves and the have—nots are increasingly being shuttled into one camp or another. The have-nots are unlikely to accept forever the role they are being offered in “free” Western-style society.

What happened to the USSR is that it split apart. Control of territories decentralized. Russia is still a player, but it plays with a reduced hand. The Western capitalist order should be looking closely at this history. Might the shattering of empires be prevented if rulers were to take a more granular look at the lives of those they control? This might be an unanswerable question, but it’s one that should be asked. The globalization train may have already left the station but it is traveling so haphazardly that cars are running off the rails. It’s time for the Conductors to take notice.

Break It 'Til You Make It

The Brexit vote IS a shocker. i am not surprised the vote was close but I am surprised the scales ultimately tipped in favor of the UK exiting the EU. Even those who voted to leave may regret jumping on that bandwagon but it appears the damage is done.

What confounds me even more than the Brexit vote is the cluelessness of the powerful across the developed Western world. They don’t understand how the ‘common (wo)man’ can vote against their own self interest, knowing that as economies fail, everyone hurts more. What the ‘common (wo)man’ can’t understand is why elites don’t recognize that the hoarding of wealth at the top has social and political consequences. Why is it up to the masses to vote to maintain a system that is abusing them? Why shouldn’t the masses expect elites to voluntarily change the system to produce a better quality of life for all, knowing that they (the elites) are in fact dependent on the co-operation of everyday people? Aren’t elites failing to act in their own self interest as well?

Policy makers who feel comfortable and secure in the knowledge that their daily needs will continue to be met typically view the economy in aggregate terms. ‘The economy’ is a collection of statistics without a human face. For individuals living in the economy it is a different story. When an individual has seen his or her comfort and security deteriorate as part of a global trend and remain unimproved as elites proclaim ‘the economy’ is improving, and when young people fear that their prospects for a secure future with a fulfilling career and sufficient income to raise a family are dim, despite the supposedly improving economic outlook, these individuals stop caring how ‘the economy’ (as defined by elites) performs. Once the system ‘breaks’ them, they don’t care if the system breaks.

Why are the political powers that be surprised by this sentiment?

Nonetheless, the vote to exit is a shocker because of its boldness. Most people prefer the hell they know. It says quite a lot about the extent of everyday misery that UK citizens have chosen to go it alone. The next chapter will be a nail biter.

It’s Official - She’s Over the Hill. The Question is What Lies Ahead?

I heard Hilary’s acknowledgement speech as she spoke before a seemingly homogenous and adoring audience after having been declared the ‘presumptive Democratic candidate’ by the press. I felt unexpectedly warm and fuzzy listening to her. I was genuinely happy for her that her dream was one step closer to being fulfilled.

It was clear how much this primary victory meant to her. It is the pinnacle thus far of her ambition driven life, and may only be topped by her inauguration as President - God willing. Congratulations are due. It is no small feat. Well done Hillary. You have reason to be proud of yourself.

Should she be elected I have no doubt the country will be better off than it would be with Donald Trump and I have no doubt she will serve the country better as President than many of the men who have preceded her. Both the esteemed Ronald Regan and the disgraced George W. Bush come to mind. I had to ask myself why I have been so aggravated by her candidacy, but once I asked myself the question, the answer was obvious.

Hillary sits atop a Democratic machine that has failed to prevent the country from drifting ever closer to authoritarian oligarchy, where there are only rich and poor and the ladders of opportunity have been removed. Democratic elites have seemed not merely accepting of this as inevitable, they appear to have been complicit in the accomplishment of this inegalitarian drift. Hillary carries not only her own personal baggage, she carries the baggage of the same Democratic machine that was in power nearly a quarter of a century ago when her husband was elected. She is tied to the past in so many ways yet as a country we must find ways to press ahead.

While “Make America Great Again” is a not-so-patriotic slap at all the powers that be, if Hillary truly believes that today’s America is A OK without significant re-prioritization of government focus and ‘expenditures’ (counting tax breaks as expenditures) then she is seriously out of touch. A problem can’t be fixed if it can’t be acknowledged. The country should be grateful to Bernie Sanders, and maybe even to Donald Trump, for helping the Democratic Party to come to grips with this reality.

With Hillary, the mere fact that she is a woman is supposed to assure us her election will represent progress. However, in recent years there have been no laws against electing a woman so her election will leave a slim legacy unless it is followed by significant legislative progress. Unfortunately, that is not what Hillary is promising. She is running on ‘incremental change’ - which sounds a lot like ‘status quo’ to many. She is a candidate tied to a deeply flawed history, sitting atop a creaky political machine, and instead of suggesting that we attempt a leap forward she is offering to guide us as we continue to crawl on a slippery slope.

As much as Hillary wanted the Democratic nomination as part of her personal narrative, and some women wanted it for the vicarious thrill, the country might have been better served by a politician unassociated with the status quo. Barak Obama was just such a candidate in 2008. He was a young, inspiring, relative newcomer. After two terms in office he has earned the hero label for having saved us from total collapse after the economic crisis, taking us a significant step closer to universal health care coverage, and opening the doors to equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community by his executive action regarding gays in the military. Barack Obama will always represent progress in so many ways, not simply because he is the first African American elected as our President.

This time around Democratic hopes rest with Hillary. Barring a scandalous development that cracks open the field once more, it appears likely she will out-gun the wacko Trump in the general and become the first woman President. (In my heart-of-hearts I still believe no sane American would go to the polls to vote FOR that vacuous, ego-oozing, hairball of a guy, although I fear some might pull the lever for him as the ‘anti-Hillary.’)

Assuming a Clinton victory in the general, the question still remains: What we should expect of a Hillary Clinton presidency? Her vision of herself as President no doubt sustained her in the primary battle and will no doubt continue to drive her in the general, but once her vision of herself as President has been fulfilled, what will motivate her? What will be her vision for the country? Can she move us off the rightward drift of the past few decades and steer us towards a nation that fulfills it’s promises not only to the wealthy but to all of it’s citizens?

It’s time for Hillary to dream in these terms and start filling in the policy blanks so voters will have more to vote for than the ‘anti-Trump’. I want Hillary’s legacy to will rest on more than her gender.

Donald Trump and The Purpose of His Pandering

Recent video of Trump speaking to his riled up crowds and being thrilled when he riles them up further - even to the point of violence - is shocking to most of us. The words and the images are horrendous - far beyond the norm for ‘mainstream’ politics. We all know politics is a nasty business but usually the punches aren’t thrown in public with the candidate’s blessing. Not until now anyway.

It is clear that what is happening in the crowd is a reaction to what is happening to the crowd. The crowd is being egged on, you might even say incited, to violence. Fury can be whipped up by a charismatic leader, and much to my surprise Trump has proven to be charismatic to some. He knows how to play to a crowd and he delights in doing so.

Still, I have to ask myself “Why?” While Trump has always been obnoxious, until recently he was not known for voicing inherently violent political rhetoric. His positions have not even been ideologically driven or consistent over the years and his political pronouncements have not been nearly so aggressive. He claims to have entered politics to “Make America Great Again” but his rallies showcase America going from bad to worse. What is Trump up to anyway?

I wonder if Donald Trump’s intentions were initially primarily political. I suspect he wanted publicity, first and foremost. The fact that his campaign has taken off may be a bit of a surprise to him - as it was to the media. However, success breeds success and his train has long since left the station with the media circus onboard. The feedback loop of spectacle, media hype and over the top behavior has reinforced not only his popularity but also his ego. The Trump phenomenon is on an upward spiral with no end in sight - at least not before the end of the primary season.

But did he have to turn towards violence at his rallies? Rachel Maddow is right. He has been ratcheting up the hate speech in recent weeks, fully aware of what he’s doing. But is this part of a grand plan? He doesn’t usually come across as hot headed and violent in one-on-one media interviews. Who is the ‘real’ Donald Trump? I think the Donald Trump we see at his rallies is simply an egotist playing to the crowd in front of him, just as he will play to an interviewer when he’s in that environment. He’s found out where the audiences' buttons are and he enjoys pushing them to get a reaction. At his rallies he is being fed by the emotional response he’s getting as he disparages protesters, immigrants, Muslims and others. The more intense the reaction, the more of a charge he feels, so the rhetoric escalates.

From what I see, I suspect the purpose of Trump’s pandering is more egotistical than political. I believe he is less interested in moving the country towards a specific and narrowly defined set of policy goals than he is about moving himself along a particular power trajectory. This does not make the violent atmosphere at his rallies any less disturbing but it does cast it in a different light. Because Trump’s fervor is not purely ideological in nature, once he enters the general election cycle (assuming he is victorious in the primary) he will have to consider a broader audience. He will want to appeal to a sufficiently large swath of the population to win- because losing is bad for the ego. He will no doubt need to locate different buttons to push if he wants to gain any advantage over his Democratic rival. I expect his rhetoric, his demeanor and perhaps even his policy proposals will become more moderate. Either that or he will soon flame out and rapidly lose credibility.

While Donald Trump as the GOP candidate in 2016 would certainly be an embarrassment for the country in the eyes of the world, it may not be as terrifying in its long-term aftereffects as one mght expect from his current campaign. Just as the electorate at large could not swallow Sarah Palin in the No. 2 position, they won’t be able to swallow Donald Trump at No. 1. Once Donald Trump’s charismatic fires have been extinguished, a disappointed Donald will probably attempt a return to reality television - this time on an obscure network - where no doubt he will find his audience waiting.

Race to the Bottom - Revisited

I stumbled upon an opinion article at reuters.com that I wanted to share: ”How America Became the Love Child of Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump" written by Lynn Stuart Parramore and posted on Reuters.com on 2-24-2016.

A few pertinent excerpts appear below, followed by a post I wrote about Kim Kardashian entitled "Race to the Bottom" which was posted on November 16, 2014.

(Note: I wouldn't fault The Donald or adding "nothing" to the culture - he did at least get some buildings built -but his fame is less a result of his buildings than it is of his over-blown personality as revealed on his reality television show. Regarding his personality I find Ms. Parramore's analysis deft.)

Excerpts from "How America Became the Love Child of Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump"
by Lynn Stuart Parramore

“Trump and Kardashian have both acted as barometers for how far a person can go and how low a culture can sink.”

“The only skills required to keep the American public’s attention are self-promotion and conspicuous consumption.”

“Trump and Kardashian share the values of opportunism, image-obsession and materialism, but where they really rise above the celebrity pack is their knack for making oodles of money simply telling the world how awesome they are.”

“In a better system, those who take advantage of a rigged set-up wouldn’t be seen as heroes. But when there seems no hope of transformation, watching celebrities who float free from any kind of social responsibility becomes hypnotically compelling. Not only can you be famous doing nothing of value for society, you can even be president! How awesome is that?”

“Trump’s loud talk of building walls and roughing up those who get in the way is really the whisper of an authoritarian future where the freedom and abundance are reserved for elites who will protect their privileges at any cost.”

“The real wall will be around us — to keep us in our place.”

Race to the Bottom (citizenspeaking, November 16, 2014)

Every time I hear about Kim Kardashian or see another of her racy photos I have to wonder if what passes for culture in America can sink any lower. Kim’s latest bare-bottomed exposure does present a modern-day take on a prior iconic photo, but I find it hard to imagine that Kim was aware of the prior work's iconic implications.

Unlike Lady Gaga or Madonna, who also like to test the boundaries of public taste, the Kardashians on the whole seem pretty un-self-aware. They know they can market their naked assets and they do so, grinning all the way to the bank. They are concerned only with what they add to their wealth without concern for what they add to the culture. They seem as clueless and self-absorbed as Mama June but being far, far prettier and better off to begin with, none of the Kardashians are likely to suffer a similar fall from atop their television pedestals.

The question of whether a naked Kardashian is an objectified and exploited woman is often asked. Using the recent photo as a case in point let’s see if we can spot exploitation. It is clear Kim is thrilled (what exhibitionist doesn’t like getting a huge audience while being paid big bucks?), her husband is thrilled (I think he likes the idea that other men will be drooling over what he claims as his own), the photographer is thrilled (he gets some great publicity and maybe a good paycheck) and the publication’s editors are thrilled (publicity and sales both good). Do you see anybody here who is being exploited? I don’t.

At least not yet. Unless you expand your view to include the Kardashian’s role in the culture you will miss it. What about those who view the image or buy the publication? Who are they and are they being exploited? They spend their time and plunk their money down of their own free will, but I’m not sure that prevents the situation from being exploitative.

Women, in particular young women, may see Kim’s path and think their own path to success lies in making sex tapes and posing nude. Maybe 1 in a million times that’s a recipe for success but most of the time it’s a recipe for disaster. Don’t forget Kim already had lots of things going for her before she stepped in front of Hugh Hefner’s cameras and throughout she had wealthy parents shielding her from annihilation at the hands of sexual predators. Young men are also being misled by the barrage of photographic garbage if they come to believe that having sex with women bearing (and baring) over-sized erogenous zones is the key to happiness in life.

None of this is new, except for the fact that in today’s world sexual icons get to keep more of their cash and make a few more of their own decisions. I guess that should be considered a plus but the message still sucks. Having an ass is rarely a woman’s greatest asset and striving to bury oneself in a crack was never man’s highest calling.

PH/AB Bias

With Super Tuesday approaching I really can’t remain silent any longer. I feel no need to keep my vote secret - I will be voting or Bernie.

The pro-Hillary bias among political and media elites is sickeningly transparent. I can’t stand to listen anymore to the non-stop ‘rally round Hillary’ talk that ignores the reality of her policy positions and distorts the reality of Bernie’s. The pro-Hillary bias is obvious and heavy-handed and it's based on financial self-interest - not the good of the country or the needs of future generations. Elites in the Democratic machinery are going with Hillary because they think it will protect their 401K’s. They fear if Bernie actually attempts to redress the disparities that have resulted from a rigged system their individual personal wealth might take a hit. As Bernie noted to extremely pro-Hillary Chris Matthews, funny nobody in the elite media complained when the middle class and poor people were getting the shaft.

Hillary herself rarely sticks her neck out unless it’s for political advantage. Despite her rhetoric, the fate of this country’s poor is not high on her legislative agenda. Bernie has shown consistency in his approach, even when the principled positions he espoused were not popular. If elites cared even a little bit about democratic principles or future generations they would be giving Bernie evenhanded treatment. But they don’t.

Let’s face it - the elites on the right and on the left are primarily interested in protecting their personal wealth - not the middle class or disadvantaged groups. Elites are becoming Ok with Trump v. Hillary because they are not likely to suffer financially no matter who wins that contest. Trump might come across as more racist and off-the-wall than Hillary, but either way we might end up engaged in World War III. Still, since the elites and their children won’t be doing the fighting it’s a tolerable situation for them. They might even see increased earnings as the military industrial complex amps up production.

I may be tempted to stay home if Hillary’s the nominee - or maybe write in Bernie. But, if Trump wins he’ll be an awful president. On the other hand, if that were to happen, if we can survive the first 4 years someone more progressive than Hillary might be leading the left come next election cycle.

Assuming the planet is still inhabitable by then. Thanks Exxon.

Why I Hope to Never Pull the Lever for Hillary

I hate to admit I’ve fallen into the “Anybody but Hillary” camp, but I have. Here is why.

She recently claimed Bernie is running the most negative campaign in history. The fact is, Hillary is running the most MISLEADING campaign in history. Her attacks on Bernie amount to creating FALSE impressions of where Bernie stands. He is NOT a friend to the NRA, NOR is he an enemy of Planned Parenthood. He is also NOT suggesting that enacting the ACA was a worthless effort, he just wants healthcare in the US to move even further towards the goal of universal coverage.

As things stand, the government does not have sufficient bargaining power to limit price gouging by the healthcare, hospital and pharmaceutical industries. Instead those industries are being enriched by mandatory enrollment and government subsidized premiums, and as the large companies get bigger and swallow the smaller companies, competition becomes ineffective at controlling costs. Making the situation even worse for the average consumer, it appears that diagnoses are being withheld from certain categories of individuals. This means treatments are also being withheld. Under this set-up, payments are being collected from everybody (with or without government subsidy) but treatments are going to only to those the industry chooses to treat. In other words, poor people's premiums may end up paying for richer people's treatments.

Hillary is not averse to misrepresenting herself, either. While Hillary claims to be on the side of those who find themselves at a disadvantage in the current economy, her policy positions tell a different story. Why does she continue to support keeping capital punishment on the books as an option? Capital punishment certainly does not benefit poor people or people of color - but it does provide a steady stream of litigation from which attorneys can profit.

(Don't get me wrong about attorneys! My father was an attorney. I believe in the law, lawyers and the courts. I also believe in multiple appeals when capital punishment is involved. But I know there are people in every profession motivated solely by profit who are looking for situations to exploit. This situation - capital punishment - needs to be removed from the playing field.)

What about raising the minimum wage to a living standard? Hillary wants it kept lower than Bernie. Unless you are a business owner (and most people are not) that doesn't help you. Keeping the minimum wage low applies downward pressure on everyone's wages. This hurts everyone in the middle and lower economic tiers.

And what about legalization of marijuana? Support for medical marijuana only - particularly when, as in New York, it cannot be sold in smokable form - is another give-away to the pharmaceutical industry. Keeping the recreational use of marijuana illegal presents another obstacle to poor people and people of color while providing opportunity for profit to the pharmaceutical industry, law enforcement, attorneys and the for-profit prison system.

Attacking Bernie for his position on gun control is another red herring. He supports controls on sales and limitations on the types of weapons and ammunition. Where Hillary goes farther is in her support for the right to sue manufacturers for gun-related deaths. So why does she go the extra mile in this case? Is this really the key point in the gun control debate, or is it more relevant as another business stream for one of her strongest constituencies - attorneys? Besides, although Hillary likes to attack Bernie for promoting policies that are idealistic and unattainable, I'd say her own position on guns falls into that category.

As to the idea that electing Hillary is good for women, think again. She attained her position of power in large part by hanging on to a man who as a matter of habit demonstrates disrespect for women. Sexual harassment and impropriety are part of the Bill Clinton legacy, and when his transgressions were exposed Hillary preferred to go after the women rather than adopt a principled stance. Electing Hillary would send the message to women that a path to power may open to you if you accept as routine the abuse of women by men. No thanks.

The Hillary I see is far more ambitious than principled. She appears to be a win-at-all-cost, conscienceless opportunist focused primarily on her personal success. She is a crony capitalist willing to put aside her concerns about the status and treatment of women or other disadvantaged groups. I question not only her motives but the motives of the machine that backs her. Giving her the nomination - or the Presidency - would further the goals of oligarchs but undermine the movement towards fairness that Bernie represents.

I support Bernie because of his POLICIES. The fact that Hillary's campaign chooses to employ misleading characterizations of both her policies and her opponent’s positions has led me to the conclusion that I HOPE I will NEVER be forced to pull the lever for her just to keep a total lunatic like Donald Trump out of the White House.

Bernie and the Beast: How One Senator Refused to Abandon His Post or His Principles and Eventually Became a Gem

Bernie Sanders is hardly a newcomer to the American Political Scene. In fact, he has served longer in the US Congress than any of the other would-be Presidential candidates on either side in this election cycle. He has worked his way up, from Mayor of Vermont’s largest city, to US Representative and then to US Senator. Along the way he has managed to pursue not only higher office, but also implementation of laws governed by a set of democratic and humane principles. What makes Senator Sanders different is that he refused to abandon his principles in a quest for political power. Senator Sanders has been effective and consistent during his time in office. His constituents are apparently thrilled with his performance, giving him over 70% of the votes cast in his last Senate race. He is a force to be reckoned with.

His allegiance to the principles most often associated with the Democratic Party is solid. He supports equal treatment under the law, fairness in wages and taxes, and he believes the government has a role to play in ensuring access to the basics of food, shelter, education and health care for all citizens. The fact that he has maintained a certain distance from the Democratic Party machinery by running as an Independent (although caucusing with the Democrats) might irritate the power players in the Party, but it could be a plus in the general election. His use of the Independent label should not blind the Party machinery to the value he brings to the 2016 general election should he be on their ticket.

However, there is another label Sen. Sanders has chosen for himself that may raise eyebrows. He calls himself a ‘Democratic Socialist’. For some, this term conjures up images of communist and totalitarian regimes, but to younger voters, who had not even been born when the Berlin Wall came down, Cold War scare tactics over the “socialist” label hold little sway. By definition, ‘Democratic Socialism’ does not advocate Soviet-style authoritarian control over all of society; instead it advocates ensuring the economic system is designed as a tool to be used for the good of the many rather than the few. To be clear, economic systems are not found in nature, and are always a creation of government policy. The system that currently exists in the US has led to extreme concentration of wealth in a very tiny segment of society at the top. With the erosion of the middle class, the ladders which allowed for upward mobility are being removed. Most would agree the current economic system in the US requires significant adjustment if we are to avoid becoming an entrenched oligarchy rooted in inherited wealth rather than a dynamic economy driven by innovation and production.

Using the label Democratic Socialism makes it clear where Senator Sanders’ economic priorities lie, but in any event, it is better to look past the labels and evaluate the policies instead. Younger voters are likely to be unaffected by the label and older voters (at least those outside the right wing base - which no Democrat will ever attract), may look at the issues and also decide to ignore the label. Older voters may decide to go with their gut and support a common-sense-talking candidate who believes that maintaining a social safety net does not mark the beginning of a plot to destroy America. On the contrary, many older Americans view safety net programs as a necessary part of the social fabric. Older Americans view today's programs, from Social Security and Medicare, and the programs of the past, such as the TVA and the GI Bill, as valuable to society. They understand that such programs cannot be abandoned if we are to provide the equality of opportunity we claim to value as a Democratic society.

All in all, there is not a single domestic issue where Sen. Sander’s position falls outside mainstream thinking among the “liberal” electorate (if not the elite) from reform of the financial system to maintaining the social safety net, from broader access to higher education to legalization of marijuana, from abolishing the death penalty to gun control.

When it comes to foreign policy, Sen. Sanders has been around Washington long enough to bring historical perspective to his decisions. As for ISIS, and the Middle East in general, there is no candidate anywhere with a principled position that can guarantee a positive outcome. At least Sen. Sanders has demonstrated his ability to make independent and fully considered judgments which have been shown to be wise in the long run, even when they fall outside the majority stance. It is important to note that his current rival for the Democratic nomination is proposing a no-fly zone over Syria, which I fear would put us on a path towards direct confrontation with Russia. Particularly in light of Turkey’s recent downing of a Russian plane, do we really want to draw another “red line” in that part of the world that we could be forced to respond to militarily should it be crossed? Caution is often a wiser path than bravado, despite the popular appeal of bold moves. Sen. Sanders already understands the difference, and in sharp contrast to the Bush/Cheney approach, he is likely to bring both reason and discretion to his foreign policy decisions.

Throughout his long political career, Bernie Sanders has refused to let go of his guiding principles. His unwillingness to fall in line with either party’s machinery must have been an irritation to many on Capital Hill. The pressure to cave and to join the mainstream must have been enormous. Nonetheless, he hung in there and on issue after issue, time has proven him right. He has a proven ability to lead by example and to work across the aisle to reach a reasonable compromise. The Democratic party would be wise to recognize the gem that is now in their midst. As a life-long Democrat I am proud to say I support Bernie Sanders for President in 2016.

Shot in the Foot

I happened to be home and listening (as I often do) to breaking news the day that John McCain announced the choice of former beauty queen Sarah Palin as his running mate. My immediate reaction was to email my closest political-junkie friend to say “OMG! John McCain just shot himself in the foot!” With the selection of Sarah Palin, the seriousness of purpose that had been the strength of John McCain’s candidacy was instantly undermined and overshadowed by the glittery audacity of his inexperienced, and as it turns out, uninformed, running mate.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t just John McCain’s 2008 Presidential bid that was shot in the foot that day. As I see it, the entry of Sarah Palin onto the national stage, and the fact that she was able to hold the political spotlight, marks the public beginning of the end of American influence around the globe. The country had already suffered the international humiliation of two terms of the George W Bush presidency and his disastrous decision to enter Iraq, but at least “W” had been raised in a political family and had managed to graduate from an Ivy League school. The education inherent in his background must have offered some grounding in world history and contemporary geo-politics. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was apparently both ignorant and uninterested in events outside her own state. Nonetheless, the GOP base loved her and she became the GOP recommendation for back-up Commander-in-Chief. Thank God McCain/Palin didn’t win.

Pretty soon there were more of her ilk swarming into politics and collectively calling themselves the Tea Party. The more of the them there were in the halls of Congress, the less functional that body became. Shutting down the government was (and is) more of a priority for this group than making it work. Now, nine years later, the GOP is in such disarray that they can’t even find one of their own willing and able to step into the 2nd most powerful elected office in government, Speaker of the House.

President Obama is dealing with situations involving China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and even allies like Greece and Israel, where the world community understands there are no simple solutions. Suggestions that America should match Putin’s - or Assad’s - crazy aggressions with aggressions of our own are not universally endorsed across the developed and democratized world. What is universally understood, however, is that the far-right Tea Party wing of the GOP has led the US government to a dysfunctional and dangerous place.

A country that cannot govern itself has little credibility as a world power. Given the state of affairs in the Halls of Congress, with or without Putin or ISIS is it any wonder that respect for America has declined around the globe?

How Do You Lead?

It depends on your purpose. If you are a model, you lead with your looks and your personality. If you are a singer, you lead with your voice and your emotions. If you are a scientist, you lead with your head and your education. If you are an artist, you lead with your originality and your creativity. So how does a television journalist lead?

In the Fox-ifed era of television news too often what passes for journalism leads with qualities unrelated to investigative journalism or informational broadcasting. Fitting right into this Fox-ified world, surgeons become political analysts, reality television stars become politicians and (who knows?) a Beyonce knock-off might become hostess of her own show on a political network. Of course I hope not, but you never can tell.

I used to assume left-wing media understood these differences and would not lower their public standards to Fox’s level, but sometimes I wonder. Looks are never unimportant on such a visual media as television but they aren’t what you lead with as a journalist. And while I’d love to hear and see Beyonce in concert she’s not who I want to hear or see in the anchor chair. A nerdy profile fits fine with news and information, thank you.

Please MSNBC, this viewer implores you to maintain a certain level of journalistic dignity and choose carefully as you move forward.

Women Are People Too

This post refers to the Saint Paul’s rape trial and the psychology of domination that is taught and encouraged at this school for young elites. In this case the young man is accused of a rape which took place as part of a school tradition called the “Senior Salute”, which encourages young men to push sexual boundaries with young women of their choosing. The young woman in this case (a Freshman) claims she did not consent to intercourse. She claims she implored the young man to “keep it above the waist,” however she was ineffective in stopping his advances. She now asserts she was raped.

C’mon guys and gals - why is anybody surprised when a young male with no history of criminally antisocial behavior suddenly crosses a line and commits, or is accused of committing, a rape? These young men are raised in a culture where they are rewarded for learning to ascend the hierarchy through domination (read: manipulation). They are trained to feel entitled to take as much as they can get away with. It is logical that the young men who have successfully mastered these lessons are the ones most at risk for taking things too far. Their behavior, even as it crosses into criminal territory, falls along the same trajectory that offers success and praise in their world most of the time.

The young woman in this case was also performing to cultural expectations. Young women are taught to feel ‘honored’ to be used and abused by “in crowd” young men. They are trained from an early age to respond to sexual advances in ways that flatter the young men - perhaps in hopes of ascending to a place of high status through their association with these creeps (I mean “young men”). Young women are also trained to be caretakers and to put other people’s needs and desires ahead of their own. Is it possible that in this case the young woman felt an obligation to keep the young man happy - so when he didn’t voluntarily take into account her preferences she allowed his to take over?

I’m guessing neither of them are actually “bad kids”. It sounds like they were both simply adhering to the mainstream culture even as this crime allegedly took place. Given the cultural climate it is not surprising that it was a while before either of them woke up and realized that what had happened is really NOT OK. It is also not surprising that women are typically the first to see that the current sexuality-driven culture when it is combined with a male-dominated and elitist hierarchy, is unhealthy. Women are the ones with the most to lose. Worse even than the risk of pregnancy, or the potential exposure to STD's, there is the learned sense of powerlessness that manifests spontaneously when boundaries are crossed. It is the sense of powerlessness that lasts well beyond the act itself and continues to inflict hame even after the physical injury heals.

I am grateful every time one of these young women decides to take back some of her power by speaking out. Even if legal justice does not come about for the young woman in this trial, women, and men who love women (as opposed to objectifying them) will likely believe her knowing that such events are all too common. They will understand that she is part of a movement to push back and to change the unspoken rules of the game. Some find the courage to speak up in the moment and prevent the trauma, but others find their voice only in the aftermath, after reason has returned. Either way, we owe these young women a debt of gratitude for adding momentum to the cultural shift that is underway and unstoppable. Women are people, too.

Dr. Carson’s Prescription for America: “Take one of me….”

Dr. Ben Carson is no doubt an exceptional man. If you need confirmation, just ask him. For the record, he has performed what some consider ‘medical miracles’ with his ‘gifted hands’. I also don’t doubt his sincerity. He seems to believe in his own vision, and in his ability to bring it about. He doesn’t appear to be simply attention-seeking (although now that he’s retired from performing surgery he may be missing the spotlight), and he doesn’t seem to be owned by one particular industry. (Of course I could be wrong about these assumptions.) To me, what Dr. Carson appears to be is a smart man convinced of his own ability to hold the highest office in the land and he wants to convince you, too.

Apparently Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and those who support them believe that the job of Commander in Chief/President of the United States should not require prerequisites or prior experience in the field. On this, I couldn’t disagree more.

If I had the chance I’d ask Dr. Carson how he would feel if someone who has devoted his life to watching medical shows on TV were to show up, scalpel in hand, and ask to join him at the operating table. No doubt he would protest that the very idea is absurd, the person doesn’t have the education, training or experience to participate in a life altering medical process. On this I would agree with Dr. Carson 100%.

But that leaves me to pose this question to Dr. Carson and Tea Partiers everywhere: Why do you believe that running the US Government is such a simple matter that any smart person can do it? Or that it involves no risk to life and limb when left in the hands of subject-matter-ignorant or process-inexperienced individuals? Or that there nothing to be learned from on-the-job experience while holding national office that equips an individual to perform effectively in the nation’s highest elected office?

Notice I said “while holding national office”. I’m not a fan of running state Governors or city Mayors as Presidential candidates because the Commander in Chief will be dealing with Federal procedures and Federal issues, not local ones. In other words, just because you have effectively managed a local restaurant doesn’t mean you have the skills to step in on a moment’s notice and manage a national chain of grocery stores.

Functioning effectively as President of the United States requires knowledge not only of issues and facts, but also of procedures and protocols, both national and international. The Donald and Dr. Carson understand their own fields - but Congressional rules and norms? International diplomacy? No way.

The problem with Washington is not politicians, it is ignorant politicians and politicians with corrupt intent, politicians who pledge their allegiance to corporate interests rather than the public good. Electing a political outsider doesn’t fix anything - it only sours the stew further. Voters beware. We're in enough hot water already.

The GOP Debates and the Fox Flim-Flam

Having cut the cord on cable television some time ago, I was reduced to listening to the GOP primary debates over the internet last night. I wasn’t able to locate and establish a connection in time for the JV debate at 5 pm but by 9 pm the link was established. Other than a few buffering disconnects I was able to hear the Varsity candidates speak, but even more interesting than the candidates’ answers was watching the Fox flim-flam in real time.

From the beginning, the audio from the room sounded more like the sound track to a low budget gladiator film than it did a town-hall style gathering. Given the distortionist, entertainment-driven approach that Fox News prefers I doubt this was coincidental. Then came the questions themselves. The first one was a flat-out loyalty pledge to double check who will in due course endorse the GOP nominee regardless of their personal feelings about that candidate. The Donald was the only one who didn’t promise to back down to the party’s eventual crown prince. Now it’s clear (in case you were wondering) that Trump is in it 100% for Trump alone, not the GOP. His answer might actually help him with voters, who are also tired of backing down from their personal views to toe the party line, but I wonder if the larger aim here wasn't to assemble a line-up of big donors on the GOP side ready to focus on taking Trump out if necessary.

The next obvious flim-flam was the selection and direction of the questions. With 10 people on the stage not everyone was free to answer every question. The moderators had great latitude in framing and focusing each candidate’s brief moments in the spotlight. Based on the moderator’s action in the first round of questions it appears Fox would like to see either Bush or Rubio (or both?) on the ballot in the general. A bit later there was an interesting exchange between Chris Christie and Ron Paul but the question they were given (which I unfortunately can’t remember - I should have taken notes) framed them as has-beens IMHO. Huckabee was handled in a similarly dismissive fashion, as was Ted Cruz as I recall. Other potential candidates (in particular Scott Walker) were handed questions that highlighted their shortcomings rather than being asked about policy on matters that will certainly face the next candidate. Dr. Ben Carson and former Gov. John Kasich came into the debate as relative unknowns (at least in terms of their policy platforms), and because they were allowed only brief and topic-limited opportunities to introduce themselves to the television audience they are likely to remain somewhat in the shadows for now.

On the other hand, the questions handed to both Bush and Rubio were soft-ball opportunities to say a few inspiring words. I call the questions soft-ball because everybody knows what the acceptable GOP response to those questions should be. (Blame Obama.) Even Rubio's ambiguous answer on abortion (does he support an exception in cases of rape and incest) may helps the party with the public at large. If the official party platform comes down strongly against a rape and incest exception it's sure to anger some segment of potential GOP voters, and if they support it wholeheartedly they'll anger a portion of their extreme base.

Bush and Rubio's answers appeared to be scripted right down to the bell - despite a post-debate Fox analyst praising them for remarks that did not seem scripted. Fox appears convinced that their viewers are gullible enough to simply believe whatever their analysts say.

Other than the fact that Fox appears ready to push Bush and Rubio at the expense of everyone else, one of the most interesting things I heard last night was Ted Cruz sucking up to Donald Trump. In a post on this blog entitled “The Answer is Lipstick… And the Question is: What is the Difference Between Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin?” (October 22, 2013) I surmised that if Ted Cruz were to run for the GOP nomination in 2016 it would be only for publicity so that after the primary he could command bigger fees on the speaking circuit, a la Sarah Palin. Given that Trump himself is in the race, fawning over The Donald and his approach at this point appears to be a move designed to enhance Cruz's future earning potential rather than his electability.

This early in the election cycle, in such an over-crowded GOP field, the candidates’ policy positions take a back seat to their general favorability ratings. Both Fox and the GOP machinery know this. Their concerted efforts will no doubt be brought to bear on the primary process in an attempt to bring about a preselected result. This isn’t good for the country or for democracy but “That’s the way it is.” as Walter Cronkite used to say.

The Inevitability of Uncertainty

When I’m told a particular outcome is “inevitable” the first question I ask myself is "Who is telling me this?" and the next question is "Why?" Answering the "Why?" question leads to a "What?" question. What stake does the prognosticator have in the “inevitable” outcome? All of these questions must be examined in the context of the situation itself before gauging whether an outcome said to be“inevitable” is in reality more of a likelihood or a desire than a certainty.

Certainty may apply to outcomes generated in a lab where conditions can be manipulated and held constant, but in real life, events unfold in an ever changing environment beyond the control of any one set of interests. Certainty rarely, if ever, applies in the political realm.

So enough already about the inevitability of Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. If former Secretary Clinton wants the nomination she has to stop imagining that her nomination is a sure thing and start demonstrating that she has what it takes to make a good President.

Using slight of hand to avoid taking a stance on controversial policy questions is not helping. If, as a candidate, she cannot be forthcoming about where she stands on policy disputes she is asking voters to simply “trust her” that she’ll make good decisions once elected. Sadly for Hillary, being trustworthy is not her strongest suit. If her goal is public service how can she NOT have an opinion on the TPP? or the Keystone Pipeline? As a public servant how can she not WANT her positions on these issues to be part of the platform people would be knowingly and willingly supporting should they decide to vote for her?

I would love to love Hillary, but I don’t. I fear she is not an independent thinker and question her ability to formulate strategies and policies once in office. Furthermore, there are numerous instances where either or both of the Clintons have exercised questionable judgment which, although not demonstrably criminal, taken together tarnish their public record. Worse yet, despite President Bill Clinton’s popularity (the country was riding an economic bubble without the drag of major foreign wars) he did not leave a legislative legacy that today’s Democrats can point to with pride.

I will try not to hold her husband’s legislative record against her, but her willingness, and her husband’s willingness, to use their status to rack up gigantic wealth when not drawing a public salary calls into question their priorities. It is reasonable to wonder whether she more interested in serving the public through elective office or in racking up multi-millions thanks to her elected status. It is reasonable to ask whether she is more interested in being an outstanding President or in ensuring HER name makes the history books by becoming the first woman President.

At this point Hillary is on top of the Democratic heap but her nomination is not inevitable. Anyone who tells you otherwise is grinding an ax on her behalf. Even her supporters would be wise not to fall into this mindset. According to an old saying the only thing certain in life is change. At this point in the process, the outcome of the Democratic presidential primary is not inevitable -- it is uncertain.

Chaos Rules or the Rule of Law

According to today’s NY Times, ISIS seems to be making progress establishing “order” in some parts of the territory it has conquered. Of course just because they make the trains run on time that doesn’t mean that both their ends and their means aren’t soaked in evil impulses. However, it does mean citizens living under their rule may daily experience a sense of relief. When routines can be established under conditions that offer adequate food and sanitation, people will likely turn to their primary relationships - their families - with a sigh of relief. To communities ravaged by battle and corruption that may feel like progress.

When, as a powerful nation, we enter into military action abroad we must be mindful of what we can offer people on the ground in the aftermath. We did not stay in Iraq once President Obama took office because we were asked to leave. The blame for rampant corruption in the new Iraqi government and the resultant rise of ISIS does not exactly fall at our feet. However, given the history of the invasion itself, we should not be surprised that local people, who saw US troops make protection of oil wells rather than communities their top priority, are not eager to let the US call the shots in the region going forward.

When a region devolves into chaos, ordinary citizens’ lives become chaotic as well. The stress of meeting survival needs rises exponentially as unpredictability takes over.

By definition there are no rules at play in a state of chaos. Once behavior becomes bound by rules life becomes easier because it is easier to navigate a more predictable environment in the daily search for necessities. Order over Chaos is a pretty easy choice long-term.

The problem of course is who sets the rules? If stability is to be maintained over the long haul, rules that offer fairness and opportunity would be preferable to rules imposed by terror and intimidation that also limit freedoms, but we have to realistically look at what kind of order we can offer a distant population after we destabilize a stabile regime.

Geopolitical thinkers often talk about controlling resources, access to ports, etc., and these goals may sometimes be accomplished in short order through brute military action. However, having people living in the region willingly support your goals is a much longer term project. To the extent that we engage with the troubled and chaotic Middle East, both the short and the long term picture must be considered. When Chaos rules, nobody wins.

A Time for Love, A Time for Hate...

I recall seeing a Doonesbury strip several years ago, around 2005, which showed an ex-vet speaking to his buddy about what was going on in the world. He was reciting the verse “A time for love, A time for hate…” and when he got to “A time for war” his friend interjected “A time for peace?” but the vet responded “No. Re-loading. Iran is next.” (Please forgive me if I didn’t get that Doonesbury quote exactly right, but I’m sure you all get the idea.)

American citizens should not forget that a pre-emptive strike against Iran has been on the minds of some powerful voices (primarily in the GOP) for at least a decade. For some the motive may sincerely be to ensure Israel’s security, but for other’s it is likely more about control of the world’s oil supply, just as the invasion of Iraq was more about oil than it was about weapons of mass destruction. We should also not forget that Iran has in its recent memory the 1980 invasion of Iran by Sadam Hussein’s Iraq, which resulted in a war that lasted 8 years and caused extensive hardship on all sides. Just as Benjamin Netanyahu sees Iran as a threat to Israel’s right to exist, Iran’s leaders no doubt view potential action by Israel, the US and/or other foreign nations as a threat to their borders and their right to exist.

It is important to keep this history in mind when assessing the value of the agreement recently reached between the US and its allies and Iran regarding Iran’s capabilities for developing a nuclear weapon. It is also important to remember that it is widely believed Israel herself has developed nuclear weapons capabilities, calling into question the idea that Iran’s recent actions could cause an arms race in the Middle East. Given this very contentious history the fact that President Obama built an international coalition to apply sanctions to Iran and ended up with an agreement which includes inspectors on Iranian sovereign territory must be seen as quite an accomplishment.

Consider the alternatives. A preemptive strike against a country with as rich and proud a cultural history as Iran (former known as Persia) would only cause additional tensions in the region and could well push even moderate Iranians into an anti-Israeli, anti-Western stance. As for the argument that additional sanctions would have brought about a better outcome, that is far from clear. While the sanctions appear to have worked, an effort to extend them could have resulted in either of two negative outcomes. First, the international coalition forged by President Obama might have fallen apart making additional sanctions by the US alone ineffective, or alternatively, continuation of the sanctions could have caused such additional suffering among the Iranian people that younger Iranians would feel increasing resentment towards the West for having walked away from the deal. In the long run, it is the younger generation who will decide whether Iran becomes part of the economically developed and intellectually free world or whether it remains isolated and defined by religious ties. Fostering a desire for co-operation with the West inside Iran is particularly important at this moment in history.

From Israel’s point of view, I understand that the rhetoric offered by Iranian leaders about the destruction of Israel is disturbing, but it must be viewed in the context of Iran’s internal politics. Playing verbally to hard-liners helps keep theocratic rulers in place. However, I believe Iran’s rulers are sane enough (unlike the leaders of North Korea) that they understand they cannot make a first strike against Israel without bringing about their own annihilation at the hands of the US and Israel's combined forces.

Israel is understandably concerned about covert acts sponsored by Iran that undermine Israeli security. However a first strike again Iranian facilities would probably not make those activities less likely. Israel’s best bet to increase it’s internal security is to put peace within it’s borders at the top of it’s list of priorities. There are no easy answers here either, but as we have seen in the US, using strong arm tactics against residents is not always an effective approach.

There are reasons for tensions on all sides, given that the region has been inflamed for decades in armed struggles for control of land and resources, but if people on all sides can see as legitimate the needs and desires of those on the others, it may still be possible to move the region towards greater peace through agreement and co-operation. I’m not talking kum-ba-yah for the sake of warm and fuzzy feelings, I’m talking about reasoned, self-interested co-operation. This appears to be what President Obama, John Kerry and his team have accomplished. Americans are ready to jump to Israel’s defense if it were to be attacked, but a first strike against Iranian facilities would rightly be met with skepticism. I am grateful that option is off the table for now.

Bailouts, Banks and Bushes

Today I had planned to write only on Greece (again) because at this moment the situation is critical and in flux. The significance of what is happening in Greece goes beyond the numbers. What we are witnessing speaks volumes about how the leaders of Europe think so it is important to pay attention as long as the crisis lasts. From what I see, the troika of bankers comes across like a conscienceless clique ready to abandon one of their family members (or let them in only to abuse them further) and the Greek people look like the child who wound up locked out of the house and is being forced to knock until their knuckles bleed in an effort to get back in.

My fear is not only for the Greek people, whether they leave the Eurozone or stay under the draconian terms set by the Troika, my fear is that the Troika’s decision to turn their backs on the suffering in Greece could prove costly to all of Europe in the long run. Unlike a single human, the landmass that we call “Greece” does not simply disintegrate and go away. It will always be at Europe’s doorstep and there will always be someone standing on that ground and knocking. Suffering citizens become vulnerable to predators of all types from bankers to criminals to zealots.

But enough on Greece, for now. I just read about Jeb Bush’s latest gaffe about Americans needing to increase productivity by working longer hours. The more I hear out of this man’s mouth the more convinced I become that cluelessness runs deep in this generation of the Bush family. This is good news for Democrats but strikingly sad news for the country that people of such cluelessness hold positions of prominence in the country’s power structure.

The problems in Greece and the problems in the US have little to do with citizens who are unwilling to be productive and everything to do with the lack of opportunity for gainful employment. Who does the US population have to thank for the shrunken state of our economy? I would say that distinction belongs most particularly to the big banks. They facilitated the growth of a huge bubble in the 90’s that appeared to make everyone successful, only to pull the rug out from under many once the bubble burst due to risky banking practices.

Greece is also being floated like a bubble by the banks of the troika and the troika apparently have no intention of offering permanent relief to Greece by significantly easing the country’s debt load. What will be left of Greece without such relief remains to be seen, but animosity towards those who could have helped but didn’t will likely remain high for years.

What citizens of both countries need are JOBS and by that I mean living wage work. I heard a woman speaking on NPR about how the retirement age in Greece needs to be raised because of the high unemployment rate among youth. She explained that there were too few young Greeks working and paying into the system to provide pensions to retirees. What!?! That may be true, but if there aren’t enough jobs to go around how does keeping people in the work force longer help the situation? I’m guessing the Greek government sees more danger in having large numbers of unemployed youth than it does in having large numbers of pensioners. Obviously the solution would be to offer more opportunities for employment, but austerity policies won’t make that happen.

Bush’s analysis of the economic situation in the US is equally off the mark. Of course now he's trying to walk the statement back, but originally blamed economic problems in the US on US workers, saying they need to be more productive. Baloney! The problems come from the fact that there are insufficient employment opportunities, not insufficient productivity once on the job. Once again the solution is having additional employment opportunities, but GOP policies won’t get us there.

If businesses, CEO’s and bankers would rather hoard profits than put people to work then governments should intervene. Our country’s infrastructure needs work anyway and that should not be done for the profit of a few but for the benefit of all of society. Government involvement in this arena makes sense. If a bit more austerity needs to be imposed on corporate profits and individual wealth in order to accomplish this, so be it. They will still be eating actual cake.

In the meantime, while the banks complain about the broken promises made by the debtors to the banks let’s not forget about the broken promises made by the banks and the bankers themselves. While the international banking system has had a few corporate victims, the system overall has been bailed out at the expensive of the societies they “serve”. This situation is untenable and far more costly than the relief being sought, for example, by Greece.

Without significant institutional reform the power of large financial institutions to bleed entire societies for the benefit of a few remains unchecked. It is the international banking system that needs to have its feet held to the fire, not the Greek people or the productivity of American citizens.

When Asked to do the Impossible It’s Best to Say No! But When There's a Chance to Stop a Predator Why Not Say Yes?

Once you start staying "Yes" when the answer should be "No" then you will be viewed as a failure when reality hits. (“After all, you promised….”) Of course there is the question of whether whoever is asking the impossible actually realizes it is impossible (or highly improbable) or whether they simply lack insight into what is being asked.

Greece seems to have trapped itself by promising to fulfill obligations that in reality were next to impossible to fulfill. Perhaps they thought it possible however in time they were proven wrong. (The shrunken Greek economy did not provide the conditions necessary for the original bail out to have worked.) Still, if the Greek people continue to promise the impossible they will have carved for themselves a place as Europe’s resident scape goat. Perhaps the Greek people see this as the least offensive option available. They have my sympathies if this is the choice they believe they must make in order to survive.

But that still leaves us to examine those who continue to ask the impossible. Given the devastation of the Greek economy after the initial bail out terms why are the creditors (the “troika”) not trying a different approach? If they continue to seek austerity as a solution when austerity clearly is not effective they are not asking for economic justice, they are looking for a victim or a scapegoat. By definition this is predatory behavior.

The US experienced a catastrophe of its own at the hands of either foolish or predatory bankers, when Glass-Steagall was repealed in the 1990’s and big banks wreaked havoc on the US economy. The acts of the banks were driven by greed, not by survival, yet they were offered a bail-out. The large banks (and the bankers) payed very little price for their recklessness. Instead the costs were spread throughout the economy hitting the middle class hard through falling home prices and shrinking job opportunities. Bankers preyed on the middle class and got away with it. The repeal of Glass-Steagall clearly did not work for anybody except the banks and their executives.

So why are so few politicians not calling for re-imposition of the provisions of Glass-Steagall which had protected US citizens for decades? Allowing this dangerous situation to continue enables predatory banking behavior to continue. While this issue is not on everybody’s radar for 2016, it should be. Predatory banking is at the root of oligarchic control in all of it’s anti-democratic manifestations. The public must demand that these practices be stopped.

To Greece or Not To Greece?

The New York Times ran an article yesterday reminding us that history offers examples of how debt relief can help a struggling country regain solid footing, and what can happen if help is not offered. Germany itself is a prime example. ("Germans forget Postwar History Lesson on Debt Relief in Greece Crisis" by Eduardo Porter). In the first half of the 20th century Germany defaulted on its international debt and in the wake of WW II the country was offered significant debt relief. German leaders should be familiar with the benefits to a struggling economy of relief rather than constriction and austerity or default. One would think that would make German-led banking institutions a bit more empathetic towards the current situation in Greece but apparently that is not the case.

These days ‘war’ between developed nations starts in the economic realm. Sanctions typically come way before tanks. With the Eurozone and basic European unity at stake the fact that the German-led financial power houses of Europe cannot see their way clear to offer to another European country a taste of the type of assistance that Germany itself once required in large doses is incredible. Does Germany see itself as being in a battle with the struggling countries of Europe and therefore feel the need to make an example of Greece? If so, why?

I realize things are tough all over in the wake of the 2008 banking crisis, but the attitude towards Greece of the troika seems unreasonable. Whatever the situation it’s good to know who your friends are and to understand something about how they think. Given developments in Greece, the belief that Germany is an ally to all of Europe and an advocate for European unity is an assumption now subject to re-examination.

This Time The Left Has All The Right Stuff

As far as I’m concerned 2016 should be a banner year for Democrats. The country as a whole is identifying more and more with the direction and priorities of the Democratic party. By now the ‘let business roam free’ approach preferred by the GOP mainstream has taken enough bites out of enough people - not to mention the environment- that citizens (particularly young citizens) are looking for another approach.

What the Republicans are currently offering for 2016 is a veritable zoo of oddball candidates - with a few entrenched relatively-speaking-middle-of-the-roaders mixed in for sanity’s sake. Nonetheless, it is doubtful that any of them can convince the majority of US citizens that the GOP approach to social, domestic and foreign policy will make the country better. (Bush III anyone? - I didn’t think so.)

Democrats, on the other hand, may not have all the answers but they appear ready for a serious debate on substance to be held among a small number of people with enough political and policy expertise to make their commentary meaningful. I for one, am thrilled to see Bernie Sanders doing so well. He has experience serving as a mayor, a US Congressman and as a US Senator. He has knowledge and passion and he has demonstrated consistency in his positions throughout his years on office. This kind of background used to be routine for presidential candidates before the cult of celebrity led to the election of the likes of Ronald Regan (leader of the modern trickle down approach to economic priorities). Hillary Clinton, too, has knowledge and experience in governance at the Federal level, thanks in part to her appointment by President Obama to be our Secretary of State. She certainly knows how to rub elbows with players on Capital Hill and around the world, which no doubt would come in handy if elected.

I would like to see Joe Biden enter the race as well. He certainly has all the credentials he needs on his resume, and he might be the most electable of the three come the general. He does not have the novelty of Hillary Clinton (if any Clinton can be considered novel) or the ‘in your face’ charisma of Bernie Sanders, but he has been a respected and committed public servant for years. Furthermore, because he has been Vice President for the past 8 years his knowledge of what’s what and who’s who at the highest levels is in-depth and current. My gut tells me he would make a great candidate and and an even better President should he choose to run.

There are also a few lesser-knowns in the Democratic primary race, including Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former mayor/governor/ US Sen. Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island. As a Democrat I’m not embarrassed to have these lesser known politicians take the stage with the nationally known heavyweights because these individuals are not simply celebrities. They might actually offer considered points of view that add to the debate. The fact that I haven’t already seen them plastered all over the news is a good thing because it indicates they aren’t primarily driven by the desire to perpetually land in front of a camera.

So all-in-all Democrats have a substantive field which will become even more substantive if Joe Biden decides to enter the race. The candidates as individuals are deep and the base of the party is broad. I am truly optimistic about the 2016 election cycle because I know this year Democrats are the ones who bring all the right stuff.

Bang for the Buck

The 4th of July is here again, and so are the nightly booms and bangs outside my window. As the big night approaches children of all ages take the opportunity to delight in the detonation of a few explosive devices. Last night was no exception.

The loud distant booms were one thing, but then I heard a series of sharp bursts moving down the street in my direction. I live in a college town and kids will be kids of course, but as the 4th approaches it’s hard to know whether the kids are armed with lethal weapons or entertainment devices. I was a bit too scared to venture outside to double check, but also a bit too sheepish to involve authorities given the time of the year. For this night, anyway, my hunch appears to have been correct. No harm done that I can see.

Still, it is a bit curious that what we appear to celebrate most about our nation are the war-like associations from our past, as heard in the words of our national anthem and the sounds of our national birthday celebrations. Some view America as the conquering hero prone to recusing the downtrodden. Some say what makes our country great is the capitalist system that offers unique economic opportunities to residents. Others say it is the democratic system that allows citizens to demand changes in policy without the need to resort to violence, using instead participation in the electoral process.

I find myself among the latter group who believes that the greatest thing about our country is the right to voice political dissent and to work through the electoral process to bring about change. But for those who value the ‘conquering hero’ image of America and see America as the land of unequaled economic opportunity, our 4th of July celebrations are perfect. There’s a lot of bang as we celebrate the $.

Hail to the Chief

These days I simply could not be more proud to have not only voted for Barack Obama but to have volunteered for his campaign as well. As I did, I knew that his Presidency would be different - and not simply because of the color of his skin. I believed him to be someone familiar with both passion and principle, and time has proven me right.

Today was another victory for average Americans, brought about solely at the direction of this fairness-minded President. By Executive Order President Obama raised the base salary beneath which workers must be paid time-and-a-half for work done in overtime (above 40 hours per week). This is the kind of immediate boost workers on the lower end of the pay scale deserve and this move may provide additional stimulus to the economy as a whole.

After passage of the ACA (the word ‘Obamacare’ will eventually have great connotations but at the moment it doesn’t so I won’t use it) some leaders might have slowed down and avoided controversy, knowing their place in history was secure. But this President is driven by different goals. He clearly wants to see his country become a more just, equal and inclusive society and he is continually looking for ways to move us towards those goals. Even the Supreme Court appears to be endorsing parts, if not all, of this vision in recent decisions, and the Justice Department is moving to decrease corruption and inequality under the law. Although most of the recent developments do not apply to me personally, I applaud them. The shape of the society around me affects me personally, and to the extent it reflects values I endorse I will be better off and will feel more at home.

So once again I have to say Thank You to this President. No doubt he has not been perfect, but all-in-all he has done more to promote equality and justice under the law than anyone should have dared to expect.

It’s Not All Greek and It’s Not All About Greece

The more I read about the financial crisis in Greece the less I support the actions of the ‘troika’ (the IMF, the European Commission and the European Central Bank) who continue to insist on policies based on austerity. Their plan for a ‘bailout’ of Greece sounds instead like a plan to suck what they can out of the Greek economy and leave the country itself crippled. It reminds me of Ronald Regan's ‘trickle down’ plan for America’s middle class. We all know by now this hasn’t worked for for the country as a whole, although the reservoir of wealth at the very top has ballooned. The only economists who seem to support the approach of the troika for Greece are the ones who believe that the rich getting richer is all that matters. Shame on them.

I read recently that some in Europe think Germany is the country that should be tossed from the Eurozone. Now there’s an idea. If the strength of the German economy is being used to blackmail, coerce and subjugate the citizens and economies of less powerful members of the Zone perhaps Germany’s ability to influence these economies should be limited. I’m not knowledgable enough to claim this is the case, but if the model is accurate, it is a thought.

We have become familiar with the destruction often left in the wake of those who pursue power through the accumulation of wealth. Lives and even cultures can be left in ruins. Here in the US we’ve seen Enron collapse taking out it’s employees, retirees and investors; we’ve seen Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme wipe out the savings of untold numbers of people and institutions; and we’ve witnessed the banking crisis of 2008/9 set off shock waves that pushed many over the financial edge. All of these disasters were driven by people with power pursuing wealth without regard for the fate of others - simply because they could.

The scandal in Greece is not that Greece as a government lacks funds at the moment. There have been many factors contributing to this situation, the acts of the troika among them. The scandal is that the troika of big banks can’t see past the bottom line of their own balance sheets in coming to terms with the situation. Or maybe that is precisely the point they are trying to make. When the statement coming from your ‘partners’ is that ‘we care nothing for your fate’ then it’s time to stop considering them ‘partners’ - because they are not.

The Seeds and the Flowers (and the Weeds?)

This past week felt like a cultural spring in the United States. Sustained efforts in the area of LGBT marriage equality finally bore fruit in the US Supreme Court, as did continuing effort to provide affordable healthcare to all US citizens. In South Carolina it was demonstrated that there are people still willing to tend the garden when it comes to racial healing, and as a result we’re seeing the Confederate flag being removed from public spaces in the South. These developments are positive because they lead us in the direction of our ideals: equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law. All in all a good week not just for President Obama but for the country.

We can expect those who would resist the goals of equality and those who simply fear change to push back. US conservatives will no doubt attempt to return to more authoritarian policies, but we cannot allow the country to be pulled backwards. Fortunately, our democratic institutions are time-tested and have proven strong enough to withstand intermittent efforts to block the liberalization process no matter where they comes from.

That said, there are troubling developments on the international front. The potential deal between Iran and the West is treading on very shaky ground. Events in Greece are taking a turn most had hoped to avoid. Uncertainty looms over events in Iraq, Syria and Yemen even as European-leaning Turkey is also in the throes of change after Erdogan’s ruling party lost control of the Turkish Parliament in recent elections.

One thing we should ask ourselves is what kind of seeds are being planted right now in these turbulent regions? If we think we’re planting seeds of democracy by our actions or our example we should also ask ourselves who will be there on the scene to cultivate them, and do those forces and individuals actually desire to see democracy flourish? Or are we simply turning over the ground for opportunistic elements to lay down roots? These are not easy questions to answer but they must be asked.

When it comes to the Mediterranean and the Middle East in general, compromising on principles may be necessary, at least for now. If Greece (and Turkey) are to remain European (and European leaning) the challenges unique to these societies must be considered in crafting solutions. If Greece were to default and/or leave the Eurozone it could bring about developments detrimental to all of Europe. What happens next could make the price the international banks might have paid for stability seem like a bargain in retrospect.

Maybe we should also rethink our expectations when it comes to exporting ‘democracy’ to parts of the world where history has thus far left a different legacy. Unless we are sure the pull towards democratization is stronger among ordinary citizens than the pull of religious bigotry and fundamentalism maybe we should not push for more ‘democracy’ in lands far home. We simply can’t be sure what seeds might be planted and what might spring up in the following years.

The role of the US on the international stage has definitely shifted since the Bush administration chose to break apart a region that had been held together by strongmen. We have discovered just how limited our ability is to control outcomes in that region, which has been a humbling experience.

Here at home, however, that is not the case. By staying engaged we can halt any tendency to drift away from our ideals. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. We can’t allow intolerance to take root, or allow the will of the majority to be subjugated by the will of a few. As a nation we’ve come too far for too many years to let that happen.

Not a Day for Blogging

Although SOCTUS delivered an historic decision this morning which formally ends the right of individual states to discriminate against same sex couples when it comes to marriage (Yeah!) the rest of the day belongs to the events in Charleston, South Carolina. The choice by the members of 'Mother Emmanuel' church to seize the opportunity brought about by a tragedy to bring about positive change throughout the South is truly inspiring. The country should be grateful for their example and respectful of their heartfelt desire to see the symbols and groups which nurtured the sickness of the individual responsible for such a heinous act driven from positions of prominence and respect throughout the South. It should not have required a tragedy to bring about these changes - they are long over due. No doubt they are on the right side of history.

But today is not about tomorrow. Today belongs to 'Mother Emmanuel' as they mourn their losses and we grieve with them.

Speaking of...

The debt crisis in Greece…
It pains me to hear the crisis in Greece discussed solely in economic terms. If Greece were to exit from the Eurozone it would not be simply an economic departure. With the upheaval in the Middle East bleeding already into Turkey does the mainstream West really want to see Greece destabilized further? This seems senseless to me. Germany may see Greece as a spoiled child demanding too much from those who have more, but Greece may see it as those who could help simply refusing to help in a time of actual crisis. From what I can tell It’s not like average Greek citizens are making out like bandits and living a life of luxury by European standards. Should Greece be driven away from the Eurozone don’t look for a cozy or even neutral relationship with Europe on other fronts. Time will tell if Europe ever truly became more than the sum of its parts or if its bonds were only on paper.

Bernie’s chances… (retraction from yesterday)
I’ve rarely had to eat my words so hastily as I did yesterday. Only a few hours after posting an entry implying that Bernie Sanders’ past self-labeling as a ‘socialist’ makes him unviable as a national candidate I heard about the spontaneous support he’s gathering among young people. Now I’m not so sure Bernie’s labels would necessarily lead to a downfall in the general - many would have said the same thing about President Obama’s race early on in his campaign. I also implied that the Democratic primary debates might be sparkle-less but with Bernie's passion and command of the issues they might be both interesting and information. I will be watching for sure. What enables both Obama and Sanders to succeed beyond their superficial limitations is the sincerity, reason and passion which they bring to their thinking on policy. Younger people, the group who were responsible for the campaign successes of President Obama, are less hung up on labels which still push buttons in older people. When someone speaks with principled logic grounded in knowledge, people - younger people in particular - will listen. Who knows how far this could take Bernie. I hope it takes him far.

SCOTUS today…
Their decision affecting the Affordable Care Act was announced this morning and average citizens across the country should be pleased. The Court ruled in favor of allowing federal subsidies to continue in every state. If the Court had ruled otherwise the entire national health care system recently established would have been drastically shaken. Even better, this ruling came with a 6-3 majority, as opposed to the prior case which threatened but failed to undermine the ACA, which landed only a 5-4 majority. It is starting to look like the ACA is really here to stay. With each favorable ruling SCOTUS lessens the likelihood that it will be repeatedly challenged through the Courts. This case is a win for the people, but also for business, since business is the direct beneficiary of the subsidies offered to individuals. If further work is to be done on the Affordable Care Act it needs to be focused on industry practices which provide too much money to insurance companies and their executives while delivering too little health support to consumers.

SCOTUS to come…
It seems unlikely that the Justices will choose to undermine the rapid expansion of gay rights we've seen in the last few years in this country. Gay people have always been present in all walks of life from the very rich to the very poor - even government and the courts - albeit closeted by necessity in the past. By now the anti-gay rights constituency is a narrowly-focused religiously-based group and they are rapidly loosing influence, so I am optimistic about the ruling to come on this one. On the other hand, I would not have thought the religious constituency pushing to limit access to certain forms of birth control would have been granted the sympathetic hearing it received in the Hobby Lobby case. In fact I was shocked and appalled by the Hobby Lobby decision. Maybe the difference is that women have not been as equally distributed throughout the halls of power for as many years as (albeit often closeted) LGBT citizens have been. In any event, |’m still keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

The TPP…
I feel a bit let down and dismayed by the fact that acceptance of the deal seems to be all but inevitable at this point. I am not a trade expert, but I do understand that once a train has left the station you cannot switch it into reverse. Globalization is an economic fact. Still, I fear that the logic underlying these international trade deals is that the more developed countries say “I’ll take some of your poor and I’ll give you some of my middle class - and the rich in all countries will take a cut from everybody.” Until the top of the top put their own resources into bettering the situation - yes, I mean outright redistribution from top to bottom rather than from side to side among the bottom 90% - these trade deals seem to be a tool for extracting wealth as much as developing it. Maybe I’m wrong about this one. The deal is not final and very few people even know what is in it. Maybe there are ways to extract concessions from the wealthiest across the board that I am unaware of. I would like to think so, but I’m not exactly holding my breath. The world is watching these days (and not just CNN) and waiting to see if unbridled capitalism can find a conscience and a heart towards its own citizens.

The Pain and the Pleasure

The Donald Trump for President campaign is officially on. If you don’t believe it, just ask the paid actors who appeared at his announcement. By now he’s actually filed the paperwork, making it officially official. He’s even risen in a recent poll, placing 2nd only to Jeb Bush in New Hampshire. Should Republicans - and for that matter Democrats - be laughing or crying right now?

While most candidates feed their base a diet of sweet nothings, The Donald likes to toss red meat about - meat that he cleaved from the bodies of all the people that he has verbally hacked on his way to political notoriety (which is everyone on every side) - and see who approaches. His “If I were President” policy proposals come across like a Tarantino film - weird and entertaining, but ultimately insane. No wonder Jon Stewart is happy to have Trump around for now. But should we be?

I would be more sickened than amused by the Trump candidacy if I thought Trump took himself as seriously as a candidate as most of the vast and varied Republican field take themselves, but not to worry. Trump knows he doesn’t stand a chance, which is why he hired an audience for his campaign announcement. All show and no substance will no doubt be the hallmark of the Donald Trump for President campaign.

(People might say the same thing about Bernie Sanders - that he doubts whether he could in the general - but that is largely because in the past he freely applied the “socialist” label to himself, not because he is proposing off-the-wall policies. I suspect that without the socialist label in his history he would be readily viewed as a viable progressive alternative come the general election. But back to Trump…)

Given the entertainment value of the Trump candidacy Republicans might be happy to have him in the race. The early Republican debates should be fascinating. I’m waiting to see how the people on stage who know better handle Trump and his policies in that forum. Will they show his policies the disrespect they deserve or will they lend the candidate credibility by not calling out the crazy in his platform? Either way, ratings are likely to be higher with Trump there than without. Besides, ever since Sarah Palin was elevated to the (inter)national stage Republicans have become used to seeing politically senseless media mongrels run for office under their banner.

So there’s an upside for Republicans. If people are watching the Republican debates maybe they’ll form enough of an interest in politics to show up at the polls. They might even see someone on stage who pulls them in deeper- if for no other reason than to show they don’t buy the Donald Trump fantasy message.

Democrats, on the other hand, may have more reason to be disheartened by his presence. With the reputation of elected officials, and government in general already at historic lows, watching The Donald trash talk his opponents like an NFL Quarterback at a pre-game press conference as part of a political debate only cheapens the political brand for everybody. Furthermore, the apparent Democratic Party decision to push Hillary Clinton for all she’s worth (which I hear is big $$) as if no other choice is reasonable may not actually be inspiring additional interest in politics, despite her gender. It may even be driving people away who are sick of seeing the same few names backed by the same big donors. While her message has become more populist than it used to be, she speaks in very measured language and will likely be more cautious than passionate on the debate stage.

It’s hard to gauge up front whether the Democratic debates will be interesting or a bit too dry but apart from those inspired solely by the idea of a female candidate atop the ticket, there’s not much reason for those not already interested in politics to tune in. But what the hey! The Republican debates should be trip, and I hear popcorn is on sale this week.

The Stories Told by my Father

When I was very little I shared a room with my sister. My mother had found material printed with scenes from fairy tales and had made curtains for our room. One of the images was of Goldilocks, approaching a table set with three bowls. My father, who always loved to see a child smile, would sometimes come into our room to say goodnight. I would often ask him to “tell me a story” and sometimes he would agree.

One night he sat down on the edge of my bed and started telling me the stories depicted on the curtains. He started out “Once there was a little girl named Brownielocks” - but I quickly interrupted him and told him “No Daddy, her name is Goldilocks.” “Oh, I guess you must be right” he said, and then proceed. “One day Goldilocks entered the home of the three pigs…” and again I interrupted - “No, Daddy, it was three bears!” Once again he accepted my correction. He then went on to tell me about the bowls of ‘cereal’ and with mounting frustration I stopped him to say “No, no, no! It was porridge!” And on it went.

I recall that bedtime conversation vividly. I remember it with fondness because there was so clearly affection in his telling of the story. I was glad that he accepted my emphatic corrections with a smile, although he almost seemed to be stifling a laugh, which only added to my frustration.

In recent years I have wondered if there was a method to his storytelling. Was he teaching me early on to be a bit skeptical about what I was being told? Was he warning me to trust myself a little bit and not throw out what I already knew just because someone else said something different? I definitely grew up to be a questioner, and someone who ultimately seeks an inner compass when things don’t quite add up. As a result my path has not been easy, but on some level it feels like I’m moving forward.

So thank you Dad, for that story time. I will never forget it. Thank you for teaching me to think for myself. And thank you for providing all of your children with the many, many opportunities and educational experiences we had growing up. Your hard work, sharp mind and artistic spirit were a gift to us all.

Happy Father’s Day!

Black Churches of the South - One of America's Greatest Strengths

I am always amazed when I hear members of a faith community express forgiveness in the immediate aftermath of a viscous attack, such as the one on Mother Emmanuel in Charleston last Wednesday. Before allowing anger and hatred to rule the day they are able to take a breath, turn to their faith, offer forgiveness and sing the praises of a higher authority. To some it seems foolish, maybe even crazy. How can they not be angry when the face of evil enters into their midst and robs them of their most prized possessions - their loved ones?

Belief in a higher authority is hard to hold on to when life holds such trials and tragedies. My life has had its share of challenges, but nothing like theirs. I say I believe in a higher authority yet I forget to trust that positive effects are not the result of experience but of how I react. I pray for this church and the family members of the slain that their faith will continue to sustain them in their efforts to see people of all backgrounds living side by side in peace.

Historically what happened this week in Charleston is simply the latest public incidence of race-based violence in a centuries-long string of injustices. The reality of our forefather’s collective participation in a slave-based economy cannot be undone and will continue to impact both black and white families generation after generation. Had black churches in the South not led the way in promoting forgiveness and non-violent activism the country we share could not have achieved it’s stature on the world stage. If every act of violence towards African Americans had been met with an equally violent response there would be no culture of freedom, no rule of law, no civil society.

Some think today the rule of law should be sufficient, but I’m not so sure. Justice under the law is never swift and the outcomes never certain. Without the ability to accept and forgive there would be no moving forward. Trust in God is how these miraculous communities find it in their hearts to forgive. Whether or not you find it in your heart to believe in “God” (or whatever one might call the higher authority that allows us to love one another, flaws and all) at least we can be grateful that some do. Praise belongs to those who allow love to win when hate comes knocking, and if they give praise to a higher authority I’ll join them in their prayers.

(PS. The very least we can do as a society to assist in the healing is to remove symbols that serve as motivation for racial division from our public spaces. As President Obama has said - the Confederate flag belongs in a museum, not on government property.)

The Heartbreak of Human Failure

I hear it in everybody’s voice. We are heartbroken. Yet again. This time, the killer not only slaughtered innocent people, he experienced their kindness up close and in person before pulling the trigger. He went into their house of worship, one of the most welcoming environments imaginable because there all are equal under God, then decided to play God by taking multiple human lives.

How can this happen? And WHY does this happen over and over in America? Of course the person who pulled the trigger is ultimately the responsible party, and he will no doubt face prosecution to the fullest extend of our laws, but the frustration, the pain, the rage, the heartbreak, comes from the realization that we have failed to prevent such a tragedy from taking place. We failed to prevent the boy from growing into someone capable of such a heinous act. We failed to prevent the deaths of innocent people at his hands. We failed to prevent a twisted person from acquiring the means to carry out such a despicable and depraved plan. The fact that such tragedies happen again and again in a country founded on the principles of justice, law and equality under the law makes us feel as though the failings must at least in part, be ours.

Racial resentment is nothing new to this country - in fact it’s pretty much baked in the cake - but over time we have found ways to improve the situation. Opportunity had become more equal, evidenced in part by the election of an African American President. Improvement in social conditions came only with a heavy price, and in the wake of change gains were made and solidified in part because opportunities for advancement were widely available throughout society. It is any wonder that racial resentment flourishes when economic realities mean that many will go without sufficient opportunity to earn a living - or to obtain the mental health services they desperately need? People on the edge are often pushed over the edge by circumstance. Sometimes it may be possible to avert a tragedy and spare us all such heartbreak.

We cannot blame society for the work of a relatively small number of sick individuals who resort to wanton acts of violence. However, we must look at the conditions which allow the evil impulses within such individuals to be nurtured and acted upon. We must find better ways to avert such tragedies, not simply seek legal retribution in their aftermath.

Why Prostitution Should Be Legal and Why I Choose Not To Participate

Prostitution is just a business - in fact a very big business - and when business interactions between adults are consensual and reasonably balanced there is little justification in my mind for prohibiting such transactions. So-called ‘payday loans’ are an exception that shows such rules have limits: when people with something to offer seek terms that exploit those desperately in need government regulation steps in to protect the vulnerable in most jurisdictions. Sometimes all prostitution is seen in just this light, but in today’s opportunity-thin environment I’m not sure it makes sense to criminalize individuals using what they have available (their bodies) to make a living, so legalization of prostitution as a work option makes sense to me. However regulation of working conditions and compensation guidelines should apply just as they do in McDonalds, Walmart, and even Washington, DC lobbying firms.


Given the price of sin, in the struggle for survival working as a prostitute may seem more appealing than working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. However, the energy you put out in your work at McDonald’s is not the same as the energy you take in doing sex work, or so I imagine. I fear prostitution is often harmful to the spirit and psyche unless an individual learns to shield their internal being from the energy applied in an around their body by the acts they are required to participate in. Individuals who do not learn to shield themselves may feel as though they are being raped for pay on a regular basis, and those who do learn to hold themselves apart from their “acts” may be left with difficultly engaging in personal - as opposed to business - intimate relationships. I’m not claiming prostitution will affect everybody this way, but I imagine I would likely be headed in one of these directions should I start down the path of sex work.

Ultimately, should lack of economic opportunity ever push me unavoidably onto a path that included sex work, I plan to embrace the my work openly and out loud. I don’t plan to hide my involvement or whisper about the fact that I offer sexual services for a fee. After all, working to earn a living is something to be proud of not something to be ashamed of. Shame should be reserved for those who would keep sex workers in the dark, unprotected and vulnerable by keeping the profession illegal.

Artificial and Intelligent But Also Narrow Minded and Inflexible?

The leaps and bounds being made towards life-like humanoid - practically sentient - beings is incredible. It is likely that soon humans will not need to interact with other humans as part of their daily lives. For me, this is a sad development because I take pleasure in connections where a the multilevel spark of live human interaction leads to interesting ‘together times” and often leads to personal growth. Unexpectedly interesting interaction has taught me more than information I set out to acquire and I hope to find more places and ways to feel the spark and fuel the fire within in a face to face environment.

When it comes to robots, no doubt the possibilities are endless but do their possibilities all fall along but one of many possible trajectories, depending on the programmed intention of the robot? I may be unsophisticated in my understanding but I wonder how robotic entities juggle priorities. Are the goals always predetermined? Is spontaneous course correction possible only when it furthers the original goal or can spontaneous insight bring about a shift in values and a re-direction of effort? Alternatively, does it take a spirit driven and sentient human to tell a robot where to head?

There are many who say there are no roles left for humans to play because robots can do it all, but when I hear that I think “consider the source”. That mindset serves a narrow agenda that I do not share. There are many joys still to be found in being human while acknowledging all the trials, tribulations and warts. I believe it is still possible to stick to a human agenda of survival while doing as little damage as possible to others of my own species. And it never hurts to minimize the human footprint on the planet whenever possible because it seems wiser than engaging in consumption without a nod to a possible human tomorrow.

None of us control of the future, or even our own futures, so why not stick to a time-tested approach of juggling priorities, moving forward one foot in front of the other, one day at a time hoping for the best? Expectations of x, y or z do not always point the way because outcomes are often beyond our control. In today’s world, health and sanity should be seen as blessings every bit as much as love and money. The future will have it’s way regardless. At least that’s that the robots tell me.

Real Strategy or a Strategy of Realism?

I am sure there is an art to warfare. It’s not an art I’d want to practice but I’m sure there is an art to it. Though I'm not a practitioner I'm thinking the less certain the artist is about the final picture, the slower s/he must paint it.

The most coherent explanation of the current strategy against ISIS, and one that makes some sense to me, does not depend on the US to outline the picture in advance. We’ve already seen that we can’t ‘put things in place’ and then walk away. That won’t work when the people charged with maintaining a given order aren’t necessarily on board with the order which has been created.

The problems in the Middle East are the problems of Middle Easterners. The problem is we stuck our nose (or should I say our fist?) into their regional stability. The recently articulated strategy dictates that the US is offering assistance in the form of air cover aimed at containing the most heinous of the regional elements while the countries of the region arrive at a new balance of power. Should that finally be achieved perhaps we would once again see some basic, day to day stability in the region, with Middle Easterners in charge of the Middle East.

Americans need to understand that when Bush/Cheney went into Iraq, the neocons authoring the policy had no intention of stopping with Iraq. Their intention was always to take on Iran next. The world knows this, but do most Americans? Think of that. If the goal is to throw out the existing power structure in Iran, why would the Iranian government NOT seek to build a nuclear weapon, as a deterrent if nothing else? The fact that President Obama is sending the message that we would rather deal than fight IS A GOOD THING.

Think about it some more. What would a war with Iran look like? Do you think there is sufficient discontent within Iran that the citizens would turn towards the US and away from Iranian leadership in numbers similar to those who welcomed us in Iraq? Think again. I am sure there are Iranians extremely discontent with the conservative religious rule of the Mullahs but some may also recall the rule of the Shah and the fall of his family. They know association with the West is a mixed bag and may prefer homegrown evolution/revolution. Does Israel want to turn Teheran into Hiroshima? God I hope not! In fact any military action against their country will likely be considered hostile by Iranians of every political persuasion.

Maybe we must just stick to Iraq… and maybe Syria… and oh yes, Lebanon… and….. The instability is no longer contained to a single country. What were left with after the Bush/Cheney debacle will be a drain on the US and on the Middle East for years to come. Middle Easterners must find their own balance within their countries and across their region. The Obama approach of providing room for deals on the ground to be made locally may be the best we can offer. We cannot afford to force compliance to Western Ideals or Western visions. That is my opinion anyway. We may be the biggest power broker but I don’t think we should take on the role of Enforcer. If we do, boots on the ground for years to come will be inevitable.

What's in a Name?

It may seem helpful to refer to Hillary Clinton as “Hillary” and Jeb Bush as “Jeb”. After all, there are other Bushes and other Clintons on the political scene, so let there be no confusion. But really, by now we all know which Clinton is running for office, and which Bush. I also know that the sins of the (brother/husband) should not necessarily be foist upon the (brother/wife), but on the other hand, it is time to stop pretending that these connections do not exist. For the rest of the campaign, Hillary Clinton should be referred to as “Clinton” and Jeb Bush should be referred to as “Bush”.

While this Bush and this Clinton are not identical to their other political family member(s), the electorate should continually be reminded (at least subliminally) of the legacies associated with their family members, particularly when ‘familiar” and ‘on-hand’ teams of advisers (not to mention personal friendships) are likely to play a large role in setting the political agenda and policies of our next president.

The Bush association is particularly difficult for Jeb Bush. There is no doubt that the decision to engage in unprovoked and unfunded wars in the Middle East represents the most harmful government policy of my lifetime, and responsibility for these wars falls squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush and his administration. However, the Clinton association is not a thorn-free rose for Hillary Clinton either. While Bill Clinton left office with record-high approval ratings under a seemingly rosy economic picture, his legislative legacy of deregulation of financial institutions and “work-fare” reform has left much the middle class and those aspiring to enter the middle class less well off than they were a few decades ago. For these individuals, once the bubble burst, Bill Clinton seems less to represent progress than to represent a trap. While Hillary is not Bill, she must accept that voters will assume whoever is guiding her is on the same page as whoever guided her husband, unless she can convince the public otherwise. She must show she has a strong, well defined core set of beliefs that will not blow this way or that depending on the shifting winds. That is the only way to define Hillary apart from Bill.

The typical American Voter may not be the most informed person out there, but overall s/he is not as “stupid” as some would have you believe. When voters find it necessary to open their eyes, they do -- snd they tend to reach their own conclusions. While guilt by association does not stand up in a court of law, in the arena of electoral politics, it can and should be considered. Voter (buyer) beware. People are package deals, and they come with a family.

Caitlyn Jenner: Embody and Soul

There has been interesting commentary from a number of corners following the photoshoot offered by transexual Bruce Jenner who has now become Caitlyn Jenner. Now that Bruce is Caitlyn she has decided to make her debut by posing quite beautifully for Vanity Fair. She seems happy and I wish her nothing but happiness in the future. Congratulations!

So now that she is being photographed as a woman is she simply another women? Elinor Burkett recently raised some interesting questions in a NYTimes OpEd regarding the shared experiences that are a part of young women’s experiences, and these include many that will never be shared by Caitlyn Jenner. She considers having this shared history essential to her identity as a woman On the other hand, trans women share a different set of experiences, which bio-conforming women will never know, and I’m sure their experiences were no less trying and formative than those of bio-conforming women. So should we consider a trans woman moving through the world as a female simply another woman once the outside is ready? I’m not so sure that’s the best tack. I think that simply leaves a murkier situation for all.

The problem is that trans-women do not want to be seen as ‘less than’, and for now that is too often the case. In terms of race, our society has learned to at least espouse the norm that all races should be seen as equal in terms of capability and access to opportunity and services, not that all races literally “look alike”. This concept of not the same but equal in value is beginning to be applied to gay and lesbian individuals as well, and it this approach to equality should be extend to trans individuals as well. We don’t have to apply gender and sexuality labels everywhere (most people don’t walk around wearing sings announcing their sexuality) but to say that a man is a gay man should not be an insult, and to say that a woman is a trans-woman should also not be an insult. These are just statements of a reality that individuals used to have to hide, but no longer.

I would hope both bio-conforming women (or men) and trans women (or men) can avoid the hostility that often results when labels are not used the way a particular individual prefers, but please, if you are a trans-gendered person, it will help the cause for all if you are unafraid to wear that identity proudly, the way gay and lesbian individuals often wear theirs. Be proud to say you are a trans-women or a trans-man. (Then answer only as many questions as you feel comfortable with!)

As a bio-conforming woman, I have experienced certain things in life which transgendered women have not, and vice versa. The two identifies are certainly equally valid but also certainly not identical. This is a good thing. After all, difference (diversity) is the spice of life that keeps things interesting. Welcome to humanity.

Please Pass the Panhandle

While watching developments during the 2014 election cycle it occurred to me that the nationally viable candidates on the GOP side for 2016 were both from Florida. I even asked myself then if the GOP might actually present and all-Florida national ticket in 2016, consisting of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. As 2016 approaches what might have sounded like a bad joke may be edging closer to reality.

Since the 1990’s (at least) the GOP national power has been based in Texas, clutched tightly by the Bush family, but now there’s nobody left in Texas (Bush or otherwise) to pass the power to. Rick Perry may appeal to Texans but for the most part his charm stops working once he passes the Texas border. Scott Walker may have the Kochs but if you look at his record he lacks credibility on nearly every front. Ted Cruz is Sarah Palin in a pricey suit, but with more education - and more ties to Wall Street. I doubt he expects to win but I’m sure he’d love to make big bucks through speaking engagements. I think he can be safely written off as a non-serious contender. If Jeb thinks he can win without Marco Rubio he might choose Carly Fiorina as his running mate, which must by why she’s running, but I’m thinking Jeb might need Rubio to get people to the polls.

Then there’s Chris Christie. The idea of a Christie candidacy seems pretty dead right now, but he might be holding back to see if Jeb stumbles. If Jeb looks unelectable Christie might decide to make his move, attempting to lure high power money away from Bush. However, I suspect Christie knows he’s sitting rather precariously on a ledge, and like Humpty Dumpty he could have a great fall if he stands up and the skeletons in his closet gather enough life to push him over the edge.

So could it be? Will the GOP throw all their eggs into the Florida pan? Stranger things have happened. Maybe the eggs are already in the Florida panhandle and currently being scrambled. After all, we have Florida officials and to thank for the hanging chads and thwarted re-counts that gave us George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the War in Iraq.

Not Ready For Hillary

I must start by saying I LOVE the new Hillary. She is saying all the right things and making all the right moves. She sounds a bit unlike the Hillary of the past but I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say HOORAY! BUT, the Democratic nomination is simply half the battle. The general election will still lie ahead. With the GOP field so crowded it is hard to imagine exactly what that battle will look like but the GOP is unlikely to roll over easily to allow for another Clinton victory.

The New Hillary is promising but I’m not convinced the New Hillary is new to the bone, or that the new Hillary won’t be reshaped again once in office and surrounded by a different set of advisers. That is why a seriously contested primary is good for the Democratic party. Gazing lovingly and unquestioningly at its prospective nominee sends all the wrong signals to the general electorate. Dems must show that they are not only willing to question the status quo regarding the size, scope and priorities of administrations past (including her husband’s), but that they believe it is important to do so. If the Dems simply push to the front a legacy candidate (albeit a female candidate) the general electorate may see the current Democratic party as simply more of the same and not worth the effort to care about. In short, Dems must show they are willing to examine their candidates’ wrinkles to get to the face underneath because there are certainly people on the right who will once the nominating conventions are over.

So NO, I’m NOT READY for Hillary. I might be someday, but not yet.
Hillary can’t wait until after the nominating convention to step fully into the spotlight and wade into the murky waters. That needs to start now for her sake and for the party’s.

The War on Narrative

I started writing this post about an hour ago. I had written the title before I was interrupted - although the thoughts were brewing in my head. In the intervening hour a guest on MSNBC came on talking about this very topic - narrative - and it's relation to radical Islam.

He and I agree that the draw of radical Islamic extremists is that they offer a narrative that appeals, particularly to the young and naive. It offers a chance to belong, to be a part of history and to do something significant with their lives. It is an end-times narrative being offered by ISIS and its fervor has the power to draw people in. Worse yet, apocalyptic visions offers cover to those who wish to participate in depraved and inhuman acts.

Western traditions must fight the radical narrative on many fronts. Pointing to it's inhumanity will not be sufficient, particularly when it appears to some that the West is trying to erase ISIS by killing believers out of existence. This obviously will not work - it only plays into the radical narrative and bolsters the assertion that extreme anti-Western acts are required. Military action may help contain the territory in which groups like ISIS freely operate (and gain funds through production and sale) but it does not provide a disincentive for new recruits considering joining "the cause".

The way to challenge a narrative is to re-write it. In the case of young Muslims, we must offer a narrative more attractive than the one promulgated by ISIS. We cannot tell young Muslims to abandon who they are (Muslim) and choose to simply disappear as individuals by assimilating into Western culture. A better narrative must contain ways for youth to be both who they are (Muslim) AND to belong in the West with its traditions of civility. The separation of church and state is an essential part of Western civic tradition and we cannot allow this principle to be blurred. However, we must acknowledge that while states can and should be secular, people might not be.

Multiculturalism is not a popular concept right now but multiculturalism is essential to creating a shared vision in today's world of global communications. The West used to offer a vision of multicultural acceptance within shared spaces. Western multicultural civil traditions offered a path to both survival and belonging, and a way to contribute to this vision. This is the vision we must attempt not only to sell, but to actualize. It is the only vision which can give rise to political solutions.

We need also to remember that while the narrative that poses the biggest threat at the moment is based in Islam there are other end-times extremists out there as well. We have Christian sects here in the US hoping to bring about the apocalypse. Still, end-times extremists are not synonymous with the religions from which they draw their scripts. ISIS therefore is not Islam any more than the KKK is Christianity. This is an important to distinction to make, and if we do not make it we risk further fueling the fire.

Fifty Shades of Feminism

To each her own (which is where all the shades of feminism agree) but I’m not a fan of the Fifty Shades of Grey approach to sexuality. The acceptance (and even encouragement) of a situation where there such a power imbalance goes against my egalitarian leanings. I love an aggressive man in the bedroom, but I understand that he is not me and his desires and mine may not be identical. I am all into give and take and taking turns, but I also need a man who listens to me when I say “No.” If an aggressive, sexy man wanted to put me in restraints which would take away my ability to leave my answer would be “No” even though I might be sad to see him leave. I might love a man who likes to lead I really don't want a man who must control. There’s a huge difference.

The difference comes down to the (im)balance of power. I see it as unhealthy to accept relationships where this “powerful/powerless” dynamic is regularly played out - in the bedroom or elsewhere. Respect is not offered to the powerless. A partner who respects me enough to convince me to consent to X,X and/or X in the bedroom rather than making my desires irrelevant is the gold standard -- not a wealthy man who likes to use my submission to stroke his…. ego.

To those of you who are happily paired, Happy Valentines Day! To those of you who are still searching, enjoy the fact that you aren’t stuck in a bad relationship and treat yourself well today. To those of you itching to make a switch, consider your options carefully but remember that regardless of what your environment is telling you, you are not entirely powerless to improve the circumstances in which you live.

Nous Sommes Charlie! -- Here's Why

The tragedy is Paris is surely a tragedy no matter how you look at it. The attack offends civilized societies everywhere. Of course we stand with the victims and against those who would perpetrate such a crime. NOUS SOMMES CHARLIE!

The attackers appear to have been driven to act by the drawings and words produced and published by those in the room at Charlie Hebdo when the attack occurred. But in whose universe is assassination by high powered rifles a proportionate response to ANYTHING printed on a piece paper? Most people who are merely ‘offended' will either look the other way or produce their response in print.

That is how such acts reveal the true nature of terrorists. Terrorists are murderers looking for an excuse to kill and intimidate. It could be a cartoon, a song or a fashion trend. We cannot reduce an entire religious community to caricatures of the few who wind up on television as perpetrators or fugitives for their violent behavior.

The Paris terrorists used both their religion and Charlie Hebdo to excuse the way they vented their murderous rage in a hail of bullets. The extremist organizers who egg these young people on know that there are many angry youth with time on their hands looking for an outlet - or looking for a way to vent their rage. If we ostracize young Muslims and shoo them away from the parts of society where civility is the norm we ensure that terrorist recruiters will be able to fill their ranks of years to come.

The best way to honor the victims of the Paris killers is not to speak out against the religion invoked for their murderous purposes or to blame the victims for having put ideas to paper, but to rail against those who chose violence as means of expression. Write On Charlie! Write On! And to those who would lift a gun against them may they be banished from the streets forever.

The Tragedies Just Keep on Coming

It seems incredible that right here in the US every few weeks we hear about another instance of a uniformed officer of the law shooting and killing an unarmed person of color, and walking without even facing trial. Talk about American exceptionalism -- this is exceptionally disturbing. In the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave abusive behavior should be STOPPED by those in power, not perpetrated by them.

When words in the form of statutes and laws have become meaningless there's not much that can be said. Reasoning isn't relevant today so I put my voice in verse. If you're interested please check out that page of this website.

Prosecutor as Puppeteer

The bitter taste left in my mouth by the events in Ferguson, Missouri is lingering, and I can only imagine the bitterness festering in the hearts and minds of the citizens who have lived through this tragedy over the past several months. If I had to choose a single focal point for my disgust in this matter it would be the prosecutor’s office in Ferguson. Officer Darren Wilson himself, while almost certainly out of line if not criminally liable in the shooting of Michael Brown, appears to have been a young guy reacting to the heat of the moment in ways he believed were appropriate. Given the legal outcome is it any wonder young police(wo)men act the way they do if they are never made to understand when they’ve gone too far? On the other had, the lead prosecutor behaved like a sociopathic puppeteer throughout - setting the stage and pulling the strings on everybody to maximize the impact of his 15 minutes of fame. He should be removed from office to ensure he can do no further harm to the Ferguson community.

So what exactly did he do? First, he decided to circumvent the standard legal procedures and use the grand jury to hold an ersatz trial, and in the process seemed to favor the individual he should have been considering charging. Had he been wiling to do his job and be an advocate for the victim, Michael Brown, he would have considered the range if charges available and made a case for prosecution on the appropriate charge to the grand jury. Instead he dumped all kinds of information (including false information about the relevant statutes) on the grand jury - a panel composed of citizens, not attorneys - and asked them to do his job. The grand jury was (mis)led into a no-mans-land of uncertainty where a decision not to indict was practically a foregone conclusion which in effect gave Officer Darren Wilson a get out of jail free card without ever holding a trial. This is the central miscarriage of justice and this is the main source of citizen anger and discontent over the outcome.

But there was also the announcement. Only a sadistic madman would set up the scene the way it was set up. The police, the school districts, seemingly the entire “official” Ferguson (with the notable exception of the library - thank God) played along and imposed a heavy handed environment of oppression for days (or was it weeks?) before the verdict was announced. Talk about creating pressure! The announcement itself seemed designed to light the match. The prosecutor chose a time when people across the nation were sure to be home and if interested at all watching television. He rambled on for over 15 minutes clearly impressed with himself and his ability to hold the media spotlight. Soon after, we witnessed on television what was a predictable scene: a split-screen showing on one half cars burning in Ferguson and on the other the President providing a rational perspective on what had transpired. The effect? To make any violence on behalf of the protesters (who had been so cruelly manipulated at the hands of Ferguson authorities for months by then - much as Michael Brown was cruelly killed and left on the streets for HOURS for all to see) seem wanton. The fires could be shown off to much more dramatic advantage at night! And the protesters appeared all the more sinister. I can see and hear the prosecutor’s unspoken message in this scene: “See? The bad guys are the ones in the streets and all I did was announce the results of the grand jury.” My gut is outraged that this prosecutor was able to harness the structural powers-that-be in Ferguson to manipulate the citizens of Ferguson and the entire nation for his egomaniacal and destructive ends.

So what to do? I wish I knew - but I don’t. Change, when it comes, happens slowly and never without setbacks. Still, silence is not an option because to remain silent would imply that I condone the miscarriage of justice in Ferguson - and I don’t.

Of Monsters and Men: Humanity and Humility

A (wo)man is in danger of becoming a monster once s/he believes right and wrong is a function of what you can get away with and acts accordingly. Conscience and compassion become irrelevant concepts and humility is nowhere to be found.

Forging a society of (wo)men rather than monsters is no small task. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People who pick on people with less social status and/or less physical strength often get away with (fill-in-the-blank) for years. Given that power is always in play in human relations is it possible to create a path to success that isn’t littered with corruption?

That is hard to say but that does not imply that the powerful, whether it be Bill Cosby or Officer Darren Wilson, deserve a blank check. When a person with power is caught in the act of abusing that power consequences should follow. Often (though not always) they do. Powerful people can become powerless, and when that happens, people who have abused their power for fun or profit may wake up in an unfamiliar reality finding that the tables have turned against them.

Most people accept that nobody is perfect. However, most people try to restrict their faults to less destructive pursuits than drugging and raping unsuspecting women. On the other hand, such crimes are continually being enabled by the community’s willingness to look the other way. Beliefs are shaped by personal experience and Bill Cosby is not the first — and won’t be the last man of any color — to get away with taking advantage of vulnerable women. After years of receiving a wink and a nod for bad behavior while riches and accolades were being offered for ‘good’ behavior is it any wonder that famous perpetrators such as Bill Cosby actually believe they’ve done nothing wrong?

If there is redemption for Cosby (the kind of healing that keeps the admirable aspects of his legacy from being destroyed by his personal failings) it must start with Cosby himself. He must understand his own humanity and offer a bit of humility. Based on the number of accusations out there he should consider himself lucky if he is never prosecuted in a court of law. But the court of public opinion is already in session. Clinging with all his might to a public persona of perfection will only make his legacy crumble faster.

Race to the Bottom

Every time I hear about Kim Kardashian or see another of her racy photos I have to wonder if what passes for culture in America can sink any lower. Kim’s latest bare-bottomed exposure does present a modern-day take on a prior iconic photo, but that reference must have been supplied by the photographer. I find it hard to imagine that Kim was aware of the prior work.

Unlike Lady Gaga or Madonna, who also like to test the boundaries of public taste, the Kardashians on the whole seem pretty un-self-aware. They know they can market their naked assets and they do so, grinning all the way to the bank. They are concerned only with what they add to their wealth without concern for what they add to the culture. They seem as clueless and self-absorbed as Mama June but being far, far prettier and better off to begin with, none of the Kardashians are likely to suffer a similar fall from atop their television pedestals.

The question of whether a naked Kardashian is an objectified and exploited woman is often asked. Using the recent photo as a case in point let’s see if we can spot exploitation. It is clear Kim is thrilled (what exhibitionist doesn’t like getting a huge audience while being paid big bucks?), her husband is thrilled (I think he likes the idea that other men will be drooling over what he claims as his own), the photographer is thrilled (he gets some great publicity and maybe a good paycheck) and the publication’s editors are thrilled (publicity and sales both good). Do you see anybody here who is being exploited? I don’t.

At least not yet. Unless you expand your view to include the Kardashian’s role in the culture you will miss it. What about those who view the image or buy the publication? Who are they and are they being exploited? They spend their time and plunk their money down of their own free will, but I’m not sure that prevents the situation from being exploitative.

Women, in particular young women, may see Kim’s path and think their own path to success lies in making sex tapes and posing nude. Maybe 1 in a million times that’s a recipe for success but most of the time it’s a recipe for disaster. Don’t forget Kim already had lots of things going for her before she stepped in front of Hugh Hefner’s cameras and throughout she had wealthy parents shielding her from annihilation at the hands of sexual predators. Young men are also being misled by the barrage of photographic garbage if they come to believe that having sex with women bearing (and baring) over-sized erogenous zones is the key to happiness in life.

None of this is new, except for the fact that in today’s world sexual icons get to keep more of their cash and make a few more of their own decisions. I guess that should be considered a plus but the message still sucks. Having an ass is rarely a woman’s greatest asset and striving to bury oneself in a crack was never man’s highest calling.

There Will Be an Indictment in Ferguson

If the indictment is not of Officer Darren Wilson (the officer who pulled the trigger on an unarmed youth) the indictment will be of the Ferguson authorities, from the police to the Grand Jury. The Officer contends there was an altercation in his squad car which led to the fatal shooting but according to several eyewitness accounts the fatal shots were fired when the suspect, Michael Brown, was at a distance and had his hands in the air in surrender.

The country has seen abuses of power by armed law enforcement officers play out over and over again, particularly in recent months, and often with fatal results. The ability of law enforcement to effectively maintain civil order depends on the willingness of citizens to accept as legitimate the special status they have been granted. We know police(wo)men have a right to be armed and we know they have a right to defend themselves. However, they also have a duty to use minimal force to apprehend suspects, not to play judge, jury and executioner all in the span of 90 seconds.

At least some of us in America have been watching Ferguson for some time now. We are waiting patiently to see if ‘the system’ can function to hold those with power accountable for how they use it. If there is an indictment of Officer Darren Wilson, the responsibility for justice will move to the courts, as it should have for Michael Brown. If no charges are brought against Officer Wilson, yet Michael Brown lay dead in the streets for hours on August 9, it will be an indictment of both the Ferguson police and the legal system in Ferguson, Missouri and citizens everywhere will be left to judge for themselves.

Please do not consider this in any way a call for a violent reaction if Officer Wilson is cleared of any wrongdoing. It is not. But these thoughts are definitely part of the equation when we ask ourselves: Who do you trust?

Can Mitch Pitch?

President Obama and Mitch McConnell are both trying really hard to play nice - at least in front of the cameras. Maybe they are both trying to gain a few points in their approval ratings or maybe they actually want the opportunity to leave a positive legacy for posterity before their time in elective office runs out. (Mitch may have a few more years of public life because he’s not statutorily limited but face it, he’s no spring chicken.) Let’s hope it’s the latter, not the former. Assuming President Obama and Mitch McConnell actually want to work out functional solutions to national problems, GOP wing-nuts could nonetheless blow back at McConnell almost as strongly as they do at the President, simply because he is willing to deal.

The chances of legislative success lie as much in the hands of Mitch McConnell as they do with the President and success revolves around one central question: Can Mitch pitch — to his own people?

The President has given a timeline for acting on immigration, one of the most pressing “legacy” issues facing the next Congress, I am guessing the timeline is meant to signal to the GOP that they’d better come out ready to deal or he will go it alone. The fact that he does not have to run again and his party pretty much abandoned him in the latest election cycle likely means he feels under no obligation to do anything other than what he thinks is right -- if Congress isn’t willing to act posthaste and in good faith. The power for the next two years is pretty much his and I have no doubt that he intends to do with it whatever he can to leave the country (and by that I mean all of the country - not simply the wealthiest donor class) better off than when he entered office.

Raising the minimum wage is on its way to becoming another Obama legacy issue which, like marriage rights for GLBT citizens, began with action President Obama undertook single-handedly. The result in the case of GLBT issues has been a tidal wave of shifting laws and attitudes. The same may well happen with the minimum wage. Could something similar happen with immigration? I don’t know enough about immigration policy to venture a guess, but I’m guessing the President does.

The next few months will be interesting. If Mitch can successfully pitch to his troops the idea of working with President Obama, his name too will be linked with whatever legacy legislation is born over the next two years. If not, the legacy of Obama’s last two years will be his and his alone - for better or for worse. History will be the judge, but I can’t see him simply tucking his lame duck head between his legs and waddling off. As Rachel likes to say: “Watch this space."

Isn't there a pill...?

Ahhhhh…. or should I say Owwwwww…. The morning after! This election cycle did not go the way I would have liked, but then again neither did the 2010 midterms, and I'm still here.

We’re entering a new phase - the final phase - of the Obama presidency, and it’s clear to see the environment will be different given last night’s results. If most of the Tea Partiers have left the table (or been pushed out) as some say, I guess it’s possible that a policy driven debate, rather than a personality driven debate, will lead to substantive legislation…. but I’m not holding my breath. The problem with trying to partner with the GOP on national policy is that their vision of “a more perfect union” differs dramatically from the Democratic vision. Furthermore, you can’t form partnerships with people who only want followers. Sometimes the options are submission or departure from the negotiations, and on some issues (voting rights, women’s rights, basic civil rights and liberties) too much compromise won’t get us where we need to go.

Remember, each step, no matter how small, gets us further towards our goal -- as long as it’s headed in the right direction. However, the country has been taking some pretty big backward steps in important areas, particularly at the state level under Republican governors. I’m not sure that allowing legislators to take a smaller step backwards than they’d like to take actually counts as forward progress.

In the meantime, if there is a pill that can erase from my memory images of Joni Ernst cackling and grinning through her acceptance speech, I’d like to know where I can get one. Any thoughts?

Election Day

I have been absent from this blog for too long. Life - like doodoo - happens. I have written but not posted over the last few months, but now it’s time to for this citizen to start speaking again.

Today is election day, so of course the election is topic #1. I am prepared to be disappointed with the results. It may be that the GOP finds an even louder voice in Congress - for the next two years at least. But what some assume will be the last word never actually is. That’s why people value democracy despite its messiness and ineptitude. Contained within the system is a chance for a do-over in another few years.

Here are a few thoughts I’d like to throw out (because doing so keeps me from throwing up in disgust): Democrats have been fools to run from the record of this President rather than point to his major successes on the domestic front. This President has reshaped - in a good way - how healthcare will be delivered in this country going forward. He has also radically advanced the cause of equal rights for the GLBT community, he has raised the minimum wage for Federal contractors, he has done what he can to ensure men and women are paid equally for equal work and he has spoken out for policies aimed at raising living standards for minimum wage workers and families of many descriptions. How are these not things to brag about? So what if President Obama doesn’t make nice with GOP leaders on Capital Hill - most of us couldn’t stand being around them either. It is also wrong to blame the President for the degree of uncertainty over policy in Iraq and Syria - nobody has good solutions or easy answers. Appearing more certain on the surface might help the public feel at ease but in reality the US will have to feel it’s way through the containment of radical Islamic groups because that is the nature of international affairs. You can claim to have a strategy and and you can hang a banner that says ‘Mission Accomplished’ - it makes a great photo op - but the need to continuously evaluate and re-evaluate and engage and re-engage will not go away unless we choose isolationism. What would reassure ME would be to have representatives willing to do the hard work of governance. But there seems little chance of that. This Congress can't run away fast enough from even having a discussion about serious issues.

Assuming the GOP experiences the gains they are expecting, what is it they want to do with their new-found power? Discuss Middle East policy? Address energy policy? Examine industry’s role in climate change? LOL Last I heard they intend to focus on impeaching a President who stuck his neck out and put some physical and intellectual energy into trying to make the country economically more equitable and intellectually more circumspect in its foreign policy. After that they’ll see about handing out a few more tax breaks to the wealthy and making sure corporate power is enhanced and not diluted. And while they’re at it they’ll likely be testing the waters to see how effective fear mongering can be in getting Americans to willingly surrender their civil liberties.

Get your hip-waders out folks. I have a feeling the country will spend the next two years at least mired in mud and going nowhere.

Its More of an Elevator Shaft

People talk of the slippery slope the Court put us on with its recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case concerning whether a closely held company can claim a religious exemption to a federal law. I fear its not a slippery slope we've stepped onto, it's an elevator shaft we stepped into.

The Court claims the ruling is a narrow ruling and should not be seen as precedent for a number of other "outs" to the healthcare law based on sincerely held religious beliefs, but this ruling calls into question a number of principles once thought to be sacrosanct.

The idea that forming a corporation in order to make a profit puts up a wall that works only one way seems new and fundamentally inequitable. The ruling allows the for-profit corporate structure to shield the owners from personal liability without protecting the employees from the owner's personal beliefs - even when the personal beliefs are scientifically false. (The types of birth control Hobby Lobby objects to covering is scientifically no different than the types of birth control they are willing to cover.)

Some believe the ruling is an extension of the corporate personhood embodied in the Citizens United ruling. While I vehemently disagree with Citizens United, I do so because there is an aggregate power held by corporations that can dwarf the power of actual human individuals and thereby lead to an unfair imbalance when it comes to engaging in political speech. However, it is clear that corporations DO have an interest in what happens politically, as laws do affect bottom lines. For the corporation Hobby Lobby to hold religious beliefs that carry into the political arena calls into question Hobby Lobby's reason for being. The corporation was created for profit making not for soul saving. As a profit making entity it may rightly be concerned with political outcomes but enforcing religious preferences is not within its purview.

Which brings into focus another principle undermined by the Hobby Lobby decision, namely, that there is a difference between for-profit corporations and non-profit corporations. For the Hobby Lobby decision to remain limited to contraception the Court cited the fact that a "work-around" was already in place. But prior to their ruling, the work around existed for non-profit religiously-oriented entities. For these entities their religious mission is their raison d'etre - not profit making. It is in society's interest to have a different corporate structure for non-profit organizations so the power of organizations can be brought to bear when working on worthy causes. However, profit making for the benefit of the Hobby Lobby owners is not a cause worthy of the same work-around - at taxpayers' expense! - available to non-profits.

So with this single ruling the Court has blurred the lines on separation of church and state, between corporate owners and their employees, and the separate for-profit and non-profit corporate structures. In its worst manifestations individuals who form closely held companies will be able to control their employees behavior both on and off the job while shielding themselves from liability and avoiding participation in laws they don't agree with, all while making a profit and forcing taxpayers foot the bill for their religious peccadilloes as long as their beliefs are sincerely held. What a nightmare.

Picking up the Pieces... or Not...

The problems inherent in the situation we left behind in Iraq are bubbling up. The question of what to do must be discussed on Capital Hill and elsewhere, but this time I hope our Commander in Chief makes the policy call without asking Congress to get out front with their support. We learned when President Obama considered limited strikes in Syria but decided to consult with Congress first that the current Congress will avoid whenever possible taking a public position on a difficult issue but they won't hesitate to find fault with whatever path President Obama chooses. In other words, experience has taught us that this Congress is highly unlikely to do their jobs and act for the good of the nation's future.

There are no easy answers to the situation in Iraq. There may not even be any good answers. Nonetheless, this President knows that our country's actions contributed to Iraq's destabilization and it could be to everybody's benefit for our country to contribute to returning the region to some semblance of stability, even if our role is primarily as advisors.

I personally am far more of a dove than a hawk. Less is always more when it comes to war. But while unconditional pacifism is a valid personal choice it is not an option available to a government charged with protecting all its citizens. When it comes to military intervention I tend to trust President Obama's decisions because I trust his ability to assess complex situations and I believe he acts with an agenda that supports both US interests and the interests of region. What makes the Middle East such a tough puzzle is that the arena is never restricted to just a few players and just a few countries and borders are both permeable and malleable.

President Obama is fully his own man now. He does not have to run for re-election. Overall, policy decisions in international affairs are a very mixed bag and nobody knows what would have happened if different policies had been followed. However, this President has shown good instincts and restraint in calling for the raid that took down Osama Bin Laden, in bringing Iran to the negotiating table through economic sanctions rather than military action, and in limiting our actions in both Libya and Syria. If he believes the US must help pick up the pieces in Iraq to prevent someone else from picking them up and creating a worse nightmare, I will accept his judgment.

So Mr. President, I will offer my support for the policies you adopt when it comes to limited engagement in Iraq. I ask only that your policy decisions be driven by your priorities, and not those of weapons manufacturers or big oil. And remember, less is more when it comes to war.

The Time to Talk is NOW - Since Yesterday Has Passed

I began this blog when the President was considering limited air strikes in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I did not have a firm opinion on exactly what should be done but I knew that the time to carefully consider all options and their consequences was before we got our military involved. As it turns out, the President chose to seek the advice and consent of Congress and the American people and although he the right to act independently as Commander in Chief, military involvement was avoided through lack of public and Congressional support. This attempt on the part of President Obama to thread the needle ultimately resulted in the removal chemical weapons from this dangerous arena which is certainly to everyone's benefit. Whatever happens over the long term in Syria will be the result of the situation on the ground, which is not something the US can control without boots on the ground. Arming rebels, or even governments, is not always a great answer because your ally one day may be your enemy the next.

The President is facing a similar situation in Iraq. The Iraq War 2 ripped the bandage off a less-than-stable situation for reasons that had less to do with a direct threat to American interests than it did with a desire to see a certain outcome. The result has been bleeding across the entire region. In the age of instant access to information and communication numbers matter more than ever, not just money and position. Repressed people who see no hope in their current situation can be convinced to take on the existing power structure to force change, through violence if necessary. Without boots on the ground - which virtually NOBODY supports - perhaps the best the US can do is guide this country in transition (formation?) through information and diplomacy as a more equitable distribution of power is reached.

From the American point of view, the desired outcome in the region centers on how events in the region will affect the price of oil. It is time to ask ourselves who is driving that agenda. America's dependence on oil - foreign or otherwise - needs to be addressed as a national security issue. If the true cost of protecting oil prices were calculated into the cost of oil to the consumer alternative and renewable energy would be dominating the market by now. Many recognized this in the 70's if not before but efforts to move towards renewables were largely quashed by special interests. The fact that we have elected politicians willing to go to war for oil, willing to favor big oil over the environment, willing to allow big oil to destroy ecosystems with little consequence to their bottom line is because we don't connect the dots, as citizens, and demand different policies.

The picture is becoming clearer to many who compartmentalized issues in the past. Big business in the form of big oil is a threat to American civil society. The time to talk about our future involvement in Iraq is NOW, but in doing so we need to carefully consider the big picture.

If Cantor Can't Who Can?

The political bombshell of last week was the upset of Eric Cantor in the Republican primary in Virginia. The victor in this primary challenge is a virtual unknown and based on the brief exposure he received during an interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC, he's an inexperienced newbie who can't even see Russia from his front door The fact that Republican voters have traded in clout on Capital Hill for a representative who brings mostly bluster to his new position speaks volumes. If Eric Cantor, House Majority Leader, can't stop a far-right challenger, who can?

We all know Washington in broken. So is the world economy, the Middle East, and America's middle class. In order to evolve beyond the current morass it will likely take more than a cultural preacher holding aloft a bible filled with conservative talking points. There are no easy answers. Policy solutions must deal with not only principle but also reality. Wearing ideological blinders will not help us find a way out.

Republicans on Capital Hill must be quaking in their boots, as they should be. How could the electorate not realize that having a representative from their district in a powerful position is to their advantage? Apparently they decided that he wasn't THEIR representative. They may be pulling the lever next to his name but his leverage is not being used to their advantage. Hence, out he goes, and good riddance.

This apparently unlearned lesson in representing your constituents - or not representing your constituents - may be the root cause of Mitt Romney failed campaign in 2012. There is a sense among voters that the politicians representing them in Washington have completely lost touch with what life on their home front is all about. While this populist resurgence has so far played against Republicans, Democrats should be heeding this lesson as well. Rhetoric is one thing, but when policies continue to favor the upper-upper class and Hillary Clinton considers herself 'dead broke' because she is $12 million in debt (what does that say about her assets?) Democrats are also treading on thin ice.

Whether we can, as a country, steer our way back from the brink of dysfunction will depend on whether we successfully forge a team of the governing bodies and the governed both willing to work towards a shared vision. If that coalition fails to form, irrelevance isn't only a risk for the Cantors on Capital Hill, but for the entire government and its citizens as well.

It's a Question of Culture

I thought globalization of the world economy was supposed to prevent international aggression such as the creeping take over of Ukraine by 'mother' Russia (or is it m#%&$ing Russia?). The Soviet Union and the United States spent decades ruled my MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) where we lived in a world of separate but more or less equal superpowers, each deterred from aggression by the understanding that it would meet with pushback of equal or escalating measure. During the stalemate we were able to break the back of the Soviet empire through the lure of Western consumerism but we cannot eliminate a centuries old culture by promising capitalism alone.

The role of culture in shaping events is too often underestimated. We belong voluntarily to churches, to clubs, to other organizations formed when like-minded people assemble. We belong to our country of birth whether we like it or not. Culture is created at the intersection where history, environment and free will meet to color our choices. We are born into a culture but we also shape it by the choices we make. America's ethnically multi-cultural reality has made our national culture more difficult to define. Instead of being linked by culturally-influenced foods, music and clothing styles, America is unified and defined by the principles governing civic life which in theory may be applied anywhere. The principles of one-person-one-vote and the rule of law can theoretically be applied anywhere humans organize into societies, whereas a taste for food made with feta and olive oil and music played on Alpine horns and accordions develops over time and is more site specific.

Iraq is experiencing a new round of insurgencies and it is telling that members of the "national army" are removing their uniforms rather than fight the "enemy". Apparently they aren't so sure that the arriving anit-government forces are an enemy worth shedding blood to repel. It was unbelievably arrogant of the Bush administration to enter into Iraq assuming we could make it a client state simply because control over their oil supply was in our national interest. Once there, if we had the war "won" as John McCain attests it is appropriate to expect the Iraqis to handle things going forward. If the situation degenerated it is the result of dissatisfaction with the status quo by the people who actually live there. The fact that the Iraqi state we left was more OUR creation and than it was a creation of the Iraqi people is a contributing factor to the dissatisfaction. Perhaps the country's culture was not compatible with the democratic/capitalist culture we attempted to push on them for our own selfish reasons. Should it surprise us that their own cultural histories are more important to them than the culture of democracy and capitalism that we tried to export? In the long arc of Iraqi history how will it look to have American-backed forces continue to impose solutions for what is essentially a local struggle?

Developing countries used to look to America as an example of how a government can respond to its people and protect its people through free trade, the ballot box and the rule of law. Given what those in power in America have done to the less powerful in America in the last few decades -- despite the existence of a "free and democratic" society -- we are no longer an example rising cultures want to follow. In fact struggling populations may feel some aversion to "the American way". Given the current economic and political mess in American society - can you blame them?

It is time for America to stop imposing our 'culture' (think Miley Cyrus, Madonna, think Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, unhealthy fast foods and businesses allowed to pollute the environment without sanction) around the world without cleaning up our own act first. We have become an example of what NOT to do as much as an example to admire. If we can re-create a society others envy they will voluntarily allow us to lead but for now America's role in the world has been undermined by that which we have done to ourselves.

Post Script

We have now learned that the new NBA commissioner supports booting Sterling out of the league. Major corporate sponsors had already spoken by severing their connections to Sterling's team. Commissioner Silver's swift action validates the condemnation of racial bigotry that has been coming from all sides since the remarks were first aired. Hooray.

Silver also announced that the NBA would be evaluating Sterlings "entire history" and not simply the recent remarks. Sterling was known to have openly discriminated against people of color (black and brown) in rental policies. I know part of the reason this is now relevant when it wasn't before is that times have changed, as has the Commissioner. However, one lesson that some might conclude from looking at the NBA's response to racism is this: It's OK to insult and discriminate as long as the targets are poor people of color, but once you start insulting rich people of color too, you've got to go. Time will tell as policy plays out in the future but please, NBA, prove me wrong on this.

The Warped World View of the 1%

The twisted minds of Mitt Romney and Donald Sterling can’t help but reveal themselves over time. Their own words have revealed that these super-wealthy asset managers actually believe in their heart of hearts that they are self-made and deserve to possess and control every dime that passes through their hands. Mitt Romney let us know he had no qualms about taking away jobs from long-time workers so he could reap big bucks and then criticizing the laid off workers for not being successful like him. And then there is his characterization of wounded veterans and their families as ‘takers’ while he, a man without a job who makes his money off investments, is a ‘maker’. Once the public at large saw how the gears in his mind turned they rejected him at the polls and chased him away from the national political scene.

Donald Sterling has demonstrated the same twisted attitude towards players in his NBA franchise. Apparently he thinks he’s giving the players homes and cars out of the goodness of his heart as if the audiences buy tickets in order to see him and his marketing operation when in fact it is obvious his franchise would be worthless without the talents and efforts of his players.

The fact that Donald Sterling’s remarks revealed overt racism in addition to delusional narcissism means it will be much easier to rally public opinion against him. My expectation is that he will soon be driven away from the NBA based on the racist aspect of his remarks alone. Much will be written about how this blatantly racist human being was allowed to own an NBA team for so long. That is how it should be and I will be happy to see him go. However, I find the narcissistic/egotistic philosophy also revealed in his remarks equally disturbing. It might even be more dangerous to society because it can be harder to spot.

Romney, the Sterling, and many others in the 1% stratosphere truly believe their contribution to society merits the compensation and status they collect (or inherit) and control, when a rational analysis reveals otherwise. They see themselves as valuable because they are rich enough to write the checks while believing their employees (the real source of an employers’ wealth) are worthless because they depend on cashing the checks. This attitude is as delusional as it is egotistic. I’m not saying the management/business end of an operation adds nothing. To the contrary, business is always a partnership between workers and management. The partnership’s success depends on each side showing respect for the other and acknowledging their interdependent worth.

Public pressure is mounting for the NBA to force Sterling out if he doesn’t remove himself soon, but public pressure to keep these wealthy wackos away from positions of power must not stop at the removal of Sterling and the rejection of Romney. The public must show all the warped 1% the door, starting with the likes of the Koch brothers. The 1%’s must be told their twisted world-view will no longer be allowed to control the political process and determine public policy. It is mind-boggling that we have shown deference to the voices of these lunatics for the past 30 years. We cannot allow the bowing and scraping to the wealthy 1% to continue one minute longer. The race to the bottom for workers across the country will only be stopped when those at the bottom refuse to sink and instead rise up to demand respect - and compensation commensurate with their contributions.

What's Your Point GOP?

We all know the axiom 'you can't legislate morality'. Nonethelss we want our legislators to craft laws which shape the society in which we live. But what is this ideal society we are aiming for?

The value of the vision is often underestimated and under examined. The deep divide we are experiencing as a nation has come about because there is so little agreement on a positive vision for our future. Even if we can't pin down the specifics (e.g., which industries will rise and which will be outsourced) are there certain essential features of American society that we can agree on? If we know where we are headed it is easier to chart a course.

In recent years most of us on the left and on the right have been operating on the assumption that our elected representatives all aspire to bring about a more perfect union wherein all children have a chance to grow up free of hunger and receive a good education. In reality voters should be questioning this very assumption. It is not that long ago that lynchings were common in parts of the country, law enforcement was often complicit and politicians were not eager to change the status quo. Since the formation of LBJ's Great Society we have been educated to believe that we have moved beyond the era of government condoned repression. It's time to disabuse ourselves of that assumption based on today's realities.

The efforts of GOP-led statehouses to restrict access to the voting booth suggests that some legislators don't actually ascribe to government based on one-person-one-vote. The idea that a company owner's religious beliefs may be allowed to influence how the company's employees may be treated (should the Supreme Court so decide) is a hint that some believe that keeping state policies separate from religious beliefs is no longer an important principle. The fact that our tax system continues to redistribute wealth and its influence upwards to those already earning hundreds of times more than those who work for minimum wage lets us know that those who produce wealth are not sharing in it under current laws. The fact under new Supreme Court rulings political speech over the public airwaves will be allocated solely on the basis of who can pay should should serve as a warning that there will be no free exchange of ideas except perhaps around the kitchen table.

One of the two major parties consistently speaks out against these principles that many of us thought the vast majority of American citizens had all agreed upon: 1) a representative democracy based on one person-one-vote regardless of age, color, or socioeconomic status, 2) separation of church and state, 3) equitable distribution of wealth among workers and management based on actual contribution to productivity, and 4) free and open exchange of ideas in the political arena and elsewhere.

We can argue about the exact role and size of government but are we ready to throw out the very underpinnings of the democratic process? Undoubtedly there are some families and individuals who would benefit if we just did away with democracy altogether. A two class society where 99% of the population labors at subsistence wages (or less) for the benefit of 1% of the population serves the needs of those in the 1% just fine. (Welcome to the plantation.)

My message to American voters is this: Buyer beware. Even if you have voted Republican all your life, please don't let the 1% fool you into thinking America as a whole will benefit from the policies being pushed by the GOP big donors. Helping America as a whole isn't on their agenda.

Conditions are bad for many right now but silence won't make things better. Neither will complacency. So start talking.... at home, at Starbucks, on your break at work, in the picket line, in line at the food pantry, wherever you can find someone willing to engage in speech that is actually free. America's greatest strength is that within the system itself there are pathways to reform. At least for now, in the United States we don't have to tear down the government to change it. The first step each of us must take is a trip to the voting booth. November is not that far away. It might be time to start walking - or should I say running?

Midterm Mindset: Voters! Grab the Wheel!

Democrats have been pulling it out for a few election cycles in a row now, with the unfortunate exception of the 2010 midterms. If the hard fought gains won since Bush-Cheney left town are to be maintained Democrats can’t afford to ease up now. The electorate appears to be fundamentally in agreement with their platform (even though they seem unwilling to promote it) but whether this will be reflected in the November election results remains to be seen.

Let’s face it. There is a segment of the population who will NEVER vote Democratic, particularly in the midst of an African American President’s administration, so let’s not waste time considering how to motivate or inspire the hard right to fall in love with the Affordable Care Act. For the majority of citizens, however, the notion that the program is widely unpopular is likely exaggerated. They may be withholding judgment until the effects on the economy of its implementation become evident, but I don’t ascribe to the idea that there’s a groundswell of citizens who think it spells automatic disaster.

If Democrats hope to win undecided voters by running away from the ACA this will only aid and abet a Republican agenda. Democrats need to stress the collection of advances towards a more just and inclusive society that have been accomplished since President Obama’s election in 2008. Among the achievements: inclusion of the “out” LGBT community in the ranks of the military, inclusion of lower income individuals in our health care system, setting expectations for more equitable pay, more support for those who wish to obtain a college degree, and for those who came to this country as minors and who wish to become contributing members of our society. Taken together these policies paint a picture of where our society is headed under Democratic leadership that is in stark contrast to where the policy initiatives put forth by the GOP would take us.

Here’s the picture being painted by Republicans: voting rights restricted, government services for those who are unemployed or living in poverty severely curtailed, legal protections for unions and low wage workers removed, and tax shelters for the wealthy protected while taxation of everyone else is demanded in order to restore support for those truly in need. And that doesn’t even take into account the vastly different views of how the needs and concerns of women should be addressed.

If Democrats keep making these differing visions apparent to the voting public they might not have as much convincing to do as they think they have. What the Republicans are selling doesn’t have much appeal beyond the religious right (who typically win only in primaries) and the super-wealthy. The bigger problem for Democrats will be motivating individuals to believe that politics itself can accomplish anything. When their own lives have been decimated by the financial crisis, the sequester, reduction of support services such as unemployment compensation and food stamps, getting by each day rises higher on the to-do list while political action sinks. It is vital to keep pointing out those instances where actual progress has been made to keep alive the belief that change is possible.

It is also important to remember that attitude counts. Words matter. As a candidate, if you can convince me you are passionate not only about your pet programs and your own re-election, but also about bringing to life the vision of a more equitable and inclusive America you may get me off my duff and to a voting both. For voters to make the effort they have to believe that you will be pulling on the wheel, too, right beside them, not just until the votes are cast but throughout your term. Elizabeth Warren is the quintessential example of a politician getting this right at the moment. In contrast, if I sense a candidate’s words are only words - a script rather than an expression of will and deeply held conviction – I’m likely to believe that come January the policy agenda will take a back seat to the perks of holding office. In that case why should I bother to vote?

I really can’t give up on the political process. I was raised outside of DC with a father who worked on the Hill. I witnessed a time in history when political actions and policies literally changed the world, but not everyone was raised that way. For some, politics may seen as an exotic game – like cricket or curling – that occurs in some distant arena and that had no effect on their lives as far as they can tell. Convincing these citizens that their vote counts is half the battle.

Please please please, elected Democrats and Democratic candidates everywhere, for the next six months search your souls and realize that more than your own election is at stake. Find the fire within to speak and act as if the future of your children, your grandchildren and your country depends on it. Because in fact, it does.

What’s Free About $1000+ Per Minute?

The US Supreme Court has struck another body blow to the very concept of representative democracy in its recent decision in “McCutcheon v. FEC.” The Court ruled (in their “up-for-sale” brand of wisdom) that a single wealthy individual can contribute to as many different politicians and/or causes as s/he can afford and sees fit in a single election cycle. This allows the wealthiest among us to spread their chosen message throughout the land, regardless of whether the individuals they are spending on will actually represent them, as opposed to some other group of citizens residing elsewhere, perhaps far, far away from the source of the money.

Even if you set the geographical considerations aside, this decision moves us in an anti-democratic direction. SCOTUS decided this case under the rubric that political contributions are a form of “free speech” protected by the Constitution. Once you start removing limits on how much can be spent, however, the idea of political spending as free speech ends up on shaky grounds. The concept of “free speech” implies that no voice should be forced to remain silent and that the content of the message does not provide a basis for removing it from the public arena so long as the message is not false. In setting limits on how much can be spent on political campaigns by a single individual the government is not silencing voices; on the contrary it is allowing a range of voices to be heard. Should being less than super-wealthy prevent you from having a voice? What about your right to “free” speech?

When campaign messaging on mass media such as television costs $1000+ per minute removing all limits on how much a wealthy individual can spend across the country in a single election cycle doesn’t bring about increased freedom of speech it just enables the microphone to be sold to the highest bidder. Going forward freedom of speech over the public airwaves will be limited to members of the b/millionaire’s club.

Unless of course the Court itself glances back at what it has wrought and decides to reconsider…..

Investing in the Priceless

I am still hardly able to believe that the US has finally taken legislative action towards insuring that all citizens have access to reasonably priced healthcare that mandates routine screenings and preventive care without additional cost to the consumer. While I would have preferred a single-payer system not driven by profit-seekers, the ACA is still a vast improvement over the former structure. Congratulations are in order for those who helped bring this bill to life.

I am among those who had purchased “junk” insurance because of its low price, rather than continue to pay the $700+ price tag for COBRA. (That’s a lot for a fit single woman in her 50’s who is not on any routine medications wouldn’t you say?) I felt I should have some kind of insurance, although I knew the policy I could afford was substandard. Under the ACA I am paying less than I did for my junk insurance and WAY, WAY less than I did for COBRA, and have been promised better coverage besides. I suspect those who complain about losing their low-cost coverage really haven’t explored all the possibilities now available. And for future consumers of health insurance products I am confident the higher standards will lead to improved health outcomes in the next few decades.

People tend to think that young people will be subsidizing older people under the new system but I think young people may be the group to gain the biggest dividend in terms of better health outcomes thanks to the mandated free screenings and preventive care. Seemingly healthy younger people living on limited incomes often don’t budget any time or money at all for healthcare. Being unfamiliar with health problems beyond the cold or the flu they tend to ignore little signs and may not seek medical advice until they have a big problem on their hands. As I recall from the days of my youth, younger people often treat a first car the same way and what could have been prevented by routine maintenance can end up costing a major repair bill. I know I certainly change the oil in my car more frequently now than I did in my 20’s! If we manage to change this culture and encourage in younger people the habit of attending to their health they will benefit in the long run. The gift of good health is literally priceless.

Democrats should have been holding the ACA banner high all along as a means of leading the public rather than following the public’s apprehensions in search of their vote. I believe that by the time the mid-term elections arrive the public will have stopped listening to the neigh-sayers they (used to?) encounter daily on FOX and conservative talk radio. Personal experience will eventually triumph over rhetoric coming from somebody else’s mouth. Democrats who have been reluctant to associate their time on Capital Hill with this historic legislative achievement should think twice. Imperfect as it may be, especially in the days of its infancy, it represents substantial progress. The ACA is a banner we should all rally behind.

Blow the Man Down

The old Chris Christie is back – or should I say the real Chris Christie. In recent encounters with the press he adopted the familiar bullying tone he used in his rise to prominence in New Jersey politics. This is his style: To every question where a direct answer could cast an unflattering light on Christie or raise another uncomfortable question, the Governor responds with a single, mostly-non-responsive-but-on-topic sentence and then launches into 3 or 4 more sentences focused on the (supposed) inanity of the question and/or questioning the motives and intelligence of anyone who would ask such a thing. By the time Christie stops speaking most of the listening audience may have forgotten the original question and the fuzzy-but-on-topic part of his response but they will likely remember Christie’s rant against the questioner. Voters whose own frustrations often go unvented may experience vicarious pleasure in watching Christie unload. The fact that he does not possess rock star politician good looks may actually help his target audience buy into the Christie persona and drive them to cheer him on.

Unfortunately none of this contributes to a deeper understanding of what’s really been done (and is still being done?) in the name of the citizens of New Jersey by the Christie administration - using tax payer dollars I might add.

It seems likely that the Federal investigation stands the best chance of sifting some truth out of all the dirt being flung around. I hope the Feds pursue the investigation vigorously enough that the bubble which surrounds and hides the festering abuses of citizen-granted power will be pierced and the worst offenders can be cleared from the system.

Hobby Lobby: A ‘Person’ Not Born of God

Hobby Lobby’s owners contend that it should be legal for their personal religious beliefs to define limits for the actions of the corporate ‘person’ they control. That is hogwash, IMHO. To the extent that a corporation is a ‘person’ it is a person created by the state (i.e., in compliance with state laws) for the purpose of generating profit, not a God-created person born through God’s will to serve religious purposes. As a state-created ‘person’ a corporation must NOT be allowed to place religious rules ahead of federal rules, regardless of the religious beliefs of its owners. Should the US Supreme Court rule in favor of Hobby Lobby the distinction between religious law and federal law will be left infinitely permeable - which has ominous implications for our future. If God is watching out for the future of our country as a land of religious freedom s/he will advise the justices to rule against Hobby Lobby and in favor of the government.

God as Principle

Although I was raised attending Episcopal and Methodist churches, beginning in high school I rejected their teachings and began labeling myself as agnostic using the following logic. There may or may not be a God but being merely human I do not have the capacity to know for certain. The lack of certainty about the existence of God never concerned me however because I already knew I believed in the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”) and I had an internal compass that enabled me to feel empathy. A God who judged, punished and controlled seemed far-fetched, illogical and unnecessary.

Over the years life’s accumulating lessons have brought me to a different place. I believe that in reality we are all connected and of equal worth (‘…in the eyes of God’). I have seen my life go better when I operate from a place of balance between my needs and the needs of others. I no longer needed to be perfect, I just needed to find balance. As my sense of self gave way my experience of connectedness was felt as a spiritual awakening. At times it feels that I can reach into other planes of existence while meditating, dancing, making music or just sharing a good laugh.

In their best expression the world’s major religions offer to devotees a path to access the spiritual (“higher energy”) planes. While the rites, rituals and rules vary from one religion to another they share many of the same principles. I no longer say I’m agnostic because that would discount my experience of higher planes. Instead I say I believe in “God”, not as an anthropomorphic icon but as the embodiment of universal spiritual truths. God as Principle not Principal.

Some people learn by following rules and many religions expect that you follow their rules as the path to knowledge of God. I do not believe one religion holds a superior set of tools and following rules has never been my style anyway. I prefer to gain an understanding of concepts which can then be applied across a broad spectrum of circumstances. My concept of God cannot die any more than the process which turns water into steam can die. (Although the process may stop once the water is gone.) Just as there are actually many aspects to this process which could be examined separately (e.g., the physics of how heat is added, the expansion of molecules, their absorption into the surrounding vapors – or not) we come to have an intuitive understanding of the process by seeing it in action time and again. We also learn the implications of being around steam – its uses and its hazards.

I acknowledge the existence of God but I consider myself spiritual, not religious. I allow God-based principles to shape by behavior and outlook. The usefulness to me of applying these principles in daily life has been validated through first hand experience. I have found some peace, comfort and guidance through a connection to this higher authority and believe the experience of God could be helpful to others. That said, you will not hear me advocating for any one set of religious beliefs unless I’m “preaching to the choir” in a setting where there are no surprises and where the push to join is minimal. Even then references to doctrinal specifics make me uncomfortable, so although Christianity is the spiritual language I was raised to speak I do not claim it as my own.

The great Garrison Keillor described the prayers of the Unitarians as follows:

Our … something
Who art … somewhere
Hallowed by thy name (…or names).

I laugh every time I recall hearing that for the first time. It may sound absurd but it hits the religion nail right on the head. If I decide to join another community of faith it’s likely I’ll be checking out a Unitarian church. Or maybe I’ll just meditate more often. Namaste.

I Always Mean What I Say

...but I don’t always say what I mean. I find it too difficult to lie and fabricate so I stick to some version of the truth whenever possible. On the other hand I know I cannot always say what I mean because blunt speech may have unwanted impact on others. Determining what can be said and what should remain unspoken is largely a matter of context. It’s the difference between speaking at a bar and speaking from a podium. Blogging affords me the opportunity to speak in an off-the-cuff, informal way that carries only the weight of a thought, more similar to the former than the latter. My words are offered without compensation and therefore with no motive other than to spur thoughts in others. I’d like to be the grain of sand in the oyster that spurs reflection, if not discussion, that in turn may lead to pearls of wisdom pouring forth through the ballot box. (NB: Please forgive the over-stated metaphor. It is intended to be somewhat humorous.) I hope my readers understand that I accept the existence of other, quite possibly valid points of view not articulated on this site and I admit that my views may evolve over time.

At the moment the world is not in great shape for almost anybody as far as I can tell so making a choice to disengage from political efforts at social reform can be tempting. It seems to have become the answer for many however I believe this will only accelerate the downward spiral for everybody so I choose not to throw myself down that road. This blog is one way I attempt to stay engaged. In this forum I feel free to mean what I say and say what I mean.

What is fascinating about President Obama recently “telling it like it is” about Russian aggression in Crimea is that at first I thought it might be an instance where it would have been better for him to mean what he said rather than say what he meant. It was a bit shocking to hear him call Russia a regional power and describe the Crimean land grab as a regional conflict. I believe this is an accurate analysis but I was anxious about what might result from raising the hackles of a leader already showing sings of impulsiveness. Much to my surprise it appears this jolt of cold, hard truth seems to have sent enough of a shock through Putin’s system that within a day or two he picked up the phone to speak one-on-one with President Obama. The Crimean situation is a regional issue in terms of the ground game but it has put the credibility of both Russia and the US on the line. The agreement under which the Ukrainian government forfeited its nuclear weapons was ignored by the Russians but in light of this agreement we cannot simply look the other way without damaging our own credibility. The push-back we offer in concert with our European allies must be more than symbolic. In considering the path US/Russian relations are now on thanks to the Crimean land grab Putin might be rethinking his end game. An off-ramp might be sounding better to him now.

I certainly hope this is another instance where President Obama’s patience and his employment of measured responses will pay off. Admittedly our patience is backed by the very big sticks we carry which we could still decide to use or loan to our allies but ‘words before guns’ is a wise approach. In President Obama’s put-down Putin must have felt the pain of a verbal jab landing with the sting of truth and it hurt enough that he began a conversation. Let’s hope the dialog that began with a verbal jab leads to serious diplomatic discussions that result in a speedy resolution acceptable to all parties and in accordance with international law.

Call it What It Is – A Challenge to Separation of Church and State

Conservatives like to reference our 'Founding Fathers" as a source of inspiration but in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby conservatives seem to ignore the relevant principle. Our founders understood the difference between individuals and institutions. They also recognized that while certain institutions might dictate behaviors to their members (e.g., churches) the State cannot allow such institutions to dictate to individuals not voluntarily living as part of that community. The “Separation of Church and State” is how we refer to this distinction and it is an essential principle of American society.

All citizens belong to the institution of government and must agree to abide by its rules or face punishment. This is the basis for the rule of law. Forming a corporation, however, is a voluntary act, and by setting up a corporation in order to take advantage of the business benefits offered under corporate law, the individuals involved in forming the corporation have agreed to play by the rules set out by the government which regulate corporate actions. Under the principle of separation of church and state an individual’s personally held religious beliefs are irrelevant to the laws governing corporations. Therefore there can be no exemptions offered to corporations based on religious beliefs. The Hobby Lobby case is not about religious freedom as practiced by individuals it is about the separation of church and state as practiced by corporations. Period.

Move On Mr. Putin! (or should I say aside?)

As the stand-off in Crimea continues between occupying Russian forces and Ukrainian forces who refuse to abandon their posts, Vladimir Putin is dropping the rhetoric which served as the pretext for military aggression and instead citing history. From what I read the emotional address he presented to the Russian Parliament in favor of annexation of Crimea by Russia seems to reveal the distorted thinking of an aging dictator who believes his own visions of a time gone-by. The original public justifications for his Crimean aggression were based in current events (the a-constitutionality of Yanukovych’s fall and the persecution of ethnic Russians in Crimea) but these have now been replaced with references to the past. He sees letting Crimea slip from Russian control as an historical error he now has the opportunity to correct through outright annexation. He even referenced a 10th Century figure named Prince Vladimir, whose conversion to Orthodox Christianity played a role in the foundation of what would become the Russian Empire. Does Putin see himself as another Vladimir destined to restore Empire to the Russians? The blurring of lines between history and today’s reality as motivation for military action in the Ukraine makes me wonder if Putin isn’t also having flashbacks to conflicts that have arisen in Chechnya during the past few decades. Although brutal responses worked for Putin in Chechnya, when Yanukovych tried to strong-arm his way out of street protests in Kiev he was driven out -- or could it be his exit was planned as a way out for Yanukovych personally and as cover for Russian aggression into Crimea?

Regardless of exactly how the current situation came to a head, for the West to steer our way beyond it we must either find a way to work with Putin or around him. Putin himself is now in his 60’s. Last summer his judo coach, a long-time mentor and friend who had been described as a second father, died at the age of 75. It would not surprise me if Putin, a man who used to love being photographed shirtless while engaging in athletic activities, has begun longing for days gone by. Beneath his bluster Putin must know his grasp of the reins of power is in danger of slipping.

Regarding Crimea, I feel sure there are within Russia younger leaders with different histories and different priorities who might have chosen another course. Russia’s international reputation as a dependable party to international agreements might not have been tossed aside so quickly by someone younger. Putin is apparently depending on the language of Empire to garner support for his actions but whether this act of aggression strengthens his position or ultimately weakens it will depend on whether the positive affect of rising Russian nationalism proves sufficient to off-set the negative impact on Russian society of Western sanctions. History only calls to those who remember it fondly. To others it serves as a warning. If the sanctions imposed by the West raise red flags (as opposed to Red flags) among others in the Russian power elite, military aggression in Crimea could mark the beginning of the end for Putin.

Sex Work: For Some It’s Just Plain Work

I have heard many discussions recently on public media regarding possible decriminalization of sex work. I truly welcome these discussions. This is a tricky issue for me, as I’m sure it is for many, and I find it difficult to feel certain that I have chosen wisely in concluding that sex work should be regulated but decriminalized for the benefit of all involved. I feel 100% certain that work done under the umbrella of the sex industry damages the lives of many women and men, but I am not so sure that we should treat the industry as so inherently evil that we must define it as criminal in every instance.

For me personally I fear working in the sex trade would take too big a toll on my body and my sense of self (I'm more of a dancer than an actress) and therefore will seek most any other type of work to pay the bills. Others, however, may see working a minimum wage job at a fast-food restaurant as more damaging and exploitative than engaging in sex work. Taking recreational drugs, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and gambling can all destroy lives but there are individuals who can handle these activities and freely choose to engage in them. As a society we have decided to legalize these activities and to make help available to those who need it. Why not see sex work in the same light?

We would all like to see the violence, coercion and abuse at the hands of johns and ‘managers’ curbed but I believe accomplishing this is made all the more difficult by the fact that sex workers are already, by definition, in cahoots with criminals. Your own criminal acts may prevent you from reporting the criminal acts of others. Human trafficking for sex or any other purpose is abhorrent but as long as sex workers operate within a criminal matrix they have fewer opportunities to change, influence or leave their environment.

We need to have regulation, protection and freedom of movement for all kinds of workers – not just sex workers - but criminalization doesn’t help. Furthermore, criminalization of sex work affords ample opportunity for (relatively petty?) police corruption which usually goes undetected and which further victimizes the workers, and if sex work results in an arrest record it will be more difficult for a would-be-former sex worker to transition to another line of work. Decriminalization will be the first step in eliminating the stigma attached to workers who have likely already suffered enough exploitation. Decriminalization could help clients as well by allowing for regulation of health and safety practices.

Overall, criminalization of sex work seems a paternalistic approach to public policy. I am not sure I have the right to tell other people (women and men) what they can or can’t do with their bodies any more than I can tell a woman what she can or can’t do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Although it would be great to live in a society where opportunities to earn a living wage abound, that is not the case right now. In an economy where any work at all is hard to come by I think we should not be criminalizing business transactions between consenting adults which allow workers to put food on the table. What keeps coming to mind when I think of this issue is: Who am I to judge?

The New 2 Party System?

For years many middle-of-the-road Americans have been reporting that they dislike both Democrats and Republicans and believe that participation in the political process is a waste of time. To these citizens Democrats and Republicans are simply 2 sides of the same dirty coin, and the coin always winds up in the pockets of the 1%. Many don’t bother to vote because they don’t see either candidate as capable of making a difference in their lives. Although President Obama has made some major policy strides (most of which I celebrate) the liberal base thinks he’s too centrist and the entire right celebrates nothing so much as obstruction of his agenda. Despite the current gridlock, in another few years Americans will have to choose again as we chart a new course for another 4 years.

The Republican party has been splintering for a while now over what defines the Republican “soul” but recently the religious right has been losing more influence than they are gaining. Young people (the portion of the base most likely to believe their participation in the process will have an impact on their lives) seem to be swinging in the Libertarian direction. They see the consistency in advocating small government when it comes to regulation of personal behavior (e.g., legalization of marijuana and gay marriage) and small government when it comes to regulation of trade and business practices. I wouldn’t be any more surprised to see Rand Paul on the ticket than I would Ted Cruz. (Frankly I don’t think Ted Cruz can sell his myths to a broad enough base to be a viable a national candidate even if he were to survive the GOP primaries.)

As for Democrats, loyal-by-nature people that we are, we will likely rally behind the anointed candidate regardless but there are many among us who think it’s time for Progressives to move the front of the tent and grab a microphone to sell their message to the masses. The enabling of the 1% and the entrenchment of a corporate welfare system which our elected representatives have allowed for the past 30 years (at least) has got to come to an end and the government is the only player in town that can assist with that effort. Progressives understand this is the reason non-elite Democrats vote for Democrats even though they don’t always deliver on their stated priorities.

Hillary seems a shoe-in against any Republican candidate (or so we are constantly advised) but if the 2016 race were to be a Libertarian versus a Progressive I wonder what would happen? Both sides, and particularly the young on both sides, might have someone to get excited about. My fear is that disaffected people on the right actually believe that less is more in every area of government, without fully realizing that small government could lead to less control in the areas of food safety, working conditions and environmental impact from energy generation. If what’s happening in Nevada (nuclear waste spills) and West Virginia (chemicals leaking into the water supply) - not to mention what happened to the economy at the hands of the banks in 2009 - leads you to believe that in principle government regulation is an unnecessary and harmful intrusion into business practices then you are impervious to reason IMHO. I shudder to think what the country would become if Libertarians had their way.

It is still too early to name names for 2016 but it’s not too early to be spotting the trends. Each party should be focused on defining an agenda they can sell to their constituents as a path to a better future. What we've been offered by both Democrats and Republicans hasn’t worked for decades and the electorate knows it.

The Escalator or the Off-Ramp?

It is clear that one fundamental difference between a McCain approach to foreign policy and the Obama approach is that when it comes to military solutions McCain is always heading to an escalator while Obama is always looking for an off-ramp. This seems to be rooted in two different views of America’s role in the world and the source of its strength.

If America’s power on the world stage rests primarily in its military might an escalator might serve our purposes well. However, if America’s appeal, especially to societies in transition (otherwise known as “soft power”) depends on other factors such as quality of life, economic opportunity and freedom of expression, then an off-ramp may be the wiser choice. Many honorable Americans such as John McCain are quick to take an escalator, perhaps thinking that the use of military might by America is akin to putting the fear of God into our enemies. It may have worked to end WW II when we dropped nuclear bombs on Japan but few would suggest that we try that tactic again. Realistically, others who are quick to seek an escalator are those who profit from the war machine itself. People who live in societies where US intervention is being considered may not stop to question whether their lives have been destroyed for profit or principle but it is a question we must ask ourselves in light of the damage done our own society in terms of wounded veteran and to our national identity as power brokers rather than warriors. Power players don’t need to starthot wars; they find a way to co-opt their enemies.

Creating an off-ramp serves a different view of America’s strengths. It is not a sign of weakness to put battles-to-the-death in proper context and seek alternatives, it is a sign of intelligence at work. War profiteers will not profit from non-military solutions but societies will.

Putin’s Crimean land-grab came about because he saw Russia’s soft power in Ukraine evaporating as citizens chose closer ties to Europe and the US over closer ties with Russia. It was only as Putin’s soft power was ebbing that military occupation of Crimea became necessary. Much of our own soft power on the world stage was destroyed in the Bush/Cheney years when we took matters into our own hands and invaded a sovereign nation on falsified (or at least questionable) grounds. We cannot undo what was done but we cannot perpetuate the mistakes of the past either. I applaud President Obama’s emphasis on adapting the military to modern times, emphasizing technology and surgical capabilities over traditional warfare. What events in Ukraine demonstrate is that America still has sufficient soft power to influence events without invasions and occupations. We also have economic tools in our tool-belt. Typically, over time the effectiveness of economic tools would increase, as would the cost to our own society of traditional military action. All this must be considered when confronted with a case of old-fashioned military aggression.

Whether Putin is emboldened or chastened in the aftermath of his Crimean land-grab will depend on his sense of himself. If we inflate his sense of personal power through rhetoric or over-reaction we will be headed to the escalator. However, if we adopt a long-range view and force Putin to see his own actions from that perspective seeds of doubt may start to grow. Putin has problems beyond Crimea and while military action may temporarily increase national pride in the motherland economic woes and regional insurgencies will take a toll. The passage of time favors building an off-ramp, so let’s not head posthaste for the nearest escalator.

Speaking of...

The Keystone Pipeline, I hope before a decision is made the President will consider not only the pluses and minuses from our own economic point of view but also from the point of view of other players on the world stage. If building the pipeline is a big plus for an economic rival that should count as a minus from our point of view. The job creation argument in favor of building the pipeline is looking more and more like a myth from what I read. Some also argue that if the oil is not carried through pipelines it will be carried on the highways where there would be a greater likelihood of a spill. Wouldn’t highway transport be LESS vulnerable to an intentional act of sabotage or to damage from a climate-related event than a pipeline? One truck at a time seems easier to protect than mile upon mile of pipeline. I believe with each passing year a larger and larger percentage of our energy-sector spending should be devoted to developing and implementing alternative energy technologies. It is time to stop encouraging and rewarding the oil companies who have been at the root of so much damage to the natural and geopolitical world.

Putin v. Obama, I am so sick of hearing this comparison, especially when it is made by the right wing war mongers in Congress and the media as if Putin is the more admirable leader. This is a ridiculous comparison on so many levels. It is comparing apples and oranges every bit as much as comparing Russia to the United States is apples and oranges. Putin has been operating as a dictator in Russia for years now, and a bullying dictator at that. How can the right wing justify the implication that our US president should be conducting foreign policy more like a bullying dictator? I guess it is because Republicans have gotten used to acting like bullying dictators themselves. Case in point: Darrell Issa. If people like Darrell Issa don’t like the way things are they simply throw out the rule book and take over the situation by force. This is not the American way - thank God. I am very happy President Obama knows the difference between acting impulsively and acting responsibly. I'm pretty sure our allies are grateful too.

Putin’s plan, my gut tells me that the Crimean land-grab is not exactly a step in a grand plan. I believe it was an act driven by national need as much as it was a desire to re-establish empire. When George Bush went into Iraq it was with a similar objective. Our need (desire?) for access to Iran’s oil as determined by the Bush Administration is similar to Putin’s need (desire?) to retain complete control over the naval stations in the Crimean Peninsula. We wanted the oil but we didn’t necessarily want direct control of the whole region. (Although I do believe the neo-cons harbored hopes/plans for taking on Iran sometime in the near future for the same reason.) Just because Putin moved quickly to take control of the Peninsula as the pro-Russian government in Kiev fell, it doesn't necessarily follow that he plans to expand Russian control throughout the region. Land for land’s sake is not what he’s after, he just needs the ports. How hard we should push to force Russia back will depend largely on how much the people of Crimea want him out. It was an extra-legal move, but it might be a fait accompli. If the people of Crimea aren’t outraged, maybe we shouldn’t be either. Public and symbolic protests are in order but nothing that costs us just so we can punish Putin. That’s my thought anyway.

It’s a (Democratic) Process!

As a society we keep getting caught by the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows for an expanded notion of corporate “personhood” which gives corporations an expanded role in determining public policy, often at the expense of actual people. We have long identified a corporate “person” for the purposes of taxation and litigation but it is only recently that the Courts have been granting capital-creating priorities equal footing with society-creating priorities. Traveling any further down this path will only do more damage to our future.

In essence, a corporation is a set of rules governing processes related to running a business and creating profits. The overriding but limited concern of the corporate person is financial. The rules are codified and the corporate person works within these rules to complete its objectives. We used to limit the domain of corporate personhood to the financial, with full knowledge that as a society of human beings creation of profits is only one piece of the puzzle. We seem to be losing that perspective and along with it the ability to proscribe the role accumulation of wealth (corporate and individual) plays in our lives. The more personhood we grant to corporations the more other human concerns will be forced to take a backseat to the needs of the corporate machines.

To the extent that federal law can limit rather than widen the power of corporate machines we must move in that direction. We can start by limiting corporate influence in elections and on Capital Hill and reminding ourselves that human beings need more than money to survive. You can’t eat it and it doesn’t keep you warm at night. It also won’t drive you to the hospital and wait at your bedside when you are sick. Government by the people and for the people must be directed towards creating environments favorable to people, not corporations. Whether you start out rich or you start out poor, once we allow the needs of corporations (i.e., capital creation machines) to rule every aspect of our lives sooner or later they will certainly demand our own lives as a cost of doing business.

The US is in a transformational period. We have the opportunity right now to redirect and reprioritize government policies. The answer is not to create more profits by enhancing corporate power. Instead of offering corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy government resources must be spent to enhance the lives of all citizens, by improving public education, upgrading infrastructure and mass transportation, maintaining clean air and water standards and improving the quality of our food supply.

Tea Partiers have it wrong. We won’t improve our lives by destroying the federal government. Instead we must demand that it redirect its efforts. It is never too late to make improvements and a course correction is long overdue. We have nothing to lose but our complacency.

Putin on the Fritz

I find it odd that people see the recent land grab by Putin in Crimea as a sign of strength. It is true that he did it “because he could” but I believe it is an act born of desperation more than strength. Putin is not exactly riding a wave of international success when it comes to influence. While Putin stepped up and seemed ready to play the broker in Syria it is not clear that he has been able to deliver on his promises. Similarly, the initial swaying of the now-former Ukrainian government to take Russia’s hand (as opposed to the EU’s) has not gone as planned. The Ukrainian people insisted on cozying up to the EU instead. I hear there is a port in Crimea that Putin thinks he can’t live without. Could it be that Putin knows Russian influence is being driven out of the country so he has decided to grab something important for Russia on his way out?

Putin made his move knowing that the act was too minor to incur all out military retaliation and believing that Russia is so economically intertwined with Europe that any effort to punish Russia would inflict pain on Europe as well. He may think he will get away with this blatant land-grab, or at least not pay too high a price – as long as the people of the region don’t drive the Russians out. Such is the price of globalization.

Putin’s actions are a breech of international law and existing agreements and reveal his willingness to ignore international instruments. Putin’s Russia is still a player but clearly can’t be trusted to play fair. To prove yourself a liar and a cheat so publicly does seem rather crazy. Angela Merkel apparently holds a similar view of Putin’s actions.

While the cowboy contingent of the U.S. Congress likes to cite Putin’s precipitous military actions in Crimea as a sign of strength and Obama’s deliberative approach as a sign of weakness, the American people would be BEYOND outraged at President Obama if he were to undertake military action with the same impulsiveness Putin has displayed in the past few weeks. Those in Congress who engage in such disingenuous criticisms of the Obama Administration’s cautiousness serve nobody except themselves and Putin.

Given the interdependence of Europe and Russia it remains to be seen whether the West can push the right buttons to bring about a withdrawal of Russian forces. However, at a minimum the West will take symbolic actions in protest and think twice about dealing Russia into future hands. Still, to claim that Putin has outplayed the West and is operating from a position of strength after his Ukrainian allies were driven out of the country by the citizens themselves is a bit delusional in its own right.

David Green: Now You See Me - Now You Don't

In a case slated to be heard this month at the US Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, Hobby Lobby’s owner, David Green, asserts that his family business (Hobby Lobby), a private, for-profit company, should be allowed a religious exemption from certain aspects of federal law (specifically the requirement under the Affordable Care Act to cover specific legal forms of birth control for their employees) based on his own religious beliefs. In David Green’s ideal world, he could say “Now You See Me” to his employees while saying “Now You Don’t” to the IRS. The absurdity of his claim should be evident, yet this case has come before the Supreme Court. Huh!?

I understand that certain ACA requirements run afoul of the owner’s personal beliefs but I just don’t understand how that is relevant to his company's compliance with federal law. The reason for operating a business under a corporate structure is to shield the owner from personal liability and the owner's assets from the whims of the marketplace. The flip side, of course, is that the company's employees are shielded by law from the peculiarities of the owner’s personal beliefs. It's a "rights and responsibilities" kind of thing. Is David Green willing to abolish the corporate structure and pay people and vendors directly from his own bank account, and pay personal taxes on the profits and possibly suffer personal losses as the cost of doing business? If the answer is No, then he should realize that he is not the corporation and his religious beliefs do not matter. His corporation deserves no special privileges based on his religious beliefs just because it was started with his money.

This is a right wing-nut case if there ever was one. In business money is the only religion and the government writes the 10(000) commandments. If you want a religious exemption open a church, not a store.

Politics. I can't seem to quit you.

There are times I’d like to turn off the news. Stop listening. Stop knowing. Stop caring. Sadly, I can’t seem to quit. Politics is even harder to quit than the news because I believe it is possible I still can have some small influence over the outcome if I stay engaged in the political process. So I might as well accept it. I do now and probably always will get excited when Democrats and Progressives find success and I can’t help but revel in the failures of the Tea Party and the rest of the country’s right wing. However, I am not an insider in any sense of the word. I am an observer but not a wonk or a groupie. I like to know who is who but I don’t study the charts. What I have to say next comes from this somewhat distant vantage point. I have an opinion, but it may well change as new information comes to light. I am now, as always, just a citizen speaking.

This evening I posted a verse (see A Voice in Verse) imploring Hillary Clinton NOT to run. I am pretty sure that opinion will not change, which of course begs the question, if not Hillary, then who? While there may not be an obvious front-runner (I hope Joe Biden does not run either) my impression is that the Democratic party has within its ranks a number of gifted and serious up-and-comers who could potentially garner enough public and party support to mount a successful campaign. I am going to throw some names out there not because I think I’ve got it right, but because I’d like to start a discussion about 2016 that doesn’t assume Hillary or Joe Biden will top the Democratic ticket. Please, educate me by offering feedback. Let me know what you think I need to know. If there are hopefuls on your radar that aren’t on mine, please speak up. I am listening. With full knowledge that I may be suggesting implausible options, here goes.

Tim Kaine? He has experience at the city (former Mayor of Richmond) state (former Virginia Governor) and national level (current US Senator). He's even been chair of the DNC. All these could be helpful in a national election. He is fluent in Spanish and has a record of fighting for fair housing. He may have cross-over appeal to the "moral middle" not tied to a particular party. With Virginia recently turning blue nominating a Virginian could help keep the ball rolling across the entire South in 2016. He may not be a visionary like Barack Obama or a charismatic preacher like Bill Clinton but is it possible he would become a good General for Democratic causes on the Hill if he were Commander in Chief? Unfortunately I don’t see him making many moves towards national recognition yet and without a personal desire to take on the Presidency it will never happen for him.

Kirstin Gillibrand? Senator Gillibrand is more impressive every time I see her and she has been visible in the past year, especially on matters of particular significance to women. I can imagine Hillary deciding NOT to run but steering her endorsements towards Gillibrand as either the number 1 or number 2 on the national ticket. If it is not in the cards for Ms. Clinton to become the nominee I’m sure she would be happy to play the role of “queen maker”.

Elizabeth Warren? A Warren candidacy would definitely inspire the party’s base and with the Republicans in such disarray she might be a viable candidate. However, I fear she is stridently too far left for the country as a whole and should she not succeed nationally we could lose her necessary input in the Senate. As much as I’d like to see her gain power and influence I hope Elizabeth Warren stays in the Senate, at least for now.

Wendy Davis? I think she’s too new to be a serious contender on a national ticket – yet! - but I think she’s one to watch in the next few years.

Al Franken? I don’t hear his name tossed about for 2016 like I do Elizabeth Warren’s but it appears he’s laying solid foundations should he decide to go national at some point. He went from celebrity to public servant with unusual humility and seems to have avoided rubbing too many people the wrong way. From someone used to performing for cameras this is pretty remarkable. Who knows what is next for him but I hope he sticks around.

Joe Biden? Of course I should include his name, although I don’t find the idea of Biden for President terribly appealing. In past eras, being Vice President might have been the best place to launch a bid for the number one spot but I wonder if those days aren’t gone? A few decades ago candidates could be groomed and positioned by party bosses away from the eyes of the public until they were intentionally placed on the national stage. Today, however, in the media circus of Washington the Vice President is almost always in the wings while Senators, pundits and business(wo)men can all find a spotlight and a microphone. Being the VP doesn’t afford much opportunity to build a one-on-one relationship with the public and convince them that you are someone who can make things happen, even though they may admire you as a person and a public servant in the Number 2 spot. My personal objection to Joe Biden is not his ability or his personality. I simply hope the Democratic party goes with a younger up-and-comer, someone who can convince younger people s/he viscerally shares their concerns about the future, maybe even someone who wasn’t part of legislative body when society’s rules became so tilted towards the 1%. No offense to Joe Biden personally, but I hope he does not run.

So what do you think? Who else should people be talking about? Check in at The Forum and let me know. It’s your turn to speak.

Speaking Of…

The Bursting of the Housing Bubble…
Everybody seems to be ignoring a fundamental truth about the bursting of the housing bubble and the wave of foreclosures that followed. It is this: the banks lost NOTHING in this crisis. They owned the asset (the home or condo) while the homeowner was paying the mortgage and after foreclosure they still owned the asset. The asset may have been devalued but the bank didn’t lose it. Their losses were all on paper, and because they still owned the asset, the loss may be eventually reversed or recycled. They’ll earn interest from the next buyer. The homeowners were the ones who actually absorbed the losses. In my case I lost my 20% down payment and closing costs, 5 years of payments at over 6% interest, and when I couldn’t make my mortgage payments due to the loss of a contracting job (as an independent contractor I did not qualify for unemployment insurance) I lost my home to foreclosure. The banks took all of those from me. I should have been able to find a buyer without losing too much, having put 20% down and having a flawless record of payments for over 5 years, but the value of the condo had dropped by almost 40%. I found a buyer for a short sale, but when the short sale fell through I lost everything I had put into my home. They bank owned the house when I moved in and they owned the house when I left. First they took my money and then they took my place to live. The banks, as I said before, lost nothing.

Why doesn’t anybody make this point? The banks don’t lose in a foreclosure, the home’owner’ does. Please spread the word.


Edward Snowden…
I can’t believe he thinks he should receive clemency. He may have sparked a healthy debate about the excesses of the security state, but he may also have contributed to leaking classified information to Russia. Had Edward Snowden gone into hiding in the US, or even crossed the border into Canada, his request for clemency would look quite different, but having landed in the hands of Russian officials, I feel sure clemency will always be off the table. (As it should be.) Sorry Mr. Snowden, if you voluntarily abscond with classified information you need a better plan for where you’re headed.


The Sochi Olympics…
I am dismayed the IOC handed the 2014 Winter Olympics to Putin to be held in Sochi. My gut tells me Putin knew the locale would be fraught with the danger of a terrorist attack but thought the Olympics would be a great excuse to impose martial law conditions in the region for his own purposes. If the IOC was unaware of the potential for terrorism they behaved incompetently and if they were aware they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing Putin to play this hand using the Olympians and their fans as shields for paramilitary action. The Olympics may well go off without a hitch, I certainly pray they do, but Putin and the IOC both should be brought before an international court on the charge of reckless endangerment if violence strikes anywhere in the region. Stay safe and play hard Olympians. May the Force be with you and the wind be at your back.


The Corrupt New Jersey Network…
How can you not feel at least a little bit encouraged by the widening investigations into the abuses of power which seem to have become the norm in and around New Jersey politics? The investigations are not the usual political witch hunts, they are examples of the system being used as it was intended to be used to hold people accountable for their misdeeds. The unnecessary lane closures and the tainted distribution of Sandy money are far different animals from scandals of the Clinton/Lewinski ilk and far more worthy of investigation at taxpayer expense. Who an official sleeps with is of no concern to me unless state secrets are being discussed. On the other hand, members of the Christie administration, with or without his personal knowledge or consent, apparently felt entitled to use New Jersey citizens as tools for their agenda. This is diametrically opposed to the small-d democratic principle that government should be a tool for accomplishing the will of the people. Resignations and firings are appropriate and welcome to get anyone who knowingly participated in such abuses removed from the taxpayers’ payroll.
Time will tell where the buck stops in terms of legal liability, but in reality the buck stops with the voters. We must demand more of our officials than disrespect.


The State of the Union…
I continue to give President Obama his due for trying to bring about the changes he feels are needed however he can. Raising the Federal government minimum wage will exert an upward tug on wages across the country, just as the President’s decision to end discrimination in the military against the LGBT community helped open the gates to marriage equality in many states and his administration’s decision to allow the legalization of marijuana to go forward without Federal interference in some states will likely help that movement gain acceptance across the country. These acts, along with passage and implantation of the Affordable Care Act, will be seen as pivotal to historians. I believe all of these are necessary and desirable policy shifts so I am grateful that he is making an effort to be the transformational President he was elected to be. The speech itself was mostly upbeat cheerleading, but the country needs to be cheered up every now and then. What I found downright silly was the first of the Republican responses. The top ranking Republican woman in the House of Representative, Cathy McMorris Rogers, came with a message that was devoid of substance and delivered it as if she were reading her toddler to sleep. Was she intentionally channeling Mr. Rogers?

I hate to say it but the State of the Union is pretty messed up at the moment. We all know it. The SNAFU was created over decades and can’t be fixed overnight. Still, changes can and will be made, bit by bit if nothing else. There is no other option. So I was extremely annoyed by the image of House Speaker John Boehner sitting behind the President rolling his eyes while the President was offering optimism. If Speaker Boehner is convinced Congress cannot offer hope to the American people he needs to stop accepting his taxpayer-funded salary and leave Congress. If Cathy McMorris Rogers sees her constituents as nothing more than children to be soothed and lulled to sleep she should go home too. Both of them (no doubt reflecting the Party line – so should I say ‘all of them?’) should quit insulting voters while congratulating themselves on their cynicism and just go home. That attitude is doing far more harm than good.

One day at a time, Mr. President. It’s all any of us can do.

Inflation/Deflation (of Egos)

The problem of economic disparity will be difficult to untangle but I suggest that a huge piece of the puzzle can be found in the way valuation is assigned to various types of work. The lower classes do not with to steal from the wealthy, except perhaps in retribution if they feel they have been stolen from. That can be the case but for the most part lower-strata workers would be content with a decent standard of living for a reasonable day’s work. What is a decent standard of living? One that provides sufficient healthy food to each member of the family so that hunger does not interfere with daily life, that provides shelter substantial enough to prevent family members from succumbing to illnesses cause by exposure to the elements and access to medical assistance sufficient to prevent the spread of transmissible disease and prevent early death from curable causes. What is a reasonable day’s work? One that allows the worker sufficient time to engage with family and community outside of working hours and time for sufficient rest and renewal in order to maintain a high level of productivity.

While the wealthy may think they have earned their multiple homes, exotic means of transportation and the like, I don’t see it that way. There are 24 hours in everyone’s day and I contend that there is nothing the super wealthy can do with their time that “earns” the degree of extravagant wealth they have received and continue to receive. In fact, workers who do not have either a decent standard of living or a reasonable work schedule are nearly always the source of the super wealthy’s abundance. The fact that the super rich see the less fortunate as stealing from them is a misconception based on an inflated sense of their own contributions. Further, people who are not of them but pat them on the back for their “accomplishments” are people who hope to eat directly at their table as invited guests. The self-delusion (or is it cynical manipulative rhetoric?) of the super wealthy has been working in American society for decades, and is largely to blame for the unworkable imbalance we see at the moment. For things to change, perceptions have to change.

Self-delusions are rarely abandoned until they stop working for the deluded individual. Outside pressure is the surest way to bring about a shift in perception, not an appeal to conscience. This may sound like a battle cry but I see it as a call to action. There are non-violent ways to insert a dose of reality into the delusions of the super-wealthy. It will begin with speaking up, but must go beyond mere words. Citizens must make an effort to shape the system in which they exist, not simply submit to it. It has been done in the past and must be done again.

Where's My Horse?

I really, really, really, want to enthusiastically support Democrats in Congress but their relative inaction on restoring benefits to the nation’s veterans and ensuring that the long-term unemployed receive the benefits they deserve until the number of available jobs comes AT LEAST CLOSE to the number of people looking for jobs has made me question the sincerity of their rhetoric. At times I feel as duped by them as I see the right being duped by their representatives. NOT GOOD. However, the alternative (voting Republican) is so much worse that even mainstream Democrats will still receive my endorsement, if not my efforts or my enthusiasm.

I know nobody cares about me personally, and what I do, but I am part of a growing segment of the population that could either stay involved in the political process or start staying home come election day. When their elected officials have abandoned them in their hour of need they are far less likely to be there for them, believing that their vote will only support the struggles of one rich group against another, a game where they don’t have a horse in the race. I can’t see giving up on efforts to improve the electoral process (ensuring voting rights, trying to get money out of elections) but I am far less likely to work for individual candidates until the system shifts. In fact there is a growing Progressive wing of the Democratic Party that has shown more willingness to keep their spine in response to right-wing pressure. It is possible they will light my fire once again and gain my whole-hearted support in 2016. I will never abandon hope entirely.

I am also encouraged by the increased efforts to expose corruption in New Jersey, Virginia, and elsewhere. Enforcing the laws we have is one way to help the system shift without the need for new legislation. That’s a good thing. But that does not shift the political priorities of elected officials from the powerful to the middle and lower classes. Corruption investigations may only result in a vacuum that sweeps equally corrupt people into high positions.

There are a number issues in the forefront that are make-or-break for on-the-edge middle class individuals and families and the ONLY issue I see Democrats forcefully pushing is an increase in the minimum wage. Without an extension of middle-class unemployment benefits or additional middle class job creation those who lose their benefits may, in fact, give up and start competing with those already in living in poverty for jobs at Walmart. While they may end up employed, it will only hasten America’s race to the bottom as we further stratify our society into rich and poor. The only other alternative for these people will be to start engaging in the underground economy. (On Walmart wages that may be necessary anyway.) Anybody who believes in the rule of law - one of the pillars of the American system - cannot support conditions that force people into illegal activities in order to survive.

I am sure Democrats in Congress are smart enough to see this coming. What I expect from them is for them to fight as hard for the middle class who are on the edge as they would if it were their own family’s salary on the line, but I don’t see anything like that. Democrats and Republicans alike need to wake up and realize the electorate isn’t buying their rhetoric anymore. Policy matters much more than words. Too many are hurting and they are not likely to forget the things that could have been done, but weren’t. There isn’t much time before the next wave of bankruptcies creates another wave of voters looking for people to hold accountable. Much of America is standing at the edge of the well. Congress, please be forewarned, if you push these Americans over the edge the momentum may ultimately pull you down too.

Consider the Source

I decided yesterday that I really wanted to write about the core of a cultural message that I feel coming at me through so many channels that it nearly overwhelms my sense of what is ‘normal'. I have lived for many years in the multi-cultural milieu of metro DC and have experienced first hand the regional cultural differences within the US between the Northeast, the South and the Midwest. I have also lived in Germany and traveled in Europe. I know for a fact that individuals raised in these diverse cultures think differently about the world they encounter and act accordingly. For me ‘normal’ includes accepting the peaceful co-existence of a range of cultural styles within a given environment and having the freedom to adopt whichever elements from each feel right to you.

Recently the cultural message I am bombarded with is one that I don’t recognize from my childhood. I may be accused of being a conspiracy theorist (not to mention racist) for giving voice to this thought, but it occurred to me yesterday that the revised message, which almost demands submission and participation in your employer's groupthink (a message I find offensive) reflects the cultural norms of China more than it does those of the US. I became even more determined to write this post as a way to suggest that we consider, as a nation, the potential dangers of accepting the revised message without question. Examining the possibility of cultural manipulation through intentional or unintentional messaging may also help us figure out whether the path being laid out for us is actually as inevitable and predetermined as we are led to believe.

Today I encountered two news videos (one on the New York Times web site and the other on CNN) that really gave me pause and reinforced my desire to consider China's influence on America’s changing culture. The New York Times piece is a video documentary showing the harsh ‘rehabilitation’ facilities where Chinese youth are sent when their parents determine their internet addiction needs 'treatment'. These youth are subjected to horrendous conditions in light of the fact that they have not committed any violent or criminal acts. Our own prison and youth rehabilitation facilities may leave much to be desired but most Americans would be outraged if our government were to prison camps which target youth who had committed no crimes. The second piece, on CNN, showed a CNN reporter walking down a public street with a camera crew. They were approaching an area where controversial corruption trials are being held. Government officials have subverted their usual rules of legal engagement in these trials to such a degree that the defense has all but refused to participate in them on the assumption that conviction is a foregone conclusion. An article on the trials in the New York Times describes the ways in which rules have been imposed which make providing a viable defense nearly impossible and the Chinese people are aware of the government’s manipulations. Few people are being allowed in the courtroom but there are reports of protests outside the courthouse. The CNN crew were making their way towards the courthouse, cameras rolling, when they were stopped on a public street despite having committed no crime at all. They were then manhandled (to say the least) by Chinese security and forced into an official vehicle, cameras still rolling. As the CNN spokesman was being shoved against the car with his head tucked forward I had the impression the officer was sending him the unspoken message that his neck might be “accidentally” broken if he didn’t comply. It was a horrifying image. Once in the squad car the reporters were driven some distance away from the scene and let out on the street.

The actions of officials in these cases do not engender the kind of outrage they would if they occurred in the US because the Chinese people have lived under an opressive system for so long it doesn’t seem strange. Furthermore, the culture emphasizes compliance, uniformity and respect for (submission to?) authority. This aspect of Eastern culture is not, in and of itself, always a bad thing. It will have both good and bad implications. In the case of the CNN journalist, the idea of resisting an authority figure, whether their actions were justified or not, might not even occur to a Chinese citizen. While Americans have a way of encouraging uniformity in some areas, such as our conception of beauty, we have always valued our right to think and act independently as individuals. We are less likely to accept being told to simply “Follow and obey, no questions asked”.

The messages I have been receiving in the last few years seem to be all about domination and submission. Might makes right. Keep quiet and keep your head down. The give-and-take relationship model seems to be dying. While the 'Who's on Top' dynamic is always in play in a power struggle there used to be a place in American society for citizens to survive by choosing the option that allows them to work hard in return for fair pay without becoming entrapped or enslaved by their employers. We have to give Unions their due for helping to create a balance of power between employer and employee in the past, but in recent years that balance has been all but erased. If we begin to accept sub(US)standard, third-world working conditions that is certainly what we will be offered.

It would be hard to prove that this push towards a culture of mass compliance and unquestioning deference to the powerful is a result of Chinese influence but I can say that I see Chinese influence in many aspects of the culture around me. Newer buildings, both public and private, appear to have oriental-looking arches and/or decorative elements, such as the color-shifting, boxy lanterns that line a long pathway leading to the new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia. I have seen many businesses in the Northern Virginia area bought by far east concerns, which is of course no sin, and certainly not a crime. However, it is logical to consider how this influx of Chinese influence in the physical, economic and social environment will be reflected in the attitudes and psychology of those who live in these environments, regardless of their cultural origins. Again, I do not find Chinese culture to be less valuable that American culture, in fact there are elements I would readily adopt, however, the relationship model between the government, employers, workers and citizens as it currently exists in China is not one I would wish to emulate.

American culture has been fluid over the years, in fact its blended nature is one of its few constants. The push to create a culture of submission and conformity is anti-American in exactly that sense. America derives its soft power as much from its reputation for (relative) freedom as it does from the economic opportunity to be found here. It seems we are now to the point where the path to survival is found in submission as much as hard work. This approach may result in a large but underpaid and uninspired work force but it is unlikely to engender innovation or worker satisfaction, attributes which have defined the American workforce in the past and which fuel the engines that drive sustainable growth.

Maybe we’ve all been asleep at the wheel, or maybe we’ve been lulled into accepting whatever we are served because in recent decades that has been enough. It is really important to realize that now, in the post-2009 financial crash world, the American way of life really is on the line. When we are fed the message that there is no hope and that we should all just swallow a prescription pill and roll over, or buy some drugs and find a party, it would be helpful to consider how this came to be the message before we swollow it hook, line and sinker.

America is not at its most powerful point, but then again neither is China or Russia or any other nation state. In the case of China, the totalitarian model is showing cracks even as Western-style capitalism is making strides within its borders. We may be able to export a culture of more openness through economic engagement but we do not have to accept the importation of a culture of unquestioning submission as the price of doing business.

Americans still have options. We must make conscious, thoughtful choices as individuals and as a nation. We must not believe all the messages we are being fed – at least not without thoroughly considering the source. Accepting the notion that the era of work hard, play hard, live and let live is over in America will only accelerate a move in that direction. That is not a vision for America that I can accept.

(NB: This post has been revised since first posted yesterday. I realized I had unintentionally written a post that came across as insulting to Chinese culture. I offer my humble apologies to anyone who read the prior post as was offended.)

The Art of Innocence

The story of Chris Christie’s legal culpability in the abuse of power allegations which are now surfacing at an alarming rate will rest on what he knew and when. If he is sufficiently accomplished in the Art of Innocence he may survive long enough to complete his current term in office, however, the national electorate should demand more from a candidate than Chris Christie has to offer.

There are two alleged abuses of power that damaged the lives of large numbers of New Jersey citizens whose only crime was to live in a particular jurisdiction while Chris Christie was governor: the closure of lanes to the GW bridge and linkage of Sandy relief money to particular political favors (To be clear, it seems safe to say the bridge closing was an abuse by someone because there was no traffic study but at this point the Sandy relief money scandal is only a she said/she allegation.) To get to the source of such corrupt actions (assuming both are shown to be true) it would be helpful to know the motivation for each. However, even if loyalty to Chris Christie was the motivation, it does not necessarily follow that he was the source of the “orders.” As a result of laws which allow the vast majority of campaign financing to originate from deep-pocketed interests rather than individual voters, power and influence now flow THROUGH the candidate rather than FROM the candidate. Chris Christie is where he is because powerful interests coalesced around his candidacy. Those interests are not likely to abandon him at the mere hint of scandal because they have placed their eggs in his basket – just as his eggs are in theirs. They tend to say yes to his requests and he tends to say yes to theirs. Clearly Chris Christie is not the only party with an interest in enforcing loyalty to Chris Christie.

One of the qualities powerful interests appreciate in powerful people is their intuition about when to ask a question and when to look the other way. Therein lies the Art of Innocence. As power flows from moneyed interests through “the peoples’ representative” and into policy or civic action, the politician’s inner circle is the narrow neck through which the power flows. It is conceivable that the Governor himself had no part and no prior knowledge in the alleged plots but it strains credulity to imagine he was totally unaware that his cronies were engaging in shady dealings. Choosing to remain ignorant of how the sausage is made may be the easiest way to eat your way to the top of the political food chain in New Jersey, but that is about as innocent as I can image Governor Christie being in these scandals.

The inner circle had to know that if their dirty deeds were uncovered their careers in the State House would be over. Not surprisingly he blood-letting has started with round one of firings and resignations, but how deep and how broad they ultimately go will likely hinge as much on public opinion as it does on legal technicalities. New Jersey citizens may be forgiving and Governor Christie may survive his term in office (I can’t believe he is a clumsy enough actor to leave a smoking gun lying around for investigators to discover) however the idea of Christie as a national candidate is another story. The misdeeds of the Governor’s inner circle are now part of the record he has to run on. The arm-twisting they carried out was not “behind the scenes” political jockeying, it consisted of abusing the lives of New Jersey citizens apparently for political or personal advantage. The thought of similar manipulations by a Christie administration on the international stage is horrifying. For me it calls to mind the specter of Dick Cheney. How's that for scary?

Chris Christie is not the spinner of the web in which he is caught, or at least not its sole designer. He is caught in it as surely the citizens of New Jersey. But it is a web he entered willingly, and he has used it to climb to a position of privilege. This is not the case for those citizens who were stranded for hours in Fort Lee or who were devastated by the waters of Hurricane Sandy. We cannot allow the entire country to get caught in this same web, regardless of the legal outcome of pending investigations. There is no way of painting the picture of these scandals that would show Chris Christie looking innocent enough to qualify him for the nation’s highest office.

A Voice in Verse (New Page)

My frustrations with politics as usual are, I am sure, apparent from my recent posts.

Until now I have used this site to voice my thoughts in a typical blog-post format. Recently I've found making an effort at artistic(?) expression to be even more satisfying, so I've decided to add a page for free verse. There I plan to write like noone is reading - which may actually be the case. If by chance you are reading, I hope you enjoy.

Bridge to Political Nowhere?

Traffic jams created for political ends lead to apologies created for political ends. What each lacks is positive relevance to the lives of everyday citizens affected by these events. It is really sad that even in the apology Christie offered at a lengthy press conference the focus was on mitigating the political impact on the speaker. The fragility of the bond between voters and the government under which they live is undercut not only by the original suspect act but also by the nature of the apology offered by the man at the top. Politicians want to make sure blame is deflected away from them but residents want to be assured that such events are labeled as the outrage they are and that they will not happen again.

It seem odd to me that Governor Christie says he fired Bridget Kelly because she lied to him. The email trail indicates she was the one issuing the order that it was time for a traffic jam. Why wasn’t she fired for sending that email? Is that his way of letting us know that he already knows that the idea did not originate with her? Even if it wasn’t her idea, shouldn’t she be fired for not reporting the plans for this apparently illegal act to higher ups rather than playing along? Lots of people have lied to their boss in order to cover up their “sins” but few have issued an order that results in major disruption to the lives of thousands of ordinary citizens. The fact that his staff lied to him is actually less disturbing than the fact that someone professionally related to him would even imagine undertaking such a vicious act against the citizens of New Jersey they represent.

The public is weary of being caught in the crossfire of political battles while their vital concerns (protection from government and corporate abuses, the disappearance of both middle class jobs and the social safety net) take a back seat. The smell of what has happened will likely linger in the air of Governor Christie’s office regardless of the legal findings. If he musters the audacity to run for President I trust voters will deliver the message loud and clear that the head of an administration capable of abusing power for political advantage without regard for the lives ordinary citizens will not be granted a promotion where the potential for damage will only increase.

Chris Christie seems to have (maybe) gotten the message. He recently announced his intentions to stay in New Jersey. If he has found the good sense to rein himself in we should all be grateful. Maybe God isn't dead after all.

The World According to G.A.R.P. (Greenspan, Alan, Retired Professional)

In the past few weeks I have seen Alan Greenspan on TV as he hits the media circuit to push his new book, 'The Map and the Territory: Risk, Human Nature, and the Future of Forecasting.' My first thought was: Why should anybody be looking to Alan Greenspan for insight into the economy? The last I recall of his extra-long tenure as Chairman of the Fed was his testimony before Congress in 2008 regarding the near collapse of the world economy in which he matter-of-factly pronounced that he had goofed when it came to de-regulation. "Oh, my mistake" he seemed to be saying, "I thought the markets would just regulate themselves. So sorry." Greenspan's retirement had come in 2006 (well before his testimony) yet I failed to detect any sense of guilt, remorse or compassion for his successor over the difficulties his professional failure may have caused. In a recent book promo interview he said that he had misjudged human nature (hence the focus of the new book) and further explained he had assumed that when presented with economic choices people would act in their own self interest, but it turns out they did not. Upon hearing that statement my next thought was to question how someone who would make such a ridiculous statement came to rule the Fed for so many years. Has he never met an alcoholic? Furthermore, even if you grant that people will act in their own self interest when making economic choices the relevant people have not been specified and the notion of "self interest" is left undefined. What is the time frame for judging self interest - six months? 5 years? What are the goals governing an individuals' decisions - accumulation of great wealth or self sufficiency? Does everybody share the same goals, priorities and time frame when making economic decisions? Are there mitigating factors (e.g., war) which affect how people define self interest? The statement is so vague it seems clear there is no "there" there so how could it provide a framework for decision making at the Federal level?

My curiosity kicked in and I decided to do a bit of reading today on Alan Greenspan and his role at the Fed. I uncovered a few facts and a few assessments. Facts first: He was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He served as Fed Chair for almost 20 years. He claims he does his best thinking in the bathtub. He supported President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and his efforts in 2005 to partially privatize social security. He encouraged the use of alternative loan models in the housing market, such as Adjustable Rate Mortgages. He is a big fan of Bill Clinton and a friend of Ayn Rand. Assessments: Paul Krugman declared he had betrayed the trust placed in him as Fed Chair by repeatedly shilling for whatever the Bush Administration wanted. The article was entitled "Three-card Maestro" and ended by saying he "deserves to be treated as just another partisan hack." Mainstream Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid have also made their distaste for his attitudes public and in 2013 Time Magazine included Greenspan in a list of 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.

Obviously Greenspan has his supporters too, who must think it's swell that so many could ride the bubble for so long before it burst. The fact that so many people around the globe were hurt when the bubble did burst doesn't negate the previous pleasures and if you were one of the ones left unscathed (or even better off) in the aftermath, you may see the guy as a genius. He was appointed by President Reagan after all. It was this same President Reagan who sold us on the notion of "trickle down" economics as illustrated by the Laffer curve reportedly sketched on a cocktail napkin when pitched to Reagan himself as a viable economic theory. The basic premise is that if you feed the wealthy enough they are bound to have a few crumbs left over that can be swept onto the floor for the masses. Another telling of this theory is the story of the horse and the sparrow. If you feed the horse enough oats some of it will pass through the horse and land where the sparrow can eat it. Of course it is not the most efficient way to feed sparrows but from the horses' point of view it's a great idea. I never believed any of that trickle down nonsense and never could understand why anyone did. I figured those promoting the theory were only interested in the welfare of the horses and didn't really care if there were crumbs left over or not as long as the horses could always eat their fill. I have to believe Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing for the upper class and to the middle and lower classes. He might have been "the great communicator" but he was also an actor. He acted the part of the caring head of state convincingly enough that as a country we swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker, and we have been paying the price ever since. When you look at the charts of income and wealth disparity over the decades it is clear that it was under President Reagan that the lines began diverging at an alarming rate.

As for Alan Greenspan I wonder if he was motivated solely by keeping his patrons happy and therefore did not question his own assumptions and justifications, or whether he actually came to believe in the "logic" he employed, or whether he, too, was a cynical enabler of the 1% oligarchs. Regardless, the idea that the entire country's economic course was set for so many years by someone who employed nonsensical economic theory (trickle-down) and vague assumptions about human nature (undefined people acting in their own undefined self-interest) is truly frightening. Oh wait. It's too late to be frightened - the crash already happened. Please Mr. Greenspan, while the country is still working to clean-up the economic mess I ask that you cease and desist from touring the country promoting yourself as a sage who can point us in the right direction. I am sure it is tough to adjust to an emptier schedule and a reduced income stream after leaving your post at the Fed but may I suggest that you follow W's example and take up painting? It's a relatively inexpensive hobby and you will probably be able to sell a few based on your fame alone. Best of all, judging by W's work it looks like something that can be done almost anywhere. You deserve to relax in your retirement. May I draw you a bath?

(Wo)Man in the Middle

I wrote a post a few days ago that sounds terribly self-serving and brat-like as I reread it. I was voicing outrage at policies which fail to keep those currently in the middle class from falling into poverty. Having grown up in the middle class and seeking for myself no more than a middle class life, it sounds self-serving to complain about what is happening to America's middle class. Is it worse, on an individual level, to fall from the middle class into poverty than it is to have been born and raised in poverty? Obviously not. The blessings of a good start in life last a lifetime. I am extremely grateful for the very good start I was given not by my good works but by the grace of God. Knowing my privileged status was an accident of birth I have always believed it is the right thing to do to speak up for those less fortunate and acknowledge that their worth as human beings is equal in every way to mine.

My recent warning cry about the dangers of focusing only on the economic floor while many are falling from the middle class is based on this assessment: solidifying the floor but allowing the middle class to disappear will only result in further stratification into a 2 class system. There will be more competition for low wage jobs and as a result more power will flow to those who hold the economic strings at the top. Enabling a 2 class society guarantees a race to the bottom for most of us. The argument for maintaining a strong middle class is emphatically NOT a matter of expecting a trickle down to reach those in poverty it is about keeping power and the pathways to power more evenly distributed throughout the society.

So my apologies to those who see my support for shoring up the middle class as the self-serving squeals of someone born to privilege but please consider that it is not that - or at least not JUST that. Without a viable middle class America will devolve into a society that holds little hope for anyone not born within the castle walls.

Musings for Christmas Eve

It is Christmas Eve 2013 and I have not written for a few days, which I regret. There is no time like now to make up for this failing on my part so here are my musings for Christmas Eve.

It would be wonderful to think that Christmas Eve is a time when politics and the culture wars can be put aside as a spirit of Peace wraps the earth snugly in its embrace, like the halo cast by the sun which surrounds the moon as their paths cross from our earthly perspective. Unfortunately Christmas as it plays out in the US is all about the culture wars. We like to think that it is about bringing people together, about bringing the light to all mankind - but it's not. Heck, for the most part it's not even about Christ. The way this holiday dominates the American calendar of celebrations serves to remind everyone that we consider ourselves a "Christian" nation, but when we also consider ourselves as a secular society that values keeping the practice of religion separate from civic engagement is this really a good thing? Many of us fail to keep in our consciousness the fact that many of our neighbors and colleagues see Jesus as nothing more than a wise man who lived a few thousand years ago. We "assume Christ" in our outlook but His presence does not play that big a role in American 'Christmas Culture', We share the date, December 25, as a time for family gatherings but we share little else in terms of traditions beyond the need to celebrate our exemplary credentials as consumers. Given the lack of shared traditions why is it that a holiday particular to one religion continues to dominate the cultural landscape for AT LEAST the month between Thanksgiving and December 25?

America is and will continue to be a multicultural society filled with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, and others. People who believe anything else are out of touch. Given the reality of today's cultural pluralism perhaps it is time to dial down Christmas. I'm not suggesting a war on Christmas, I am simply suggesting that we put on our glasses and see the bigger picture. If this were to happen I doubt American culture would be diminished - in fact it might be enriched. Individual family traditions would not be affected and if the shared tradition of excessive shopping were to become less pervasive, all the better. It might actually assist in preventing the further erosion of individual family traditions. I say this as someone raised in a Christian household. I bear no ill-will towards the principles embodied in Christian tradition (in fact I think the new Pope kinda rocks!) but I have come to see Christianity as only one path to the divine.

It makes sense that when cultural blending was a function of migration and difficult travels, religious homogeneity was the norm, but that is not today's world. Cultures will de facto blend wherever there is prosperity and accepting cultural diversity is a prerequisite for continued prosperity. So what do you think Main Street? Wall Street? How about raising the profile of holidays from other religious traditions while lowering the profile of Jesus' birthday? Would markets crash? Would businesses be hurt if spending related to a variety of celebrations were spread throughout the year? Do you think we should give it a try?

Let's Sell a Deal

I decided to watch a video of Patty Murray and Paul Ryan speaking to the press on the bi-partisan budget deal announced last week. The wonky aspects of the deal are being debated in other forums (Patty Murray is already finding items she needs to run from) but I found it interesting to note the way each choose to speak. Of course Paul Ryan spoke as though he were justifying the deal to Republicans. That should surprise no one. But I was shocked to hear Patty Murray also speak as though she were justifying the deal to Republicans. As a left-leaning Democrat I was offended that she spoke as though Democratic support is a foregoing conclusion simply because a Democrat's name is on it. At the very least I wish she had offered justification to Democrats for not restoring MORE of the sequester cuts rather than argue the correctness of the compromise in which some had to be restored. Her language, in effect, indicated she has ceded the outcome of this budget deal to House Republicans. This may be a pragmatic decision based on the reality that the ideological right are the ones who have been throwing up roadblocks to prevent movement on budget deals in the past. However, it bothers me to see Democrats throw in the towel on important programs so often in the name of "progress" that our starting point drifts ever-rightward with each passing year.

On the up side, I do feel as though the winds of change are blowing on Capital Hill and Congress may yet bring home spoils from the hunt. I guess that is good news - at least for some. Everyone wants to see the table set and food placed upon it. I am really concerned however, that far too many will simply be shooed away from the table while others feast. The needs of vulnerable members of America's middle class continue to be ignored and rather than fight to get them assistance sufficient to allow them to remain middle class Democratic lawmakers seem content to shore up the floor. I am all for increasing the minimum wage - it should have been done a long time ago - but adults working full time at a minimum wage job will hardly constitute a robust middle class even with the increase. I also appreciate the thought that Democratic lawmakers object to letting people starve but that is not enough. We need to see programs and policies which force the wealthiest to acknowledge their debt to those workers formerly of the middle class whose fortunes have now fallen while theirs has risen astronomically. I believe it is an appropriate role for government to require them to give back to the society on whose backs they became wealthy. This really isn't too much to ask and we can accept nothing less as voting members of this society. Patty Murray, I understand that we all must compromise, but please, show us that you value your principles enough to give them a strong voice.

The 2013 Heisman Hustle - Is this the American Way?

Not Again! Really! It is appalling to read that yet again it appears a person of privileged status received assistance from law enforcement (at a minimum by their failure to do their job) which allowed him to avoid consequences after an (alleged) attack on a person of lesser status. In this case, I am referring to Jameis Winston who recently became the youngest person ever to be awarded the Heisman trophy despite a rape allegation dating from 2012.


I had not keep current on this case prior to the announcement of his front-runner status for the 2013 Heisman, but when the winner was announced I began to wonder whether the rape accusation should have played a role in the decision. I tried to read up on this matter but quite frustratingly, my first few web searches turned up little information on the case other than references to the fact that there was an accusation but the decision was made not to file charges. (I find it alarming that information readily accessible through the usual search engines reflects such paltry and skewed results but that is not the subject of this particular post, so I'll move on.) After a few additional searches, here is what I have learned. In December of 2012 a woman claimed she had been raped. Some articles state she believes she was drugged but a secure chain of custody for a urine sample which could have determined whether this was the case cannot be established. She did not name her attacker but she later identified Jameis Winston. A rape kit (or at least semen-bearing evidence) was obtained but it was not until much later that DNA was obtained from the suspect. A long-after-the-fact DNA analysis confirmed that Winston and the woman did have sexual contact on that night in December 2012.

Winston claims the sex was consensual but from Day 1 (that is the day immediately following the sexual contact) the woman has consistently claimed it was rape. The actions of the police appear to have played a role in the fact that a case was not pursued at the time. For example, the police were unwilling to promptly obtain a DNA sample from Winston and there are accusations that police actively discouraged her from filing charges, telling her that trying to obtain justice would instead wind up making her life miserable. She ultimately decided to leave it up to prosecutors to decide whether or not to press the case. If she now decides to adopt a more aggressive attitude who could blame her? With the increased interest in her alleged rapist she will be drawn into the public spotlight with or without her consent.

Police misconduct appears to have affected the case in at least two ways. First, there was the delay in pursuing evidence (e.g., collecting DNA). The accuser's attorney says police went so far as to tell the victim that they didn't want to tip off the suspect to the investigation but in reality the suspect was intentionally tipped off --without collecting DNA -- and an investigation into the accuser was launched. Second, there was an effort to steer the alleged victim towards inaction rather than actively assisting in seeking justice. Police are not advocates, however their actions should contribute to the goal of seeing justice served. When there is a young man out there who assumes rape is not a crime it is in society's interest to disabuse him of that notion and it is the job of law enforcement to collect evidence as necessary in pursuit of that goal. In this case, it appears that at best law enforcement tip-toed away from a well-placed suspect in order to protect him, but it seems at least as likely that law enforcement actively worked to prevent the truth from surfacing in order to protect a local sports hero.


The fact that the Heisman committee decided that an unresolved (not disproven) rape allegation should not stand in the way of the 'greater good' of football(!) shows an utter disregard for the victim and the crime. Apparently if there is money to be made questions of character can be swept under the rug just as the questions of damage to players' brains have been. They and we should be ashamed of the priorities embodied in such decisions.


I hope the truth does someday surface in this case but I am actually less concerned with going after the Jameis Winstons of this world than I am about going after the officers of the law who abuse their positions to protect them and thereby further victimize the women they attack. Laws on the books are meaningless without a law enforcement system that remains accountable to those laws. Similar scenarios play out over and over. In College Station warnings of a sexual predator operating within the University's sports program were either ignored or subverted, allowing a child predator to remain active for decades until the coach who sheltered him was so close to retirement that the cherished athletic program would not be too severely damaged by retirement of the principals. Status imbalance played a role in the Trayvon Martin case as well. Based on George Zimmerman's behavior since his acquittal on 2nd degree murder charges it is apparent he is quite capable of using lies to paint a false picture of events to police. The only explanation I can come up with for the police's willingness to accept George's version unquestioned is the status imbalance. If the older white man had been shot dead and the African American teenager had survived do you really believe Trayvon's version of events would have been accepted without further investigation?


When it comes to sexual assault the deck seems stacked particularly high in favor of the attacker. Too often rape is barely considered a crime from the male perspective inside and outside of law enforcement which leaves rapists with the impression they aren't doing anything wrong. None of this is news of course. There has been a lot written about America's rape culture recently. I have no doubt that the fact that women far more often than men are the victims of this crime contributes to a lack of seriousness within the largely male ranks of law enforcement when conducting rape investigations. Changing this piece of the puzzle has to be a top priority if any of the other changes are to be effective. Increasing efforts to hold attackers accountable will be meaningless to future cases unless we vigorously go after those in law enforcement who abuse the public trust embodied in their positions and use it to protecting predators. Things seem pretty bad at the moment. I fear that officers who would protect a local sports hero and abandon a rape victim are not just 'a few bad apples' but instead represent the conformists within a corrupt system. (NB: I would not make such a bleak assessment in any other context, but this is a blog so I'll leave that statement in to reflect the dismal view from where I sit.) Without a concerted effort to hold law enforcement itself accountable things will not improve. We cannot allow lawless law enforcement to become The American Way.

50 Shades of Green

I have been amazed at the public enthusiasm for the book/movie phenomenon 50 Shades of Grey. The hook that pulls people in is the promise of pleasure in being submissive. I don’t assume gender roles are relevant to experiencing the vicarious thrills offered between the covers of this best-seller but I do believe the dangers to those who celebrate this dynamic loom particularly large for women. I have not read the book and never will.

As humans we claim to have evolved beyond other animals. We point to our accomplishments as they lay upon the earth’s surface in the form of towering buildings, or as they allow us to fly far above the earth’s surface in aircraft such as the Concord, or as they offer the potential to escape earth altogether as evidenced by the International Space Station. These achievements came about through cooperation and teamwork. When we enter the social and interpersonal realm why do we accept that interactions should be guided by the prehistoric rules of ‘might makes right’? The fact that it is natural for humans to desire to dominate doesn’t make it humanity’s highest expression. It is also natural for humans to use the woods as a bathroom but few people alive today will accept that for a lifestyle. It makes no sense to me that we have abandoned the possibility of social, emotional and spiritual development and instead chosen to celebrate domination and submission. I don’t care if it feels good in a titillating way for the duration of ‘the act’ my analytical self tells me this approach encourages an unhealthy and unproductive path. I never saw the movie Monster’s Ball but I heard a clip where the character who becomes a killer tells her younger companion that she has two different sides to her, each struggling for control. One side is good and one side is dangerous and ugly. When the companion asks which one she thinks will win, the killer answers “Whichever one I feed.” The accuracy and insight of this simple statement stuck with me.

America has become a land where whoever has the most is considered the most successful. How it was acquired doesn’t impact status nearly as much as how much – a classic “might makes right” valuation. This superficial gauge of success encourages predators and when society fails to punish the predators and instead stigmatizes their victims (the ‘losers’) the predators' actions are validated. Out of this brew we can expect predatory behavior and we have certainly seen it, from the investor billionaires, the Wall Street gamblers and the BP “don’t blame me” incarnations. In the political realm the nastiness was exemplified by the Romney “takers” speech in which someone who made millions throwing others out of work did not hesitate to criticize others for not being rich like him. This psychology leaves the wealthiest free to enjoy their gains without remorse and to claim that any increase in their tax burden represents taking from them their “hard earned money” without acknowledging that they got theirs by taking from others.

It is in this climate that 50 Shades of Grey was born - or should I say hatched? I have often wondered if the novel wasn’t actually a set-up, penned and promoted by predators to encourage people to accept the questionable notion that the path to happiness can be found in submission. I have always felt that people who happily surrendered to the lure of 50 Shades of Grey were either naïve enough to believe that someone who seeks to dominate and control you will never choose to destroy you, or they were ready to claim victim status. Yes, it seems freeing to absolve yourself of the responsibility to make your own choices (whether at home, in bed or at work) and I gather that for a while at least there can be some sensual or financial reward. But I also imagine that over the long haul believing you are powerless is not a path to health or happiness for individuals or for a society.

Domination and submission have been the guiding stars of America’s ‘culture’ for a while now but I believe we are seeing signs of a shift. People seem ready to take a step back and speak up rather than agreeing to be overrun as the perils (as opposed to the pleasures) of submission are becoming apparent.

When I think of the “green movement” I think of a win/win approach. There is an understanding that (wo)mankind cannot simply dominate the physical environment in which we live, we must work with it. The win/win approach to partnerships has advanced causes from the scientific to the diplomatic. The International Space station is a prime example of an undertaking which pursues goals for the benefit of all (wo)mankind and uses a cooperative approach to achieve them. You don’t have to ascribe to religious principles to appreciate the benefits of this approach so why aren't we teaching and encouraging this ethos in all areas of society? Have we allowed the desire to win drown out the desire to achieve? To win, all you have to do is beat out your competitors, which may or may not be the result of achievement. To achieve you must examine priorities and select a path even if you and/or your team are the only ones on this path. The extra steps of examining priorities and setting goals are difficult to achieve in a collaborative environment but still, the effort must be made. Time is short for most if not all of us. There are no guarantees (there never are) but there are always choices. I’ll choose 50 Shades of Green over 50 Shades of Grey any day.

And Then There Is Mandela

When I was going through a painful divorce I adopted the mantra “Better than some, worse than others.” By applying this mantra to everything from me, to my ex, to the settlement process, I got through the darkest of times. It has become a frame through which I view the world. When I heard of Nelson Mandela’s passing what came to mind was “… and then there is Mandela.” I can’t think of a better example of how to live a long life staying true to your ideals. I am sure there are unlit corners in Mandela’s life where his humanity overcame his principles but in his public life he appeared to be guided by an unfailing compass. In choosing his own actions so carefully, yet seemingly effortlessly, he helped his country evolve from a place where racism was the law of the land to a place where all men, regardless of race, may claim a seat at the table.

One of the more remarkable aspects of his story is that time and a very long life did not diminish his moral authority. All too often those who rock the boat as they move to change the world are either removed from the scene by hostile forces or they succumb to the corrupt enticements their status brings their way. Mandela never appeared to lose his moral bearings and somehow (the grace of God, I’m sure he’d say) he survived for 95 years. Mandela’s life is a dream fulfilled.

Men of Mandela’s historic ilk are neither self-made nor preordained. It takes a capable mind and body, fertile circumstances and a personal willingness to persevere. Mandela’s choice to persevere, to hold on to principles that many of us are taught from an early age regardless of changing circumstances, may be the rarest aspect of his story. It is this piece of his legacy which has inspired my newest mantra. May God grant me the wisdom to choose a principled path and the perseverance not to abandon it.

This Reluctant Woman

Up until now I have avoided blogging on topical matters ‘from a woman’s perspective’ although I am contentedly a woman in my private life. I have avoided making my femininity apparent because I believe that all issues relating to men or women, or both, are at their root human issues. Men are not well served by looking through or around women and vice versa. However, I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that I should voice a separate woman’s perspective on many issues for the same reason that ‘Black History’ needed to become part of school curricula. For most of our cultural history the views expressed in public forums and encoded into law have been formed from a predominantly (white) male perspective. It’s not so much that women have been excluded or considered separately from men when crafting policy (or for that matter conducting scientific research), too often women simply weren’t seen at all unless they lived their lives neatly within traditional female roles as determined by men.

When I think about events I try to adopt a gender-neutral perspective and view the situation as a whole. My femininity is not the focal point of my understanding, at least not in a conscious way. Sexual identity, sexuality and sexual orientation are not relevant to the analysis of all situations. For example, a bully is a bully and fraud is fraud without regard to the sex or sexuality of the players. I don’t see it as less offensive for a woman to beat up a man than it is for a man to beat up a woman, although it is relevant how much bodily harm is done. Now, however, I am warming to the notion that I should make the extra effort to adopt a feminine point of view in order to highlight elements which might otherwise be overlooked. I don’t know how this will change my thoughts on any given topic but I feel certain that what I choose to examine more closely will be affected.

Only time will tell. If you are curious, watch this space.

(BTW- Is anybody watching this space? If so, I’d love to receive your comments on the Forum page :)

Show Me The Wealth!

Webster's on-line dictionary offers the following definition of "wealth" as it's first current meaning (right after "obsolete: WEAL, WELFARE"): "abundance of valuable material possessions or resources". The next definition in line: "abundant supply". It is not until definition four that money is mentioned.

To say the investor class creates "wealth" seems to be a falsehood we all to easily swallow. Money is not a material possession or a physical resource used in production. It is simply a means of exchange - a stand-in for actual wealth. The "wealth" created on Wall Street is mostly figures on paper and that kind of "wealth" does not contribute to society until it is put to use in the production cycle. The reason money supplied to poor people provides useful stimulus to the economy is that they are likely to spend it to survive. This creates actual wealth-enhancing production. Those who use their "dollars on paper" primarily to create more 'dollars on paper' are not adding real value to society.

That's why it bothers me so much to hear complaints about the "socialist" goal of taking peoples' "hard earned money" to redistribute to the poor. In reality the opposite has been happening for decades. Those with lots of dollars on paper have been sucking real wealth out of the economy by removing purchasing power from people who would actually spend their wealth to create production. So it is not a matter of asking the rich to sacrifice their hard-earned wealth to help the valueless poor, it is a matter of demanding that the "wealthy" return some of what they have drained from society at large. (There are 24 hours in everybody's day and there is no way that any CEO contributes millions of times more worth to the corporation through his work than does a typical employee. Exorbitant compensation has nothing to do with adding value or creating wealth. S/He is simply taking advantage of a position in oder to enlarge the dollar figure of his/her own bank account. This kind of anti-social behavior should be punished not encouraged.)

It is time to acknowledge that money does not equal wealth. It is also time for us, as a society, to value the creation of products over the creation of profits. If that means the dollar figures in billionaires' bank accounts deflate we shouldn't worry. Society won't be any worse off. Tax reform with that in mind must be next up on the agenda.

Outside the Box and Above the Fray Nuance Wins the Day

Wow and Wow again. Apparently the Iranian leadership has decided that peaceful co-existence is preferable to armed conflict. Of course this could only happen after the US demonstrated it also preferred that stance. Iran’s decision to come to the table and the US decision to enter into an agreement is historic because of the about-face in tone. Iran’s rulers do not seem driven as much by a desire to create an Islamic state as much as they are by a desire to hold onto power. They are allowing themselves to be co-opted (at least to some small degree) because the alternative is worse – being brought down from the inside by restless, underserved and/or repressed young people. (Isn’t that the way most governments fall, whether they were once monarchies or dictatorships or supposedly representative democracies like Iran?) As a result the people of Iran now have a 'peace agenda' to hold their leaders to and the anger mongers are being discredited. Of course they will still exist, but postures openly adopted by leadership, especially when they come about at a time of increased economic prosperity, have a way of gaining wider acceptance in the population at large. Recruiting youth for violent activities will become more difficult as it heads underground, and it may be easier to contain or infiltrate underground groups than it is to confront free-roaming hostility encouraged by government rhetoric.


What has made this shift possible now are the actions and vision of President Obama. He set the stage by denouncing the use of force against Iran while sanctions were upped. More recently, events in Syria provided the framework for progress with Iran. First, President Obama took a stand on the use of chemical weapons and was willing to go it alone with limited military action if necessary to curtail chemical weapons use without the stated objective of deciding how Syria’s civil war should be resolved. This nuanced position shows that he understands there are limits to what the US and the world should tolerate in terms of government actions but there are also limits to what one country can dictate to another in terms of how it should be governed. The fact that the strike was averted after he decided to take the matter before Congress demonstrated his understanding that he is acting on behalf of his country, not for his personal prestige. While some may see this as a sign of weakness others see it as a sign of intelligence. The best world leaders realize they are not their countries and cannot allow their inner Mighty Man to drag their countries into armed conflicts they will live to regret. The nuanced leadership of President Obama was evident even prior to asserting American influence on events in Syria. His decision to go after Osama Bin Laden using special forces demonstrated his willingness to act militarily when necessary to defend American interests without using a a limited objective as a launching pad for large scale military action. In these three decisions (his willingness to pursue Osama Bin Laden with a surgical mission, his willingness use force to stop the use of chemical weapons without imposing an American solution on Syria and the subsequent decision to involve Congress before carrying out an air strike) President Obama went 3 for 3 in showing the world how America has changed since the Bush/Cheney years. President Obama is not a hawk but he is not a push over pacifist either and he will put his country’s interests ahead of his ego in service to the objective of peaceful co-existence among nations.

I can’t help but think that over all, President Obama’s accomplishments will be viewed favorably by history despite the negativity and hostility he receives daily from certain members of Congress. He has a string of legislative achievements which signify major cultural shifts. The very first bill he signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, is symbolic of his priorities. His efforts to equalize treatment of the LGBT community at the federal level are destined to become a cornerstone of the new America. The Affordable Care Act, with all of its implementation difficulties, will nonetheless be seen by future generations as a long-overdue acknowledgement of the government’s legitimate role in keeping its people safe and healthy. President Obama’s record on these domestic issues is also 3 for 3 despite an overtly hostile House of Representatives. The fact that there has been pushback from conservatives on the Hill is not surprising but the attempts to restrict voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights are not likely to last. If Conservatives believe they can stem the tide of inclusion and individual choice of lifestyle they are mistaken. The Civil War ended nearly two centuries ago and people looking to start another in order to force their beliefs on others will be stymied by the majority.

The bigger threat to America’s 21st century legacy is economic dominance by the few. People who need jobs and opportunity come from all corners of society– gay, straight, white, black, Latino, Asian - and if there is one thing the vast majority of this conglomerate coalition can agree on it is that privilege based on race and religion cannot be tolerated. Sooner or later Congress will bow to the will of the people if the people demand it and America’s inclination for social inclusion will win out. However, inclusion is meaningless without economic opportunity. Passing laws which freeze in place the gains of the wealthy until the poor die off leads to unrest at home and invites derision and contempt from the developing world. If America devolves from "The Land of Opportunity" to "The Land of No Opportunity" our international credibility will also die. President Obama understands this but the structure of our government prevents him from unilaterally creating economic policy. With Congressional support it might still be possible to shape a more balanced society but time is short. Many of us believe we are approaching a make-or-break edge for America's future. History will see that the President's efforts to bring about economic balance by creating jobs repairing worn-out infrastructure and shifting the tax burden upwards were stymied by a self-serving Congress more interested in personal wealth than the wealth of the nation. When it comes to creating economic opportunity it is Congress 0 despite the President's best efforts.


All any of us can do is keep steering in the direction we believe will land us on a steady path. What will happen in Congress is anybody's guess but President Obama has demonstrated his character as a public servant. His ability to think and act outside the box and above the fray is leading the world towards negotiated solutions rather than armed conflict and that is something to be thankful for in 2013 and beyond.

Harry Dropped One. Kerry Stopped One.

The Nuclear Option was exercised by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday, a move which left many Democrats thinking “It’s about time.” Why on earth did Harry Reid think Hill Republicans were capable of a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ after their repeated displays of contempt for precedent not to mention our President? Democrats were handed an electoral victory and it would have been anti-democratic to allow the choices of the People ‘s Choice to be continually thwarted by procedural manipulations of the confirmation process by the minority party. We are in an era where governing must be done by brute force in order to counter the brute force being applied against the historical civility which had up to now ruled the Senate. President Obama has a right to leave a legacy in the Courts through judicial and cabinet-level appointments. That is one of the reasons I so enthusiastically supported his re-election. Would the world have looked different if important cases such as Citizens United and Bush v. Gore had been decided by a different set of jurists at the last-resort Supreme Court level and below? Quite possibly. I guess having employed the nuclear option may feel different once Democrats are in the minority but in light of the evidence of how far Republicans on the Hill are willing to go I think it is wise for Democrats to take their best swing while the opportunity presents itself. There is no guarantee they will get another chance and there is every indication that Republicans would not hold back if the roles were reversed. So all I can say is – Way to go Senator Reid! Make blue hay while the sun shines!

The other Nuclear Option being talked about today is the one which Secretary of State John Kerry appears to have curtailed in the deal announced yesterday with Iran. The devil is always in the details but the expressed willingness on the part of Iran to re-start a relationship with the US and its allies represents an historic change of course. The path away from military engagement and towards peaceful coexistence, once adopted, will be hard for the parties to reverse even if progress towards full-scale rapprochement proceeds at a snail’s pace. That is why the announcement of this agreement is welcomed by most. It will not be easy for those who have built their political reputations by declaring Iran an Evil Empire to acknowledge that the arm-twisting use of sanctions rather than the fear-inducing use of military force can yield worthwhile results but apparently it has. Iran’s relationship with the world is at a cross-roads. The newly-elected Rouhani and the theocratic coalition who must give their blessing appear to have chosen civil engagement rather than military hostilities. The world community now has the opportunity to help them turn that corner through clear expectations and thorough inspections. The alternatives appear far worse.

When I first tuned in to discussions in the press regarding Iran’s potential to develop a nuclear weapon (during the George W. Bush administration I believe) I would hear people declare “We cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.” My first thought was “Guess what. They aren’t asking our permission.” When it comes to behavior that occurs within a country’s sovereign borders the outside world has limited options. Those who think there is a path to peace through bombing or strangling Iran into total submission are fooling themselves. Iran’s successful re-entry into the community of “civilized” nations cannot be accomplished without taking into account the legitimate concerns of the Iranian people and the coalition who rule and represent them. The very fact that they are asking for a seat at that table is a hopeful development. For those who find more value in peace than in war this is progress.

What Your Country Can Do

I was a school girl when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated so my understanding of 'Camelot' has been shaped as much by the mythology as by first hand recollection. Still, a picture with recurring themes seems to emerge. That both JFK and Jacquie possessed movie star good looks is undeniable. I have yet to see an unattractive photo of either of them. That alone makes them unforgettable but they became legends because they had substance too. JFK and Jacquie bore the scepters we placed in their hands with beauty and grace. They knew they were occupants of a privileged position. The Presidency owned them, they did not own it. I am sure the white gloves were not spotless on the inside but it never seemed that mere appearances drove their public actions. Much of President Kennedy's legislative agenda was not completed until after his death but his ambitious vision for a more equitable America had already been laid out and there is every indication he would have continued to pursue it energetically. The historical records that I have seen reveal a man more optimistic than cynical, even perhaps even a bit cocky. When President Kennedy took a stand it seemed to be for the good of all Americans not simply for his personal prestige. When I think of John F. Kennedy and his legacy I think of his words “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” It seems his life embodied this sentiment, which is why he will remain a legend regardless of the sticks and stones thrown about over his human failings or the circumstances of his death. When we elect leaders who believe serving their country is their highest calling there is no limit to the great things our country can do.

ACA All the Way

The corners we turn or fail to turn can be the difference between a skid and a crash. So far the failures of the healthcare.gov website have sent the ACA into a skid. It is imperative that the website be fixed in the next six months or the entire program could crash in the minds of business, Congress and the people. Should that happen the people, who have finally been offered what citizens of every other major industrialized county already have, i.e., access to healthcare regardless of economic status, will not stand for that promise being withdrawn. If you think people are unhappy now wait until you tell those who thought the country was making progress towards equality of opportunity find out that a shoddy web site has made reneging on that promise possible.

If the website must be scrapped, so be it. The American people understand that a contractor’s work is not always what it is supposed to be – many of them have been burned by contractors themselves. But they will not stand paying for shoddy work to be done twice. The solution? Sue the contractors who provided shoddy work – don’t simply fire them. Put those companies out of business and in the meantime hire younger techies who will work directly for the good of the ACA – not the contractor. I feel sure there are plenty of underemployed IT people who could fill the bill. If there is evidence of fraud or corruption, don’t just sue – prosecute. This program is important enough to the future of American society that any intentional sabotage or pay-offs for shoddy work is an antisocial act worthy of jail time. While President Obama mismanaged expectations when it comes to “keeping insurance plans” the dissatisfaction might not have amounted to much if the website and the marketplace made it easy to explore all the alternatives available. I am one of those people who carries ‘junk insurance’ because that is all I can afford. I know it is junk but I figure it is better than nothing. I would like to find an ACA-compliant policy but I have not been able to enroll or even shop on-line. I believe I will qualify for cost sharing but without a functional website I can’t tell what alternatives will be available to me in less than 45 days. I sincerely hope that I can cancel my junk coverage but fear that I may be forced to keep it or to go without if I can’t get on-line to find something else.

Any member of Congress who sees complaints about the ACA as appropriate for this moment in time have no compassion for the American people. When in the midst of a crisis there is no time to point fingers. All efforts should be directed to getting the website up and running. Asking for Congressional hearings at this point serves no purpose other than to give Congress(wo)men a forum to get their faces on camera. This display of political narcissism is appalling in light of the urgency of the actual problem. If the ACA roll-out must be delayed it would be better to have that information sooner rather than later so individuals such as myself can make appropriate plans. I have survived this long, I can survive 6 more months. I know Republicans would try to make political hay out of this but in reality the recent showdown between Democrats and Republicans was not over delaying the ACA, but over trying to use the threat of a shut-down to accomplish a policy objective. Not all Americans will see it that way, but if the web site gets up and running and the ACA can be implemented, even on a delayed basis, the vast majority of the public will have forgiven Democrats for the delay by the time the next election rolls around.

I am a big supporter of the ACA and what it stands for. It’s ACA All the Way for me. I am adult enough to accept delayed gratification but under no circumstances will I accept a return to the pre-ACA status quo.

Beware of B(H)ill(ary)!

Don't blow it Democrats - we've come too far. Regardless of who is speaking always consider the source. With that in mind, Bill Clinton's recent critique of President Obama's handling of the Affordable Care Act roll-out must be taken with a huge dose of (margarita?) salt. President Obama had already addressed the need to square with the American people over his misleading rhetoric. Bill Clinton's words came across as politically motivated gratuitous criticism served up with a hint of 'Hillary would have done better'. Before jumping on Bill Clinton's bandwagon please consider the source. Might there be a bit of jealousy that President Obama succeeded in getting legislation through Congress and the Courts which promotes universal access to health care when the combined efforts of Bill and Hillary failed to make any progress towards that goal? Furthermore, the fact that Obama beat Hillary in the 2008 Democratic primary explains the snarky undertone. (As an aside, not only do I doubt Hillary could have handled healthcare better but I fear she might also have gotten us militarily involved in Syria. I have no regrets about supporting Obama over Clinton in 2008.) In addition to the backward jealous glance Bill Clinton probably has the future in mind, hoping to boost Hillary's odds for 2016. Would part of her platform be fixing Obamacare? The crass political motivations of the jab are what make it so distasteful and the fact that it came from such a popular ex-President endows the comments with undue influence which could wind up hurting not only President Obama but the entire Democratic agenda for at least the next few years by casting doubt on the President's trustworthiness. This was a display of B(H)ill(ary) putting B(H)ill(ary) first.


Anybody who has been paying attention to Bill Clinton over the years should not be terribly surprised. Clinton has a reputation for putting Clinton first. In 1997 Peter Edelman wrote an article for the Atlantic entitled 'The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done' in which he described how political motivations led to Bill Clinton signing into law a 'welfare reform' bill that actually set back the cause of fighting poverty. Senator Ted Kennedy, in the floor debate, called the bill 'legislative child abuse'. The premises included the expectation that two-thirds of welfare recipients would find jobs (we all know how that looks these days) and the ramifications included block grants to states which allowed them to privatise services aimed at helping people living in poverty - in other words allowing corporations to take over. According to his article Peter Edelman resigned from his position as assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services over the signing of this bill although he kept the reasons for his resignation quiet to keep from giving Republican candidates (who he deemed even more dangerous) fuel in upcoming elections.


When I think of President Clinton's legislative legacy I see a middle class that was set up for financial exploitation by deregulation and the repeal of Glass-Steagall and I see people living in poverty set up for homelessness and hunger. So why do so many Democrats love the Clintons? I think it's because he ran the country as if he were hosting one big party. Unfortunately nobody was keeping an eye on the morning after except the wealthy who smelled opportunity. His parties were more inclusive than Republican parties but he still encouraged a hedonistic approach for those who were lucky enough to be invited to the party. He does not come across to me as the adult in the room when it comes to crafting legislation. When I look at President Obama's legacy I see a few things already - The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, increased equality of opportunity at the federal level for the LGBT community and The Affordable Care Act to name a few. The ACA is the most important because it affects all Americans. Legislators of any party who want to see improved access to health care to become a reality for all citizens should be urging patience. Allow time for the initial problems with implementation of the ACA to be worked out rather than fan the flames of discontent. Citizens who are upset about what they are 'losing' should be urged to wait until the sign-up process is fully operational to see what might replace it. In the end, if there are some who cannot be satisfied so be it. You can't please everybody and political contortions which attempt to do so will probably not yield great policy.


This week at this critical juncture in the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act Bill Clinton decided to weigh in and offered words which served primarily to stir up discontent. President Obama had already addressed the need to assuage the distrust caused by mismanaged expectations so why did Bill jump into the fray? Did he think it would help the Affordable Care Act become workable policy or was he hoping to regain the spotlight long enough to dis President Obama and boost Hillary for 2016? Or does he simply find the lure of cameras irresistible? I really don't care about his motivations. I see his words as self-serving and destructive to the supposedly common cause of achieving universal health care for America's citizens. Democrats would be well advised to remember this week come 2016 primary time. Do we really want to encourage a Clinton political dynasty?


The November elections have come and gone. For the next six months politics should take a back seat and members of Congress who view health care reform as an admirable goal (as opposed to a political football) should focus on trying to make the ACA roll out work. Elected officials who can't see their way clear to do that should be asking themselves - and we should be asking ourselves - if working in government is really a good use of their time and talents.

Thank You for Your Service and Sacrifice

Veterans Day is when we give thanks as a nation to those who have served our country and its democratic ideals through the military. Veterans come in all sizes, shapes and colors and we owe them more than a day at the mall with extra big discounts. Respect must always be part of the gratitude we show and it needs to be expressed in ways that span all 365 days of the year. How can we allow those who fought for our freedom abroad come home to a fight for survival?


There is a ‘service’ mindset that draws many to the military, where teamwork is valued and the mission is not self-serving. They serve the mission not for individual glory but for the team’s success. How can we turn our backs on those who return depleted of energy or with compromised abilities when simply providing the basics (food, shelter, places for companionship) could be enough to help them weather the re-entry into life at home? When service(wo)men survive, they typically survive to serve again because that is who they are, service is what they value. Takers by nature they are not.


Some who survived the battlefield came home with enough strength to extend their service into the political arena. I believe John McCain and John Kerry saw themselves as civil servants first and politicians second, just as John Lewis served first in the battle for civil rights and then served on Capital Hill. These men maintain my utmost respect, but sadly that breed of civil servant seems scarce right now on Capital Hill. When we elect representatives who insist on limiting spending on worthy causes and people we are teaching our children the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If we do not value our service(wo)men enough to meet their basic needs upon their return from battle, our children will not see service as valuable. I believe we can and will do better than we have been doing, but it will take a willingness to return the favor of service.


I’d like to take this Veterans Day to say think you to all of those who seek to live lives of service to our country, civil servants and members of the military alike.

Fuzzy Faith, Historic Hostility or Assessment of Interests?

I know international affairs is a murky milieu for amateur news-watchers to wade into, however, when citizens leave the big foreign policy questions to elected officials we – and I mean each and every one of us - can end up somewhere we really don’t want to be. I’m not sure it’s helpful to wait until we have to give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down to military action to start talking about world events and our role in them. That said here I go, writing on a topic about which I am not particularly informed from a raw data point of view. I do not have a security clearance nor do I have personal knowledge of events on the ground. All I have is observation and analysis based on the news reports offered in major press outlets.


The topic is Iran. The press is reporting that an agreement relating to Iran’s nuclear capabilities may be in the offing. Secretary of State Kerry is making hopeful sounds while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seems ready to discredit these efforts by implying that Iran an unsuitable partner for any agreement. After all, it is only quite recently that Iran’s rulers have seen fit to offer anything other than hostile rhetoric. Under the circumstances, suddenly adopting a feel-good faith in Iran’s willingness to play nice would be naïve. Still, there are reasons to be hopeful. The path to a more stable Middle East can only be found through an accurate analysis of self-interest by each of the players. Iran, Israel and the US can all only pick from the available options after the reckless aggression of the Bush administration left the entire region destabilized. It’s not hard to imagine why an agreement on Iran’s nuclear capabilities might work now when it wasn’t possible in the past. First, thanks to the 2008 change in administrations, the US is no longer engaging in saber rattling towards Iran. President Obama decided instead to allow time for the real pain of sustained American arm-twisting to sink in. On the surface sanctions seem far less offensive than military action (they are certainly less expensive) but in today’s world they may be even more effective for this reason: when the country experiences military strikes originating from outside their country, outsiders get the blame, but when citizens experience deprivation they may blame their own government. The good news for Iran’s newly elected President Rouhani is that if the sanctions are lifted his government might get credit for improving conditions. So from Iran’s point of view the time may be ripe to seek an agreement. As for whether Iran will abide by an agreement, trust may not be the operative concept here either. No even remotely functional Iranian leadership coalition would consider using a nuclear weapon against Israel - to do so would undoubtedly bring about Iran’s obliteration through US and Israeli action – and it would be a wasteful drain on a fragile economy to build a sophisticated product that is not intended to be used. Furthermore, in light of recent ‘Arab Spring’ rebellions the Iranian government might secretly harbor a fear that any WMD’s they develop could someday fall into the wrong hands and be used against them. Self-interest could point Iran towards not only limiting the goals of its nuclear program on paper, but also in reality.

The only major player still clinging to Bush-era rhetoric is the Israeli Prime Minister. His feelings of distrust are not unreasonable, but they may not be warranted. The path forward for the Middle East will not be found by engaging in fuzzy faith or in historic hostility, but it is possible that a self-interest analysis would suggest that now is the time to reach back when Iran is reaching out.
*********************
People who read this blog (BTW – DOES anybody actually read this blog?) may wonder why I like to write about complicated issues like Syria and Iran. Part of me thinks it’s presumptuous of me to say anything but I have always been interested in Big Picture issues. The 60’s certainly had its share of course-changing currents from civil rights to the war in Viet Nam and since the election of Barack Obama (in itself an historic event) the US seems to have entered another period of upheaval (efforts to re-establish regulation of the banking industry and to push back against efforts to limit voting rights and women’s rights) and sea change (universal health care and expansion of LGBT rights). It is interesting to walk along the water’s edge of most policy discussions where the every-day back and forth is constant but mentally jumping into the big waves (a Middle East peace process?!) is bracing, especially when there is cause for optimism. I’ll be keeping my fingers and toes crossed but I’ll be looking forward.

Sarah Palin – The Worst of the Worst

Dear John McCain:

You have my sympathy. I feel certain you must cringe every time you hear Sarah Palin make another race-baiting, hatred-inciting entertainment-as-politics speech. I know I do. It would all be less awful if she had been an entertainer first, who ventured into politics then returned to her sick-comedy circuit, but having achieved national fame as a candidate for Vice President she has ‘risen’ to become practically a national disgrace.


Still, I don’t blame you, Senator McCain. I am sure somebody pushed her in your direction. Probably someone with cash and an ulterior motive. And her spunky energy can be appealing. What’s not to love? Sadly it is character that she lacks – something you never lacked. I know you realized it, but only too late.


Sarah has really found her niche now. It is an ugly, racist corner of the American politic. She likes to roll around in it for all she’s worth - which is probably a few more dollars than she earned as Alaska’s governor. Seeing even a short clip of one of her speeches is embarrassing to me in a way I imagine is similar to what Germans feel when watching Nazi propaganda from the 1940’s. (No, I am NOT comparing Sarah Palin to a Nazi. II am talking about my feeling of shame that we share the same citizenship. I hate to admit to myself that there are people in America who eat that s*&# up.)


I understand, Senator McCain, you have announced you will not be running for re-election. Recently you were brave enough to speak out against policies younger Republicans still run towards in an effort to keep their jobs. Your voice still holds sway over people who vote Republican on a regular basis. You still have ‘character’ on the plus side of your tally sheet. You helped lift Sarah Palin to national prominence in 2008. Any possibility you would be willing now to help pull her down from the national podium? It would be a courageous and historic act of patriotism and many mainstream Americans would be extremely grateful.

Power to the People Who are Power Symbols

Why does nonsense pass for news these days? Forbes’ assessment that Vladimir Putin is now “more powerful” than Barack Obama is nothing more than a parlor game pronouncement. A comparison of these apples and oranges cannot reflect an accurate assessment of personal power for one simple and evident reason: Putin sits atop a nearly totalitarian state and wields his power with far fewer restraints. President Obama is not playing with or for personal power alone. He is playing as a stand-in for America, the world’s leading democracy. His personal power is constrained by his allegiance to the democratic process. Isn’t this exactly what we want from an American President?

While the President’s domestic popularity may be waning at the moment I’m guessing as soon as the ACA website starts functioning properly his numbers will bounce right back up, especially if news surrounding the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities continues to look good. As for the suggestions that Putin’s ‘Power” is now greater than President Obama’s, that must be viewed in the context of diminished US prestige brought about by the actions of the dysfunctional Congress our President has been forced to contend with. When the far right wing couldn’t pull down the President himself in the 2012 elections, and couldn’t stop his healthcare plan from becoming law, and couldn’t stop the Supreme Court from confirming the law’s Constitutionality, they took aim at the government itself knowing that by weakening US status while he is President it would diminish his status as well.

Some may cry “mission accomplished” and blame the President’s leadership based on anecdotal stories such as the Forbes pronouncement but true power players know this type of ranking is soon forgotten and not worthy of more than a passing chuckle. If anything, this Putin/Obama comparison is a reflection of the directional change in the power of the countries they represent. Putin and his Russia have regained some status by stepping up to take a leadership role in in bringing about an end to Assad’s chemical weapons capability. As a result Putin’s stock is trending up. However, President Obama’s actions were essential to bringing about the conditions that made this progress possible. In addition there seems to be progress in other parts of the Middle East, where Israelis and Palestinians and the US and Iran are all headed to various negotiating forums. Anyone who believes a more stable and less violent world is the purpose for holding power must view these as positive developments, a plus for both Obama and the US. However, the mess in Congress reflects badly on the U.S. and the President as a result. The government shut down, the threat of default, the inability to focus on legislation rather than obstruction all originate from within a small minority of elected officials but they make America look ridiculous to a world that understands the ever-present dangers facing the international community. As for Putin outplaying Obama on the Edward Snowden matter, I believe that is likely more a matter of bad publicity than permanent damage. I see the problems with the ACA web site in the same light. The problems with the website and the diplomatic dust-ups stemming from the Snowden affair are likely correctable errors that will amount to nothing more than a few grains of sand in the eyes of the world compared to the meteoric catastrophe that our dysfunctional Congress, bowing to the right wing nuts, periodically threatens to hurl at the world in the form of the government shuts down, unmovable debt ceilings and an extended sequester.

Realistically President Obama cannot be held personally responsible for being unable to form partnerships with people who do not wish to be his partner but instead only seek to discredit him. If the only way to get along with a particular group is to buy into their agenda then partnership is not possible. These groups are seeking supporters, not partners. (All of Congress, Democrats and moderate Republicans alike, should remember this.) President Obama showed his willingness to achieve compromise solutions early in his tenure but his efforts were not reciprocated by the right. As long as Congress agrees to cozy up to the crazies, any further efforts to reach to the middle should be seen for exactly what they are likely to be – give-aways to the far right. President Obama seems to have learned this lesson and his recent willingness to hold his ground helped end the shutdown and allow for raising the debt ceiling without additional damage to his legitimately legislated agenda. As he continues to draw these lines and prod a dysfunctional Congress towards functionality, he will start to receive the personal credit he deserves. Let history be the judge, not Forbes.

Is There an Understuday? (Part II) Answer: No. But We Are a Superpower Not a Superhero

In case you weren’t watching let me state for the record that George Bush’s leadership made evident the limit of American Power when we ran smack-dab into a wall of reality in Iraq. The laughable proclamation “Mission Accomplished” more than eight years before US combat troops were finally able to return home, and with peace and prosperity for Iraqi citizens still a distant goal a decade later, nearly turned the US into a laughingstock in the developed and developing world. President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize in part because he had the wisdom to take a public stand against the foolhardy choice to go to war in Iraq. Awarding him the Peace Prize would also serve as a reminder to the new US Commander in Chief that he now bears the burden of preventing a similar mistake in a world made less stable by his predecessor.

My father (who worked on the Hill) used to say the best-qualified candidates for President would never run for that office because it is a thankless and impossible job. That said, someone has to do it. Thank you, President Obama, for accepting the burdens of the Presidency of the United States, and the burdens of world leadership. Being a US President is a high wire act, and while you are up there you become a target from all sides. To his credit, what his former opponent John McCain realizes that many current Republicans do not, is that Congress MUST NOT be among those seeking to pull the President, and by extension the entire country, off the wire. Fortunately the tide seems to be turning in the country at large against the Congressional obstructionists and destructionists. If the center majority of both parties can help contain those elements we can start to focus on the bigger picture once again - and there are plenty of things out there in the world-at-large to focus on. In addition to a myriad of domestic and economic policies, why are we not still talking about the Middle East peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, or Syria, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia or Iran? The world has a way of finding us even when we choose to tune it out. We (as leaders, as members of the military, as voting citizens) should be thinking about the appropriate role for the US on the world stage. Like it or not we have a unique status that affords us the inescapable opportunity and obligation to shape world events.

I am among those who believe President Obama’s instincts served him well in Syria and that disarming Assad’s chemical weapons without firing a single shot is a good thing. I see it as the result of a Superpower using its position to effect positive change. Had we gone the Superhero route instead as some had suggested and tried to dictate the outcome of a civil war thousands of miles from our shores we might well have encountered the same wall of reality that we met in Iraq – with similarly humiliating effects.


The US isn’t the only one on the world stage with lessons to learn. Rebel groups and citizens everywhere are learning that just causes alone do not guarantee success. Rescue does not always come. Incremental change may be all you can hope for. The US understanding its limits is part and parcel of people everywhere understanding theirs. The false hope offered by the Bush administration will eventually play itself out but in the meantime incremental change can be sought. As brokers, rather than dictators or enforcers, we can influence and encourage the Middle East peace process, keep the pressure on Iran, and peacefully engage with China and Russia on issues of global significance. Superhero we are not, but Superpower we are. It is at times a thankless task, but someone has to do it.

The Answer Is: Lipstick

And the question is: What is the difference between Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin?
I have wondered what Ted Cruz is up to with his recent forays onto the national stage. He can’t seriously believe he’s electable on a national ticket – he’s not that foolish or that blind – but he sure is seeking the national spotlight. Here’s my guess: Ted Cruz will go the way of Sarah Palin, who, after gaining national fame, cashed out of politics altogether and hit the road for speaking engagements. Why spend all that frustrating time trying to solve problems when you can make a bundle griping about those who do? Ted Cruz seems to be perfecting his ‘Ken doll’ image (have you noticed the hair?) and connecting directly to his target audience whenever possible. If he decides to run in 2016 - or for that matter if Sarah Palin decides to run in 2016 - it will be for exposure only - I cannot believe he - or she - has any desire to actually do the work of government. I wish there were a way to weed out these opportunists (I'll call them 'popliticians') before they achieve national fame in the political arena. If it is stardom they are after I wish they would pattern themselves after the Kardashians and leave government alone. The American public deserves better.

Is the GOP Cruzn’ For a Brusin’?

With rhetoric as bombastic and unrealistic as ever, Ted Cruz continues to hawk his version of leadership to his base through the press. Thankfully fewer and fewer Congressional lawmakers are buying it this time around. Even the
Houston Chronicle has now expressed second thoughts about their endorsement of his candidacy in 2012. Wouldn’t it be great if the hometown crowd wises up and elects to follow another path to power at the Federal level?


I say that as a Democrat, who theoretically should be happy to watch the GOP implode. The problem is I am also a patriot – somebody who wants the US to succeed as a nation even more than I want Democrats to come out better than Republicans in 2016. My personal views are way left of center but I know they do not have a chance of becoming policy in their entirety. However if there is a sane center from which to work I can push for a liberal outcome here and there, nudging the country overall in ‘my’ direction. If I put my faith in government swinging wildly to ‘my side’ I can be pretty sure a time will come when it swings wildly back to the other side wiping out the middle and leaving nothing but dysfunction in its path.


Some say that is already where we are but I don’t see it that way. I am sure many in the Cruz clan truly believe Obama’s policies are on the far left fringe and a wild swing to the right is required but that belief comes from a distorted view of where we already are. Choice is the law of the land and has been for decades, women have been active partners in the work force and in family decision-making for years, sodomy between consenting adults no longer falls within the scope of governmental comment or control, regulation of business and working conditions is not optional it is a responsibility of government, a social safety net exists for the elderly and the disadvantaged and wounded veterans because it helps keep our society civil, we provide public education because it helps our society for our children to be educated. The vast majority of Americans have not been calling for a reversal of these positions. The right wing base that Cruz appeals to is in the minority but they have gotten really good at bloviating about their vision of America, assisted by a handful of media mouthpieces who will do or say anything for $attention$.

There is no equally radical and vocal element on the left. (No, the concept of universal access to health care is not a radical left-wing policy – it is the law of the land in virtually every other Westernized democracy.) Because Democrats are sounding so sane compared to the Cruz clan, I have hopes that the GOP center will hold and align with Democrats as necessary to stop a minority of Republicans in the House and Senate from stabbing government (and by extension the nation) in the back at every opportunity. If not, the country may decide a trip to the polls to vote GOP isn’t worth the effort.

Plus Ca Change

So, it looks like Ted Cruz has some questionable connections to Caribbean-based private equity firms that he has occasionally “forgotten to mention” on financial disclosure forms. Anyone surprised? I thought not. But, given that,and his multiple college degrees from elite schools (as Barack would say “What a Snob!”) and his wife’s connections to Treasury and Goldman Sachs I’d say his cultural and ideological connection to the Value Voters’ base seems rather suspect, don’t you think? I am pretty sure the only thing he values about being in politics is money – not values-based policy.

The gullibility of Value Voters is apparently limitless. I’m not offering a critique of their intelligence only of their perspective. They have found their pipeline to those who tell them exactly what they want to hear and their dreams are thereby nourished. Staying within that milieu feels warm and fuzzy so why would they listen to anyone telling them something else? Ted Cruz sold tunnel vision over hampering the ACA to his base and they bought it. The result? A government shut down that lasted over two weeks and embarrassed the country on the international stage. Why? It was a power play on Ted Cruz’ part. It worked for him but the country suffered.

I wonder if the Value Voters realize that they are giving Ted Cruz power that will never- and can never- be used to bring about the narrow vision he is selling? He may be their horse but once he achieves a certain status he will likely leave them in the dust without so much as a backwards glance in their direction, just as Sarah Palin did to Alaska when she encountered the $green$ light of national fame. (Palin didn’t even finish her elected term as Governor of her home state. Instead she went about the country earning big bucks speaking to fans. I cannot figure out why people who see her as a person of integrity simply ignore that fact.)

I realize there are similar phenomena on the Left, but there are a few key differences. The left has a more inclusive vision to begin with, one which acknowledges the validity of different cultural identities and understands the limits of government to create or enforce a single set of cultural values. Left leaners understand that they will not always get their way and that their visions are ideals to be worked towards, not demands to be met. The left just does not suffer from the kind of tunnel vision that the likes of Ted Cruz is using to fuel passions on the far right.

The recent agreement to bring the government back on line and avoid default did not hand Ted Cruz a win but it also did not shut him down. It only bought mainstream politicians a tiny window, which I am afraid the Ted Cruz types will use to rest up before the next crisis. I hope the lesson has been learned that the sooner the Left and the Center come together to stare down the Far Right, the better.

Is There an Understudy? (Part I)

Let’s travel to the Land Of Hypothetical Reality (LOHR) - which BTW is nowhere near the land of Actualized Predictions (AP). In the LOHR America has been discredited and is ready to be dethroned as the world’s ranking superpower. Is there an understudy in the wings ready to claim that dubious distinction?

Some say China but I’m not convinced they can pull it off. From what I have read, China, in its attempt to catch up to the West in lifestyle and consumerist psychology, it appears to have overextended itself. Construction projects begun with high hopes now sit half-finished or vacant with scant chances of successful completion. Despite China’s interest in green technology Beijing’s pollution is out of control. Furthermore, the Chinese brand of power seems to be derived from manipulation and control, whereas America’s power has been sustained from the bottom up, from people buying-in to the American Dream. China may be attempting to create it’s own version of the American Dream but I don’t think the world has yet to witness a huge brain drain of individuals clamoring to swear allegiance to China. Whether or not China holds sufficient home grown people power to take first place in the Superpower race does not seem clear to me. The fact that repression of freedoms and market manipulations are required in order to sustain China’s progress does not bode well for its future, given the proliferation of digital pathways for information exchange.

So will Russia regain equality and eventually surpass the US in superpower stature? Despite some recent gains that does not appear likely. Russia still has too many internal battles with secessionist populations and a discontented populace. Is there a Middle Easter superpower in the making? I doubt that too. It appears that there is an oligarchic ruling class developing but they seem more driven by lifestyle than world domination. People may think Iran but I don’t see it that way. My guess is they need to stand up to Israel and the West enough to ensure that they do not go the way of Iraq, but I am also guessing they do not have a sufficiently modernized and motivated population to attempt expansion beyond their logical sphere of influence. South America? I don't know of any country there ready for prime time although some are making progress. Africa? Still seems too unfocused to assert itself.

So where does that leave us? Back in America, with the US and European models of multicultural co-operation and basic human freedoms as the Gold Standard for modern societies. When we show the world we still wish to function as the biggest player, the world will accept us. President Obama’s recent diplomatic wins on the world stage prove this point. (Yes, just getting parties to the negotiating table is some sort of win.) As long as we don’t throw ourselves overboard we will not be easily subverted, and America’s greatest quality - the ability to reform itself without destroying itself -will have the chance to work its magic.

Woe is Washington – as the World Watches

Thunk…Thunk…Thunk... That is the sound of Washingtonians banging their heads against the wall of their choosing. Sometimes there’s a moment when the ‘thunking’ stops and people start breathing a tad bit easier but then (thunk…thunk) it starts again.

Is it any wonder voters tune out? Who really wants to participate in this painful exercise? Especially when the fruit it bears is often part rotten and totally blemished? It would be much easier to turn away and tend a garden of your own creation except for one simple fact. Government policies still matter. They affect everyone’s lives. They even affect the climate that affects your home garden. The 'I’ve got mine, you get yours' approach may appear logical and fair when it comes to distributing wealth (though not to me personally) except that it denies the reality that there’s a shared context for everybody’s lives. National borders set administrative boundaries and I am very grateful to fall within the physical and civic boundaries of the US and its laws. However, I know these boundaries are man made and cannot exist apart from a literally boundless greater context.

The government shut down should never have happened and everyone in Washington knows it. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would be even worse. When questioning who is to blame the vast majority of citizens (I’m guessing all but a few right wingers with extreme anti-government positions) understand who took the government hostage and why. It was over a law that was crafted and challenged following all the rules, and while the current hostage taking may be happening using procedurally legal maneuvers ANYONE WHO WOULD DO SO DOES NOT BELONG IN GOVERNMENT. Unfortunately the only way to remove from Congress the “Let’s Roll” crazies who feel good about shutting down the government is through the ballot box. I hope and pray Americans do so at every opportunity – starting with off-year local elections which have the ability to influence national elections via manipulation of the voting process. For now this shut down should be viewed less as a Republican v. Democrat contest but more as a struggle between those who think it’s OK to shut the government down over policy and those who don’t. If more of the Republicans who are willing to govern would put pressure on the Speaker to start the wheels of government rolling again this particular crisis could come to an end and the business of crafting policy could begin again. The policy answers are not easy – they never have been. America is being tested, and as the world’s greatest superpower we are being tested on the world stage. When we decide to shut down and allow the world’s good faith in us to be ruined it’s like we are acknowledging failure. We seem to be literally tossing ourselves off of the world stage. We have come too far and accomplished too much to let that happen. Please, Congress, come to your senses.

A Wink and a Nod in the Political House of Mirrors

In today’s political climate (an environment created by the greenhouse effect of 24/7 media coverage) politicians often behave like carnival barkers, selling themselves – and the very idea of political engagement - to their voting public. In some circles the louder they bark the better their chances. Put out a hook and once you feel some traction - pull for all you are worth. (Example: Ted Cruz.) The danger to the country when these barkers get elected is that crafting sound policy is low on their priority list. Once they get to Congress (or whatever governing body they are elected to) they end up speaking to their constituents rather than for them.

Politicians focused on playing to their crowd may never develop a set of personal principles to guide them in the multifaceted project of actual governance. Those who do have a political core but still focus primarily on crowd reaction learn to avoid saying out loud (albeit with considered words) what they actually believe; the public image must appear one way even when the behind-the-scenes dealing may be telling another story.

Enter the hall of mirrors, where it can be hard to tell if you are going where you think you are going. A handshake, a pat on the back, a wink, a nod, a campaign contribution, all may be nothing more than friendly gestures or a free will offering but in politics these signs and symbols can mean different things to different people. Communication takes place through obtuse gestures because transparent words ruffle too many feathers. Trying to be too many things to too many people leads to a life spent reading tea leaves and watching how you sip so others can read yours once you’ve gone home for the night. In this environment passing gas may be mistaken for a smile of agreement and may be returned with a smile that is interpreted as a desire to connect. A sideways glance at a passing bee may be taken as a sign of avoidance and cast a chill over a developing friendship. Hot microphones, rather than being a welcome glimpse behind the scenes, may be nothing more than an opaque attempt to appear inadvertently transparent. The likelihood of confusion, misdirection and corruption increases as direct discussion using clear and concise vocabulary decreases. I have no idea if there’s a way to direct ourselves completely out of this maze but how can we not try? If we allow our governing bodies to stay lost in the house of mirrors they will drag the country in there with them, unable to move forward or backward without running into our own distorted reflection.

Tempest in a Tea Party Breaking Sad

You can tell the government shut down/debt ceiling debate is winding down by the diffused messages and variety of voices coming down from the Hill these days. Instead of an epic battle between the White House and a small but focused group of obstructionists we now have softened language and widespread murmuring. The next loud and clear message we will likely receive is a statement detailing the terms of a settlement – however temporary. The President’s ability to weather the storm without being blown off course served him –and the country - well. That fact that we’re witnessing the Tea Party move to the back of the bus on this one gives me hope that middle of the road Republicans can regain some stature in Congress as a whole, if not within their own party. Moderate Republicans owe President Obama a debt of appreciation for doing what they themselves could not, namely expose and discredit the right wing nuts. Some say Ted Cruz was the composer/conductor of the latest crisis and that his personal poll ratings have gone up. Maybe, but who cares? There have always been a few crazies present and voting in the halls of Congress (Michelle Bachmann and Allen West spring to mind) but what has been radically different in the last few years is the disproportionate influence they seem to have had over their Party’s work on Capital Hill, and therefore on the entire governing processes. To have their puffery deflated as this current crisis resolves is a good thing for the country. If there are sad faces and disappointment around the Tea Party table, that’s OK, too.

Realizing the American Hallucination

I’m going to lay the current ‘govern by crisis’ Congress at the feet of Fox News – or maybe cable TV in general. The proliferation of news sources has created an environment where each sub-culture can live 24/7 within an infosphere of their own choosing. This is not a new observation – we have all come to realize that an assessment of not only of what America should be but of what America actually is depends on who you ask. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not to their own facts, except that other than facts acquired by first-hand experience all facts are hearsay – in other words a matter of who you ask.

I heard it suggested recently that all printed textbooks should be done away with and on-line resources only should be available to students. Should we really trust Google to give us straight answers every time we search when all I get when seeking information is a series of ads? Can we trust state governments to provide us with unbiased textbooks when Texas now has creationists on their school boards? It will be too easy to re-write history if we have to depend only on information provided by popular search engines and school provided textbooks. I am not a Twitterer but I am grateful for the spontaneous communication it enables. Facebook may have shown promise but seems to have evolved away from communication to become more of a platform for self-promotion. Facebook seems more commercial and less informative with every passing day. When our access to information is limited we can easily fall prey to manipulations without realizing we are being manipulated.

How does this lead to Congressional stalemate? The current cultural climate has allowed each of us to expect we can shape America into the society we wish it to be, the same way we shape our individual environment. We can surround ourselves with like-minded people and never have to acknowledge the humanity or validity of others and their myriad points of view. When our beliefs are challenged by reality we think we can simply keep changing the channel until reality conforms to our delusions.

Democracy means you get a say (something not every society offers) but it also means accepting that not everyone will agree with you and that you won’t always get your way. If we hamstring a democratically elected government over legally crafted policy you won’t be able to make it conform to your vision (that’s not democratic) but you may create a power vacuum and there will be entities ready to step in and fill that vacuum. Guess who those entities will be? Businesses of course. Those with the impersonal power of money. Those whose cash controls the flow of goods and services and also the working conditions under which those goods and services are offered and created. Public safety? Costs too much. Safe and sane working conditions? Again, costs too much. Education for our children? Who needs it when the only jobs available to most will be unskilled and low wage?

Tea Partiers have been led to believe they don’t have to play nice with mainstream America and if they hold their breaths long enough they’ll get their way. They won’t. But they may unwittingly be holding the door wide open for those who would obliterate democracy altogether and put America and Americans in service to their entirely personal goals.

Is Miley Cyrus an Artist or an Opportunist?

Miley Cyrus’ first musical skit on SNL (“We Did Stop”) disturbed me because it came across less like satire and more like a statement she was happy to make on behalf of those who feel entitled – in this case the Republicans who feel entitled to shut down the government when they don’t get their way. Her musical rendition of an acoustic, slower version the song (“We Can’t Stop”) performed in a white gauzy “hoodie” dress came across quite differently. Here Miley seemed almost repentant. This hoodie imagery evoked all kinds of complex connections but my gut reaction is that she used this performance to extend an olive branch to her uninvited mentors. I take the fact that she did not push her feuds further and instead appeared humbled as a sign she realized she may have at times taken things too far. Even Miley knows it isn’t nice to pick on public figures coping with reality through the mental health system. Somewhere deep in her heart she knows that Amanda Bynes could have been her – and still may be her someday.

The Wrecking Ball video which sparked the initial controversy alongside her artistically vapid but titillating performance on the VMA’s brought out the mentor in some older artists who hate to see young and talented people head off into trash heap territory. I am not a fan or a frequent listener but I did pull up some videos that have convinced me she does have talent and I understand their concerns. She has musical ability and can perform on cue, but the question of artistry has to do with who’s steering the ship and where it’s headed.

There is a ‘directors cut’ video of her singing Wrecking Ball on YouTube which focuses only on her face as she lip-synchs to the recording - tears flowing, nose running, all very raw and real. Once the music stops however, she can be seen swaggering off, laughing, embraced by an older man. But as Miley continues to walk away the older man turns back and gives a close-up thumbs-up with a ridiculous grin on his face. I don’t doubt Miley's emotions were real and I don’t doubt her swagger either. I’m guessing she’s laughing - along with her promoters - all the way to the bank. But I'd be careful if I were her. The older man's actions may have been a sign that the last laugh will be at her expense.

Thus far the public Miley Cyrus is, and has always been, a product manufactured by others. As she grows up if she is content with that role that’s all she will be. I’m not sure she knows how to steer her own ship because I don’t think she has any idea where she’s headed. In the meantime her ‘team’ will make money and so will she, at least until she becomes a victim of addictions or is no longer sexually desirable. Artistry isn’t usually nurtured in that environment, which means history will ignore her. I’m guessing she‘ll remain primarily an opportunistic money-maker and I will never be on board with those behind her act. The less said about her the better.

Unless she decides to really grow up. If that is the case who knows what she could become.

The View Looks Different From Here

Miley Cyrus gets it. So do all the young people us old folks see twerking to the beat in a state of altered consciousness. The planet is dying. People in power can be rotten. The rich only get richer while the poor and down-trodden get trod on repeatedly. But us old folks get one more thing. It’s all par for the course.

The future belongs to the young. I hope they want to do more with it than party ‘til we all drop. Birth does not exist without death and good has no meaning without evil. Accepting both sides of the coin gives you something to work with. Many of us were taught about the two sides but some of us were deluded into thinking that we could live our lives on the “heads” side with only an intellectual knowledge of the “tails” side. This is a really damaging approach. Children should never be raised to think they can divide the world and their experiences -or even themselves - so neatly. There are no social circles you can travel in that will spare you first-hand encounters with life and death and good and evil. In fact you will experience all of these within yourself even if you never leave home.

When the very means of existence are being parsed out by the powerful seeking to harness the energy of youth and working people for their own purposes despair can easily take over. It’s not at all surprising that so many of today’s youth are ready to ride it all out on the magic carpet of a drug haze. The questions to be asked are not “Is this fun?” (when asked once the ‘morning-after’ experience has become an integral part of the word “this”) or “How did I get here?” but “Am I serving my own future?” and “Am I heading somewhere I want to go?” If the answer to either of the two latter questions is “No” it is time to change course.

I don’t blame drug dealers (who are often employed in the trade for their own survival) for individuals or even youth who are out of control. I happen to believe there are individuals who can use drugs of all sorts in ways that are not destructive. It is when drug use is fueled by nihilistic attitudes and mindless acquiescence that it causes problems. Dashed hopes can lead to despair – so be realistic about your expectations. Work towards what you want for your own life but don’t expect the path to be easy. NOBODY gets an easy life as far as I can tell. If you find the journey interesting it helps. None of us can stop the actions or change the intentions of others but we have some control over our choices. When making choices stay aware of consequences. Having some perspective helps this process, as does having some guiding principles. Just as nobody can live only on the heads side, nobody can live only on the tails side either. If you are bent on destruction you will be the first thing destroyed. Acknowledging and accepting the presence of birth and death, good and evil in every aspect of life makes getting by every day a whole lot easier.

Miley Cyrus has experienced enough now to know that she will not live an unscathed life on the heads side of the coin. Heartbreak can do that to you. She may be making more conscious and aware choices now, but I’m not sure if she’s settled on her guiding principles. There is one thing she gets quite well: Sex sells. Whether she will grow up to be an artist or decide on opportunism remains an open question. More on that tomorrow.

Does Competence Matter?

I used to think competence was a prerequisite for holding a job in a competitive society but I’m beginning to think the key to staying employed is becoming entangled. When workplace boundaries do not hold it becomes much harder to change one worker for another. The resulting stew is probably not a great recipe for workplace efficiency or quality work product.
I have to wonder how substituting connection for competence affects on-the-job performance of tasks specific to the position – and by that I mean the responsibilities shown in the job description.


I am sure there are organizations which value competence and even expertise and I am sure those values are promoted from the top down in those organizations. But I’m just not feeling it most of the time. I’m guessing the connection over competence culture comes from the top, too. As a society we have been conditioned to tolerate from corporations what we decry from teachers, politicians, home improvement contractors and the like. Companies such as BP get away with minimal punishment after destroying certain parts of the Gulf. Wall Street insiders go unpunished after wiping out literally millions of homeowners. These people and their companies reaped their profits without having to perform competently in their job-related tasks thanks largely to their Capital Hill connections. (BTW - Until we break the link between corporate funding and free elections Capital Hill will continue to function as an arm of business rather than as representatives of the citizenry.) Why should average citizens behave with a work ethic when major employers do not?


Casting cultural confusion aside, I have decided to cling to a work ethic that some find outdated. When I step on an airplane or send blood out for testing I want the services I paid for to be performed with competence. It is a duty I owe to myself to approach my work they way I want the people I hire to approach theirs. I also owe it to the future. Thanks to the all-the-time and everywhere access to information today’s children are learning how the world works at a very young age. If there are no adults around showing them another way how can we expect them to work hard at school, to take a test without cheating and seek achievement rather than the easiest path?

Clearly I won’t always get back what I should have every right to expect but I have already decided that I won’t allow myself to assist in the creation of a world I don’t want to live in. That said, I understand there are times when survival requires that we act outside our principles. It happens to everybody at some point in their lives. But when I have the option to work hard and play fair I prefer to. Call me crazy but I still think competence matters.

John Boehner - Swing Player, Anarchist or Rudderless?

Those who believe the Federal Government should be drowned in the bathtub belong in straight jackets as far as I’m concerned. I can’t figure out if they have played that scenario out in their heads and found it A OK or whether they are so caught up in some personal animosity that they can’t see farther than their own fist. Still, when crazies are holding hostages you might not want to insult them directly. Of course you can’t give in to their demands but it helps if the point people view them compassionately enough to reassure them they will be treated with respect once they put down the gun. After the threat of deadly force is neutralized, get the crazies away from the public as quickly as possible. John Boehner is in a position to disarm the current hostage takers. For the life of me I don't see how it makes long range sense for him to offer more than nodding respect for having won their election to those who are OK with paralyzing government. Let their voices be heard then legislate around them whenever possible, When and if the Speaker ends the current impasse by bringing a ‘clean’ CR to the floor of the House for a vote will he suddenly become a hero? It’s hard to say since he could have exercised this option early on and prevented much of the current bloody rhetoric and suffering.

When I see John Boehner in action I keep wondering: What’s his point? Does he want to govern? Does he want power for power’s sake? Does he want to be liked? Does he want to leave a mark (as opposed to a stain) in the history the nation? All of the above? Any of the above depending on the moment in time? I can’t figure out if he’s guided by an underlying philosophy or if he’s only interested in playing to everybody just enough to not be written off. Too many times I have seen him act as though he is ready to partner with Democrats in order to move the business of government forward only to have him blame the other side when he can’t sell rationality to his caucus. His language comes across like a Picasso painting, disjointed and lacking a coherent perspective. He may be trying to play all sides but I haven’t yet figured out what he’s playing for.

How the current government shut down/debt ceiling debate ends may provide some insight into what makes Boehner tick. At the moment I’m guessing he’s rudderless.

Shut Down and Sit Up

I hate having to think about the government shut down even more than I hate having to think about the spread of dangerous WMD's. Why is it worse? Because the shut down is an OPTIONAL, self-inflicted problem. The Nation should not have to go through this. The tactics being employed regularly by a small contingent of House lawmakers is making a bad economy worse by taking money from the pockets of thousands of government contractors and employees. Once again it is primarily the middle class (who typically do not have vast reserves) who are being hurt, which in turn hurts the economic recovery. Pinched pennies do not fuel a healthy economy. So why is this happening? Is it really all about Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act)? Is it a play for attention by those who did not get their way through the legislature and the courts allowing them to feel powerful - at least for a while? Is it an attempt to sabotage the President's second term, even if the country is hurt in the process? Trying to understand why is like looking directly at the sun. It is hard to see through the glaring foolishness enough to see what is actually going on. At this point I'm not sure it matters. I recently received this advice: Don't argue with idiots. It will be hard for on-lookers to tell who is who.

Funding government is a duty, not a policy, of government. Many of us are clear on the difference. There is no room for muddying the government funding process with demands relating to an existing policy and the President will not allow the waters to be muddied. Thank God. As to the complaints about the AFA itself, they need to stop. This policy was legislated and adjudicated. Sorry Tea Party - you already lost that battle. Yes, you were elected to serve in Congress (by a very small percentage of all US citizens) but you were elected to govern, not to shut government down. When the government is shut down you cannot perform the job you were elected to do. Instead of playing to those delusional elements of your base who believe government can and should be forced to act in accordance with their beliefs, and their beliefs alone, why not help educate them to the true nature of democracy? In a democracy NOBODY gets everything they want. Civil order is maintained when citizens accept the results if the processes have been faithfully followed - as is the case with the AFA. If there is a way for sane Republicans and Democrats alike to sit the "Let's Roll" crew in a corner until they sober up that would be great. Many believe if Speaker Boehner would simply bring a clean Continuing Resolution to the Floor for a straight up or down vote, it would pass. Why he has not already taken this path is a mystery lost to me in the glare of foolishness surrounding this whole mess. In the meantime I hope the electorate is sitting up and taking note of who is taking the government hostage over an already-settled policy debate

It’s Not a Grand Plan It’s a Grandstand

Where o where has their sanity gone
Where o where can it be?
With their brains cut short
And their Egos cut long
O Where o where can it be?

The US Congress (or at least the House of Representatives) and by extension our entire government has been taken over by a small group of irresponsible egos playing to the cameras. Our representatives were sent to Washington to govern on our behalf. How can using governmental procedures to stop government work as part of a grand plan to improve government? Get real – it won’t. There are times and places to debate and litigate policy. This process has already run its course for the Affordable Care Act. The fact that not everyone is happy with the results is irrelevant to the separate responsibility to fund government and meet our obligations as a nation. Obamacare will not be stopped and they know it. Throwing a wrench in the wheels will not bring about healthy change it will only damage the system. So really – what is the point? It’s not part of a grand plan – it is only a grandstand. The loudest and most childish members of Congress apparently get off on hearing the sound of their own voices echoing through the halls of Congress and on the nightly news. Those willing to govern can only turn their backs on the clatter (of course they can’t negotiate!) and sadly stand by as the American people are hurt, right along with America’s reputation in the world as a superpower worthy of that status. Sarah Palin and her Tea Party playmates have damaged the reputation of the United States of America perhaps even more than George Bush’s ill-advised adventures in Iraq - and that is really saying something! How can we bring this insanity to an end? The only hope is through the ballot box. People unwilling to use their elected office to govern should not be a part of government. Tea Partiers are a destructive presence in Congress and only serve to rot government from the inside out. We need to removed them from the process. In other words – THROW THE TEA PARTIERS OUT OF GOVERNMENT AND MAKE SURE THEY NEVER COME BACK!!!! For those so fed up with politics that the very idea of voting seems like a choice between the lesser of evils please realize that it is still a choice that must be made. To opt out on the responsibility to vote is the worst choice of all. Dig into that left brain and work through a few rational steps when deciding who deserves your vote – someone interested in governing or someone intent on destroying government? How would like look if there were no federal government? How about your children’s lives? Republican or Democrat, there are many lawmakers who understand their responsibilities as elected officials and who find the current crop of Tea Partiers destructive. Still, as long as the far righters are getting their wing nut supporters to the polls they will be a force. While millions stay away from the political process the lunatics are taking over. Even if you are a Republican, please help us get out the hook and pull the Tea Partiers off the political stage.

The Congressional Zeno Effect

There are scientific phenomena related to the effects of observation and measurement on that which is being observed or measured. An example of the ‘Observer Effect’ in the physical world is a good old-fashioned mercury thermometer. The body releases some of its heat into the thermometer which results in a temperature “reading” but also results in a slight degrease in the body’s heat. The Quantum Zeno Effect is a particular feature of the Observer Effect. When an unstable particle is observed often enough it can be frozen in it’s initial state and prevented from decaying. This seems hard to comprehend for us non-physicists but here’s what I know. The term ‘Zeno Effect’ is derived from the Greek philosopher Zeno’s Arrow Paradox. As I understand this example, in order to observe the arrow in flight it must be measured infrequently. If time is sliced thinly enough and measurements taken at each tiny slice the arrow will, in effect, be frozen.

How does this relate to Congress? We currently have some unstable legislators holing the government hostage over their particular demands. As long as we give their positions constant attention they will never move. Prior to 24/7 coverage of our government at work we, as citizens, would know more about outcomes and less about process. This may have helped keep things moving, allowing unstable bubbles to form and burst barely leaving blips on the radar.

I am a strong supporter of transparency and believe governmental processes should be open to neutral observers but we really don’t need to be informed twice an hour about whether the President and Congress are meeting to resolve the current budget crisis. There is simply too much else going on in the world that we, as citizens should be made aware of.

The choice to provide excessive coverage is one made by networks in an attempt to package politics as a spectator sport. I am as guilty as the next in finding this the most interesting contact sport around but I am really not sure how this constant focus on Congress is helping us. I would be far better served to hear a bit more about what is happening in Africa, Brazil, China, Japan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, etc. and return to news on Congress only every now and then, after events have had a chance to develop. Wouldn’t it be lovely if by observing the unstable particles less frequently they begin to decay and disappear?

Prudence and Prowess

American military strength has been front and center in securing and maintaining our stance as the world’s leading superpower since our show of overwhelming force that ended World War II. The world knows that we carry a big stick and since the break up of the Soviet Union and we seem to hold the only really big stick on the block. But a big stick alone won’t get you through if you don’t know when and how to use it.

We are on the precipice of a new approach to foreign affairs, where the big stick will be used to prod rogue nations towards the negotiating table rather than beat them into submission. I, for one, find that a big improvement.

As shocking as it seems to be hopeful over changing events in the Middle East, I do feel hopeful. President Obama has demonstrated his willingness to be a reasonable and cautious player, but one who nonetheless is unafraid to use force if necessary. The met head on the challenge of taking out Osama Bin Laden, and met Syria’s large-scale use of chemical weapons with similar forthrightness and resolve. His decision to go to Congress proved helpful, but his personal conviction that action was warranted created conditions that led to progress.

Iran has it’s own reasons for coming to the table now, including removal of the increased sanctions and the continuing hawkishness of the Israeli government. The fact that Obama knew how to draw the line on Syria by prodding rather than pounding should make it easier for the Iranian leadership to approach us from the point of view of self-protection and also from the political theater point of view. A John McCain style intervention would have made an unwinding of tensions between Iran and Israel all but impossible

There is wisdom at work in knowing when to act and when to keep silent. On the international stage President Obama is looking like the adult in the room once again. Sadly, in Congress the adults are still besieged by House Republicans willing to toss a few bombs around just to shake things up – or maybe to play to the cameras. That we elected representatives willing to behave irresponsibly towards government operations and obligations speaks poorly of us as a society; on the other hand, that we elected a President prudent enough to wield the big stick only when absolutely necessary also speaks volumes. Thank God it’s the adult who holds the biggest stick.

Exception to the Rule(r)

I hope the phrase American Exceptionalism will soon disappear from public rhetoric. Claiming to be exceptional as individuals or as a public body puts us into a self-congratulatory stance that does not help us win friends or influence people. It is not our superiority as people or as a people that makes America exceptional, it is the system we live under which broke the mold inherited from its European ancestry and allowed for the creation of a new type of society. America has never lived under the rule of royalty, which means that power in America was never derived or passed on by birthright. Our system not only allows for public input it depends on it. Other European countries evolved from monarchies to constitutional democracies but America was born that way. The American system contains freedoms which have become our traditions, such as the freedom to participate and speak out publicly in matters of governance, to voice dissent and to prosecute grievances through the courts. These are not the traditions of autocratic or monarchistic societies. Does that make us superior as people - as individuals? Probably not. But we have an exceptional history that may have given rise to a particular point of view. Our society was built on our right to take exception to the ruler. We may feel less powerless to address injustice because our system empowers us. We may be willing to take a stance because our system gives us that opportunity on a regular basis through the ballot box. There is a danger, however, if we assume all the world thinks like we do or desires to live like we do when this is not actually the case. What we see as exporting the benefits of our democratic society may be viewed abroad as imposition of an arrogant foreign culture. President Obama understands this and is rightfully reluctant to try to bring about an 'American vision' for a region that is well outside our sphere of influence. Instead he is focused on what the world community can agree on - that chemical weapons must not be employed as simply another tool in the tool chest - just as nuclear weapons are not just another tool in the tool chest. He also understands that it is not simply friendship that brings about peace and stability but a balance of power. I am hopeful that President Obama's understanding of the subtle distinctions in systems, weapons and peoples will help guide us to a safer, better place.

To Shake or Not To Shake

Words and actions mean different things to different people. The most effective public figures understand all the audiences and all the implications. Iran's newly elected President Rouhani has been winking to the West for some time now but to expect him to shake hands with President Obama at the UN this week is a lot to ask. It would be like getting a kiss on the first date - a definite no-no to religious conservatives at home. Rouhani is in the delicate position of attempting to move Iran into a less threatening posture vis a vis the West without being seen by his country's conservative leaders and citizens as being a sell-out. Building diplomatic relationships takes time but it does appear that Iran is ready to move a bit towards center. I believe there are reasons to accept that the shift is genuine and not simply a cynical ploy to game the West. The current leadership, both the established clerics and the new President, understand that in an environment ruled by instant access to information, repressing unrest at home would require increasingly repressive tactics. They have witnessed internal battles break out in a number of countries in the region and realize chaos in Iran would not serve anyone. Seeking internal and regional stability through rapprochement with the West may be deemed necessary and wise. I am sure there are elements within Iran, however, who view Western influence as the work of the Devil and are more interested in revenge than friendship. Then there are the young people who have sufficient familiarity with and affection for the West that they would rather trade than fight. Rouhani must act in ways that are palatable to both ends of this spectrum. It would not help his public standing in Iran to plant himself too firmly in one camp or the other but I believe he understands which direction holds hope for Iran's future.

The ABC’s of Damage Control

America's latest mass shooting occurred right here in DC at the Navy Yard. It is, of course, a major tragedy and a major trauma for the city. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this awful event. Our city remains in mourning and I share that grief. It is all the more painful because the particulars seem rather familiar. A person who gave off warning signals that went unheeded suddenly and apparently without provocation became a one person terrorist attack. (I am not implying that he was connected to anti-American groups - only that his actions resulted in terror and destruction.) Over a dozen people died. Another shooting will lead to another round of debate on the number and type of weapons easily available to pretty much anyone. The absurdity of the NRA's war against sane gun policy has to be pointed out yet again but there is another aspect to this shooting that was not front and center in Columbine, Blacksburg, Tuscon, Aurora, Oak Creek and Newtown (among others). The Navy Yard is a secure facility and the gunman entered the base legally. There isn't a single lapse in procedure we can point to except that the danger went unnoticed. He was on base legally due to his status as a contractor. The background investigators who provided him with a security clearance were also contractors.


Our reliance on contractors for the most sensitive and important aspects of our national security is something to think about. Do we really want profit-motivated companies whose internal workings are more difficult to oversee handing out keys to the gate? There's also the friendship factor in play as contracts are handed out. It is not at all reassuring to me to know that our collective security often rests in the hands of profiteer companies who cozy up to Capital Hill. If there is an upside to this approach from the government's point of view (aside from the power and influence that comes from having something to hand out) perhaps it is that when things go wrong we can Always Blame the Contractors. This person who was given a clearance was not cleared by US, he was cleared by contractors. And he didn't even work for US , he worked for contractors.


Another incident of contractor violence that comes to mind is an incident that occurred in Iraq. On September 16, 2007 civilians employed in the Blackwater Personal Security Detail who were charged with protecting US State Department personnel fired on Iraqis, killing at least 14 and injuring 20, including a mother and her son. The circumstances at Nisour Square may not be 100% clear but the incident did lead eventually to charges and convictions of Blackwater personnel here in the US. What is clear is that the behavior of those contractors left a huge stain on our reputation (even though they weren't exactly US) with the local population.

I am not suggesting we should stop using contractors altogether. Not only is that not practical, it's not necessary. I am sure most contractors, like most gun owners, are honest, hard-working and sane. But maybe we should consider whether it's always the best approach, particularly in areas of national security. Over-reliance on contractors may be costing us more than we realize.

Why Did Most Societies Treat Women as Inferior - Whether They Believed it or Not?

A recent article in Slate/Quora attempts to answer the question “Why Did Almost All Societies Believe that Women Were Inferior to Men?”. The author postulates that the superior physical strength of males translated directly into “political” power by virtue of all the powerful things it allowed men to accomplish while women were too busy elsewhere (i.e., focused on children)?

I don’t buy the argument that male productivity inherently endowed men with superior worth in the eyes of society at large – unless you want to exclude women from the very definition of society. Women did plenty of useful work – and men knew it. The question we should be asking is “Why were societies so often dominated by men?” My answer: Because men could. So how did men gain and hold a controlling advantage – at least until recently?

There has been a lot of discussion about the male desire to control and propagate their own genes as lying at the heart of the male desire to create patriarchal societies. This may play a role but isn’t a sufficient explanation. The reason men were able to exert control over women lies not only in the brute-strength differences between the sexes (after all, women may have just as much stamina and may be more nimble) but in the nature of their roles and the lessons learned in those roles. Women of child bearing age don’t just look after themselves. Pregnancy was (and is) a time when women learned to see their world in terms of win/win. They understood that what was good for the fetus was also good for the mother. A sick fetus was likely to sicken the woman as well. A healthy outcome for one would be a healthy outcome for both. Even after the child emerged from the womb women would naturally feel an intense connection to this creature who was once part of them but now walks the earth on their own. Thanks to biology it was much harder for women to operate as free and solo individuals once children entered their lives. Men on the other hand had roles which could be accomplished solo and which often involved a winner and a loser. Win/win isn’t the way to go when hunting or fighting off predators, or even running from predators. Women’s need to form a team to help support their clan encouraged connections with men but their need to protect their children as well as themselves limited their ability to move away from unsatisfactory mates. As a result men have gotten away with too much for too many years.

Today there are a number ways to get needs met for men and for women. While gender can play a role it no longer has to. The link between biology and function has been broken. This is something to celebrate because it leaves individuals free to develop their own unique skill set but there has been a downside. The male tendency to approach the world in terms of winners and losers seems to have become more prevalent even among women. Wouldn’t it be great if the instinctive female ‘win/win’ understanding of connectedness guided our problem solving instead?

Destruction by Obstruction

The wing nuts of the Republican Party and those who aim to please them are playing a dangerous game. Winning for them would mean losing for the rest of America. The devastating effects of the sequester on individuals and institutions employed by our government to keep us functioning and safe keep rippling through society- not to mention the economy, where reduced pay means reduced spending equals less demand. How's that work to bring the economy back?


The sequester was brought to you by the same people who are now threatening to stop funding the government if they can't selectively amputate Obamacare from the Federal budget. Beyond that there is the threat of causing global instability by refusing to raise our debt ceiling. Some of the point people for these obstructionist tactics are Boehner, McConnell and Cantor. I often see in Speaker Beohner a glimmer of recognition that these directions aren't good for us as a nation, but he continues to play to the base out of a sense of need or perhaps simply loyalty. I understand his need to dance with those who brought him to the dance but does that mean he must always let them lead? McConnell strikes me as a sneaky guy who has an agenda but it may not always be public. What he says and what he does may be 2 different things. At this point he is older and close to exiting the scene. A future beyond the next election cycle may not be high on his radar. He has less to worry about than Speaker Boehner in terms of legacy because of his lesser position. Cantor's presence is the most disturbing because of his age. I fear he is nothing but an actor already bought off by interests that have little to do with successful governance of the United States of America. However, until he is thrown from office he will play the part he is there to play - but don't be fooled into thinking that he is playing for the benefit of average Americans. The fact that he has spoken out on the debt ceiling debate should give everybody pause. How many more years of these threats will we be facing if he is building his reputation on such actions?


The international repercussions surrounding this issue are huge. If the damage is to be limited John Boehner must start thinking legacy and stop thinking popularity. He must help draw and enforce some boundaries on the out-of-bounds activities being contemplated. Not only is attempting to defund Obamacare - a law passed by Congress and upheld by the highest court in the land - a waste of time but giving that cause a respectful tip of the hat implies that all government due processes are meaningless. As a citizen I did not agree with my tax dollars being spent on the war in Iraq, but I did not stop paying my taxes or demand that all of government be shut down in order to stop funding the war. I know that I enjoy the privileges of citizenship and have a voice through the ballot and help fund the government by paying my tases while also acknowledging that not every policy or expenditure will be to my liking. I am loyal to the American process and as long as it is legally employed I will abide by the results. Republican legislators who feed their base the poison notion that legislation and court decisions are meaningless are simply reinforcing the notion that government has no legitimacy.


Speaker Boehner, do you really want to be recorded in history as the Speaker who allowed the legitimacy of the US government to be damaged on your watch? Threatened actions to block raising the debt ceiling also seem bent on the de-legitimzing the US government - except this time on the international stage. These actions are not about reducing the deficit which is on it's way down anyway. Even arguing about whether to pay our obligations has the effect of destabilizing economic policy around the world as people realize that not all politicians currently holding power in Washington care about the status or stability of their own government. This dreadful display makes the world less safe and tarnishes our international reputation far more than Obama's recent shifts on policy towards Syria. Quite the opposite. Obama seems to have brought us to a better place internationally through thoughtful processes whose goal is to keep chemical weapons off the battlefield whereas Republican tactics seem designed to undermine the legitimacy of the US government and create international instability.


Please, Speaker Boehner, stop the destruction by obstruction whenever possible. Someone has to do it. What do you think?

The Cost of Drugs/The Price of Prostitution

There have been articles in the NY Times recently exploring the circumstances in which drug addiction does NOT rule an addict's every action. I've always suspected this could be the case. People become addicted to caffeine, exercise, cigarettes or any number of substances and behaviors without becoming slaves to those substances and behaviors. Why wouldn't this also hold true for what we call recreational drugs?


Apparently it does. The article implies that the problem is not the drug addiction it is interaction between the drug consumer and the environment. People hell-bent on partying will likely use whatever is at hand to fuel their party experience. Those interested in a wider variety of experiences may make other choices if other choices are available. If the party culture becomes your only option why not party 'til you drop? Keeping recreational drugs illegal keeps people immersed in an environment where they focus more on the party and less on being productive. Once you are outside the law it's easier to be convinced you'll never make it inside the law. If you have no hope of finding a productive way forward there is little incentive to do anything but party. I see many young people who appear to have made that assessment and taken that leap.


As long as recreational drugs are illegal the stigma associated with their use makes it much harder to change course even when there is a desire to do so. My hope is that recreational drugs will be legalized As Soon As Possible and regulated along the lines of alcohol and tobacco and prescription drugs. The only people truly benefiting from drugs' illegal status are the criminal traffickers and those who have been corrupted by them (who by virtue of the illegality of the product operate in a business environment without legal constraints) and those who are legally employed in drug policing and imprisonment of offenders. Legalization would eliminate much of the illegal and corrupt activity and the legal enforcement efforts could be shifted to regulation and the prison system could shrink. Legalization could become a win/win for society in both regained productivity. reduced taxpayer expenditures and increased tax revenue, not to mention increased happiness for individuals who would have a wider set of available alternatives.


Why have I lumped prostitution into this post? The two often go hand in hand for a couple of reasons. First there is the party environment. Many people who enjoy drugs also enjoy sex. (Who doesn't?) The party atmosphere emphasizes both. I'm guessing men and women- especially those without ample financial resources - are fooled into thinking that sex for drugs (or for money used to buy drugs) is a good deal. I'm also guessing mercenary sex starts to feel less pleasurable over time. Which could lead those who begin with prostitution end up using drugs to numb the numbness. Increasing drug use may a way make this situation more palatable and help push away the anxieties related to being literally naked (vulnerable) among people you have no on-going relationship with. I find it easy to see why drugs and prostitution are often linked habits.


Why legalize prostitution? First, it would reduce the dangers. Let prostitution be a job like any other with it's own set of regulations and controls. Seeking police assistance when violence is used or threatened would become easier. Legalization would allow for better tracking and controlling of STD's. Legalizing the activity would help balance the power between the managers (pimps) and the worker. The only losers would be violent and coercive pimps and Jons. Of course therein lies the rub. Keeping prostitution illegal keeps the Jons in the dark. As a society we must weigh the risk of embarrassment to the Jon against the risk to life and limb to the worker.


Civil society itself is degraded when it allows a certain class of workers to exist without protections. We all know sex sells in this culture. Why can't we grow up enough to admit we are buying? Keeping prostitution illegal keeps hidden all the associated criminal activity, violence and corruption, just as with drug use. With legalization there could be confidentiality agreements between customers and merchants to prevent widespread dissemination of customer lists. It might even limit the potential for blackmail. For those who have spouses who still believe in monogamy hiding a commercial transaction should be easier than hiding an affair since the connection is limited and defined.

From my point of view it appears keeping recreational drugs and prostitution illegal extracts too high a price not only from the individuals involved but from society at large. A rational, mature society can find better ways than prohibition to deal with these ever-present activities.

Impressive Parbuckling - Did you see the video?

WoW! I just watched a time-lapse of the righting of the Costa Concordia - the huge cruise liner that was crashed on the Italian shores as a result of one person's need to show off. The etiology of the crash is simple and timeless and all too human. So is the process used to right the ship. The results as seen in a soundless time-lapse video are impressive. Empty flotation devices were attached to the free side of the ship and then slowly filled with water. As the counter-balance grew heavier the ship was righted with a little help from good old gravity.


I am sure a ton of human finesse was required to execute this weight shift in a controlled fashion but the concepts at the heart of the project are age-old and mechanical in nature rather than technical. It looks like the righting of the ship (parbuckling) thus far has caused minimal additional ecological damage. So far, AMAZINGLY so good. As for the guy who crashed it he needs to be demoted to cabin-sweep. He might still deserve a way to make a living - AFTER paying his debt to society for negligence - if only because he didn't set out to hurt people but he must be barred from ever again holding any positions of authority.


I know analogies do not always work point by point but I see an analogy here to the people who turned Wall Street into a casino and crashed the economy, as well as the politicians who enabled this process. They should be forever stripped of any decision making power. And maybe we should be focused on finding mechanical solutions (e.g., breaking up the big banks) instead of relying solely on complex and subtle monetary policy. For young people not yet heavily dependent on the often bogus financial products Wall Street has been pushing, this logical approach to righting the ship could hold some appeal. Why shouldn't winding down from the financial crisis including dialing down the power we have given to big financial houses - maybe even break up the big banks - rather than using the middle classes of multiple countries to shore them up and fund further predatory ventures elsewhere?

The Best, The Brightest and The Youngest

I find the focus on Hillary Clinton as the potential Democratic nominee for 2016 rather disturbing. Stability cannot be gained by moving backwards seeking restoration of a bygone era and I believe that is much of her appeal.


We live in a different and ever-changing world. I know Ms. Clinton is intelligent and capable of many things but her perspective is quite different from that of a 30 year old. Older members of the power structure are undoubtedly hell-bent on clinging to the value of their homes and their investments while younger people are looking to open up new avenues since the existing structure will not work for them without major alterations. The downside of age and experience is that it fixes your perspective in ways that make true innovation seem unrealistic.


But young people know this is it - we must change as individuals, as a nation, as a species or we won't survive. The capitalist mantra of "more is better' may have dominated the the thinking of those who sought power and wealth some years ago but now the goal isn't "more" it is simply survival.


Older people may say "young people don't get it" because they haven't lived long enough, but in fact they do. The older power structure is protecting themselves, they are not protecting the next generation. The best and the brightest of the youngest have not given up on their generation. They are not willing to simply be written off. As a result they are highly motivated to find new strategies for creating a world they want to live in and perhaps even to pass to their children. We must give the best, the brightest and the youngest the opportunity to lead whenever possible if we want a better world in the future.

Putin/Politics/Press

What a joke. I finally read the NYT Op-Ed written by Putin following President Obama's speech. I, for one, was underwhelmed. It seemed predictable, politically motivated and shallow. There were a few "read between the lines" moments, but they didn't seem to reveal anything that wasn't already apparent.


What the people in the press who are calling Putin a 'statesman' or a 'leader' seem to have forgotten is who brought about this opportunity to make progress. Putin has been supporting a bloody criminal responsible for war crimes against his own people - and would likely still be doing so if Obama's insight and action hadn't put the issue of chemical weapons use front and center. His insight was that this issue is critical to all sides and warrants special attention and his impulse to back this belief with limited action demonstrated his seriousness on this point. Apparently the press is so interested in filtering all events through a political framework in order to see who can strain out a few drops of political advantage that they ignore the very real issues which are driving events and policy.


Obama is not a hawk and Putin is not a dove. Assad is not simply a tool for either side - he is more like a thorn in their sides. The reason everyone has left their comfort zones and decided to start talking is because none of them want to see use of chemical weapons proliferate. Assad's decision to rid his country of chemical weapons and Putin's willingness to assist in rounding them up is based in self interest. The thought of chemical weapons falling into the hands of religious extremists is enough to keep all three of these leaders awake at night.


It is primarily the issues driving events, not the politics. Could it be that this time the dog is actually wagging the tail? Why is it that so much of the US press seems to think it is ALWAYS the other way around? And that appearances (politics) are more important than reality (issues)?

Stunned...

Syria continues to be the topic of critical importance, and not just for Americans. The admission by Assad and the proposal by Putin to attempt a round-up of all chemical weapons in Syria is an unforeseen but potentially monumental development. Everyone knows that carrying out this mission would be extremely difficult but the public positions by Assad and Putin indicate that many of the biggest players are ready to move towards resolution on chemical weapons. They are painting themselves into the corner (a phrase that has been used often recently) where they will find negotiation tables.


I am shocked that the US Congress is focused on what they see as Obama's "weakness" when in fact his policies have brought about this new development. While actions rooted in hard and fast rules may offer the appearance of strength, actual strength comes from flexibility and adaptability. Obama is on the right track. Congress should get out of their narrow domestic bunkers and see this international opportunity for what it is. Even the US press seemed to miss the bigger point here - criticizing Obama and giving Putin an op-ed. It is as if the press and Congress are content to ignore their privileged perspective and national responsibilities and instead play only to their local audiences. I would hope that people in leadership positions would attempt to lead through education of their constituents rather than simply stick a finger in the wind - especially when it comes to international situations that most Americans know little about.


I realize that there are still no easy answers and definitely no certain paths for policy towards Syria but we owe the President more respect and support than he is currently receiving - respect based not on emotion but on results.

What do you think?

Still talking...

The subject of what to do in relation to Syria is not a fun topic but I can't help but feel it's the most pressing issue on the plates of both citizens and their representatives here in the US. There are some points I do not hear being made often enough, so here I go.


Syria and our possible involvement there is NOT analogous to Iraq, or any other US involvement I can think of. I believe the President when he says his purpose is to take a stance on the use of chemical weapons, not to determine a winner in the conflict. The President is NOT promoting a war aimed at expanding American influence, other than to try to push everyone to the table. What the President is proposing are military strikes aimed not at populations - military or civilian - but at chemical weapons delivery systems. Both the why and the how of any involvement in Syria by US led allies is very different from our war of choice in Iraq. We did not initiate the conflict and we not have a horse in the race but it is in our national security interest to see the ongoing bloodshed cease.


A limited action might give the parties pause long enough to think about whether either additional US involvement or an endless war of attrition is worth the cost in both lives and treasure. If these are the two alternatives facing Assad and the opposition, our willingness to act could provide a suitable public justification for agreeing to negotiate.


If there are ways other than limited military action to compel the parties to start talking to each other rather than killing each other those avenues should also be explored, but I am not convinced a very limited military action aimed at capabilities rather than people with the goal of forcing all sides to the table is a bad idea. I ask the Congress to give our President the support he needs to guide our policy towards Syria as long as the actions and goals remain limited in time, scope and objective.


I hear lots of people ponder what Assad's response would be to a limited US strike. In order to figure that out doesn't it also make sense to ask why he used chemical weapons in the first place? Why was the red line crossed? Was it simply to kill more efficiently? Was he personally not the one who gave the order? Assad himself, while expressly denying that he had ordered the use of chemical weapons (which of course he must publicly deny) asks this very question without suppling an answer (which of course he can't because he is denying using them). He asks "Why would I cross this red line?" It's a very good question. If we can figure that out it could go a long way in helping us foresee what 'his' response would be to our response to 'his' crossing of the red line.

Talk of the Day

For those of use who tend to think about the big topics - life and death, war and peace - US policy towards Syria has to be a topic of the day. I am actually glad that discussions are focused on analyzing the situation in Syria rather than analyzing the wisdom of an air strike which has already occurred. As the discussions proceed I can't help but speculate on how recent developments might be playing out in Syria itself.


The delay in action could prove helpful by building pressure within the Assad regime. An overt endorsement by the Legislative Branch would add weight to any action. It would make no sense to launch another chemical attack prior to the vote in Congress except as a provocation. In the meantime there could be defections by some Assad supporters, as some have reported is happening, knowing that they are caught in an unwinable situation if the US gets involved, and there is a sword is hanging over their heads.


Unlike some, I understand the idea of making a statement about chemical weapons without specifically going after Assad. While drawing the line on these WMD's we will also strengthen the hands of the opposition. While this might not lead to an opposition victory it might result in a stalemate, where both sides have an incentive to come to the table and negotiate a settlement rather than continue to engage in a war of attrition. What we call a stalemate in times of war could in other contexts be called a balance of power. The same concept applies: all sides accept that they have limitations and further aggression does not seem useful. A stalemate that brings the parties to the table might be the best we can hope for in Syria.


We don't really have a reliable horse in this race as far as I know so to attempt to shape the powers that be in Syria going forward is likely beyond our grasp, as it has proven to be in Iraq and Egypt.


Although I am a lifelong peace-loving person who could not personally hold up in combat situations, I understand there are complexities involved in crafting a policy towards Syria that require an analysis beyond simply "War is bad." Given not only the use of chemical WMD's but Syria's geographical location I am not sure we can afford to simply turn our backs and say "None of our business."


What do you think?