Month: April 2019

My Hometown

Thanks for the title Mr. Springsteen – here’s the video – My Hometown

Or – if you into a more “Sublime-like” song – here’s John Reuben, former student turned rapper  – Pataskala

I live in Pataskala, Ohio. When I first came here in 1978, a twenty-one year old teacher at the nearby high school, Pataskala was a town adrift.  Located twenty miles due east of downtown Columbus; it was originally a farm town. The grain elevator still stands “downtown,” though it’s been used for storage for the past fifty years.  At the high school there was a “tractor day” when the Future Farmers of America class would bring their machines to school, and they grew a couple acres of corn behind the building.

But it was changing. The farmers were selling their land; financially there was so much more profit selling a couple hundred acres here for development, then buying double or more the acreage farther away from the city. Suburban housing was springing up, and all of a sudden (or at least over ten years or so) Pataskala went from a rural town, to a suburb.  Soon the high school band got out of school to play at the grand opening of the new McDonald’s on Broad Street, and the hometown grocery store Roseberry’s was bought by Cardinal, then driven out of business when Krogers hit town.

The cities nearer downtown; Reynoldsburg and the city of Columbus, were encroaching on the countryside. A major industrial plant, the clothing giant The Limited,  was built on the western edge of the neighboring township.  It was quickly lost to Reynoldsburg for its tax valuation. It was a sign of things to come, the urbanization of the rural outlying areas.  The village of Pataskala reorganized itself, added Lima Township to the west, and became a CITY, now 15002 strong, as the sign at the city limits says.  Being a city defended the “borders” from poaching, but made it the twelfth largest city in Ohio (out of 280 some) in geography.  The village police department was forced to expand, and the City forced to catch up on road and bridge repairs.

So now Pataskala is a suburban city.  The citizens like the rural heritage, and don’t want it “citified.”  They like to be near fields and woods. But they also want the conveniences of “city life,” with restaurants and activities.  And though they love the “forests and fields,” they’re not so much about the coyotes prowling the margins, and the deer eating their gardens.  

The local newspaper was sold to the Gannett Media Group in the 1990’s, so there isn’t a real local news source anymore.  The closest Pataskala has to a central information source is on Facebook, where the residents voice their concerns.  Sometimes it’s a “hoot:” hundreds of responses when the topic is local taxes (called RITA for Regional Income Tax Authority here in Ohio) or the complicated water bills.  There are two different water/sewer systems in the City, depending on location, with different billing and costs.  Everyone has something to say about that.

It’s definitely “Trump Country”, in 2016 the President won 61% of the City vote; Clinton only gained 34%. And it’s not just support for Trump, in 2018 in the hotly contested 12^thCongressional District race, the Republican candidate gained 58% while the Democrat polled 40%.  My political views are definitely an “outlier” here.

The traffic is getting heavier. You know it’s a working class town; Broad Street is crowded at 5:30 am with folks headed towards Columbus to make the 6 am start. And the evening rush hour at Broad Street and State Route 310 can stop the whole town. What used to be a clear eight mile drive to the Columbus city limits now has ten stoplights; more are on the way. One of the school districts, Licking Heights (there are two in the City) is the fastest growing school in the state.

But there’s still a lot of small town here in Pataskala.  Want to see everyone you know; hang out at Kroger’s for an hour on Friday around five.  Want to just see the retired people, try Tuesday at ten in the morning!  If a dog is lost, Facebook explodes with help, and neighbors go out looking.  It’s a good excuse for “a walk,” but it’s also a community that wants to help.

When snow closes school, the local coaches are urging their teams to grab shovels and help their neighbors, and when five inches of rain fall in an hour, the community is out checking to make sure everyone is OK.  In our little block, we check on the 87 year-old widow across the street.  I must be getting older, they’re starting to check on me now too!

And Pataskala has a great Mayor, Mike Compton.  I imagine we are not on the same side as far as national politics are concerned, but the Mayor always shows that he cares about the community.  He’s constantly willing to explain, and to help, and to stop and be a part of a local fundraising effort.  And he posts lots of pictures:  the sun setting on his back deck, the new police station, the picnic in the park, and, the goats.

The goats have become the running joke in town, hanging out in the field on Mink Street near Broad. Mayor Compton made them famous on Facebook, and when they were taken to winter pastures, he assured us they would return when the spring came.  

They are a good representation of Pataskala:  a remnant of rural life in what is a burgeoning suburban city.   Folks move here for the goats, and the fields, and the woods.  But they stay for the community, working to make life better as we struggle with growth and change.  It’s not that there aren’t differences, but in our era of national discord, Pataskala is a surprise:  a place where people still work together.  

Put on My Foil Hat

WASHINGTON — In the months before the 2016 presidential election, Russia’s military intelligence agency penetrated computer systems in at least one Florida county government and planted malware in systems at a manufacturer of election equipment, the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, said in his office’s final report on Russian interference in the election.  – New York Times – 4/18/19

There are words I’ve only whispered to my closest family.  They sound crazy, like one of the “nut-jobs” you see online at the extremes of the internet.  I keep an aluminum foil crown on my desk just to remind me to not get too off the wall. 

Right after the 2016 election, Mike Farb, author of the “Unhackthevote” website, put volumes of statistical material out about the vote.  It was so much stuff that it was difficult to figure out exactly what he showed, but he ultimately drew the conclusion that either the 2016 election was fixed by Americans, or, it was fixed by the Russians.

I know, my foil hat just began to glow.  

We knew fairly early, say January, 2017, that Russian intelligence was trying to penetrate the American voting process.  We aren’t talking about Facebook ads or Twitter bots, we are talking about hacking into voting rolls and the software that runs the machines that tabulate our votes. At first, we were told that thirty-nine states were attacked, but no attack succeeded.  Then it was narrowed down to twenty-one states, and even later, only nine.  

And the story kind of faded away.  No one, media or government, spoke about what happened when Russians got into the voter registration files in Illinois.  No one explained what happened to the software developer out of Florida, supplier of voting machines for that state and North Carolina.  Not a word, about the multiple counties in Wisconsin using the voting machines controlled from a strip mall storefront in Minnesota.  It was all “OK.”  The National Security Agency two years ago said that they were certain no election computers had been compromised.

This is America.  When we watch the Super Bowl, we have the assurance that while the referees may make mistakes, they aren’t “rigging” the game (yes – not even for the Patriots.)   When we see a sprint in the Olympics, we get to see the “photo-finish” picture, so we can assure ourselves that the results were fair.  And, when some of us watch World Wrestling Entertainment, the WWE, we know that we are watching a show, with a scripted ending. We know it’s rigged, that’s a part of the deal.  We watch the show – without much concern for the results already written in stone.

If we knew that the outcome of the Super Bowl, or the Olympic one hundred meter dash, were pre-ordained, they wouldn’t be very interesting.  And if we found that our voting processes were altered and that our votes didn’t actually count, why would we accept the outcomes of our elections?

This is the great fear. If the Russians hacked our elections, would we ever be told?  Would our government actually let us know that the results of say, 2016, weren’t legitimate; that rather than the President being chosen “by the people,” he was chosen by the GRU (Russian Intelligence?)

Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee stated in the New York Times this week:

“I don’t believe the specific victims of the intrusion have been notified. The concern was that in a number of counties across the country, there are a couple of people with the attitude of: ‘We’ve got this; we don’t need your help. We don’t think we need to do what you are telling us we need to do.’”

So not only is the national government not telling the public, they aren’t even telling the specific counties that were hacked.  Instead, every county is given general instructions on how to prevent hacking.  This way, no one gets singled out as having “their system” infiltrated, and their vote totals under suspicion.  

Why would it be handled that way?  Because if multiple counties in multiple states were notified that they were hacked and votes altered; that’s information that could not be held secret. It would slip out in local news, and ultimately someone would put a national view together.  It would bring into question the legitimacy of our entire government.

There’s no such thing as a national do-over in electoral politics.  Creating distrust in the American system is clearly one of the goals of Vladimir Putin and his Russian Intelligence apparatus.  Add those together, and it’s not likely that even if there was hacking in key states, we wouldn’t know.

So if we can’t change 2016, what can we demand as voters to protect 2020:

Paper Ballots.

Many states use a paper ballot backup system for their electronic voting.  Here in Licking County, Ohio, each vote is tabulated electronically, and also printed on a paper roll.  That roll is stored for backup purposes; if there were questions about the outcome, the paper roll can be hand counted.

But other jurisdictions don’t, including the entire states of Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey and South Carolina.  Other states have some counties with and some without: Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas.  

Senator and Presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar has authored “The Secure Elections Act” calling for paper ballot backup nationwide.  She has bipartisan support in the Senate, and a companion bill in the House.  And yet, the bill has been held up by Republican leadership in the Senate, at the behest of the Trump White House.  The White House says they have all the authority they need to protect the election process, but the basic premise of the Secure Elections Act raises a question that Donald Trump cannot tolerate:  the legitimacy of 2016.

Keep your foil hat on.

The Ultimate Stand

The core values of this nation, our standing in the world, our very democracy, everything that has made America, America, is at stake.   That’s why today I’m announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. Joe Biden, 4/25/19

Joe Biden entered the Democratic Presidential primaries on Thursday.  He did so with a stark statement, that the current President was a direct threat to our system, and to the core values of our nation.  He simply said:

 “…if we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation — who we are — and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”

Biden, Vice President for eight years and a US Senator for thirty-six, is seventy-six years old.  He speaks of entering this race almost as a duty, a Cincinnatus, called back by circumstance to stand at the gate once more. There has been media criticism of Biden’s statement and his candidacy, but he presents Democrats a stark, bottom line choice: America cannot afford four more years of Donald Trump, and I’m the one candidate who can defeat him.

This week, a nineteen year old went into a synagogue in Southern California with an assault rifle, killing one and injuring more.  He posted a manifesto admiring the Pittsburgh and New Zealand killers.  From current information, a jammed weapon and advancing parishioners chased him away before he could wreak more havoc. Also this week, a man in Northern California drove his car into a crowd of Muslims, praising Jesus as he did so.  Eight people were injured.  Three weeks ago a white man was captured in Louisiana after burning three black churches.

According to the FBI, the rate of hate crimes in the United States has increased by seventeen percent since 2016, equaling the increased divisiveness in our political rhetoric.  

Don’t give Donald Trump too much credit.  His success as a politician is more of a result of the growing divide in our nation, rather than the cause.  He is “riding the wave;” a wave he didn’t create.  But he is certainly augmenting that wave, further fueling the divisiveness and hate among us.  We know: he found “fine people on both sides” at the white nationalist riots in Charlottesville.  He has chosen some of those “fine people” as his advisors, and constantly threatens Americans with an onslaught of “brown people” from the South. 

The Presidency has many powers, but perhaps its greatest is access to the “bully pulpit.”  Trump has shown himself to be a master of communicating from the White House, using his “old fashioned” rallies and “new fashioned” social media to speak to America. He continually reaches and energizes his base, and frustrates and infuriates his opponents.

The new phraseology for Democratic candidates for the nomination describes them as finding “lanes.”  Like highways with multiple lanes, each one is trying to find the open road that will allow them to advance their candidacy.  There are twenty declared candidates and a comprehensive list would be too long, but examples are:  Jay Inslee emphasizes the environment, Bernie Sanders reshaping the American economy, and Eric Swalwell gun control.  

Biden has been criticized for not talking about the core Democratic issues:  healthcare, jobs, education, and the environment.  He will ultimately address all of those issues; and will probably be criticized for taking moderate stands that are out of step with the more Progressive majorities in the Party.  His opponents need to attack him on those stands, because Biden is the only candidate who has an open lane when it comes to speaking to all of us.

Other than President Obama, Joe Biden is the Democrat most qualified to speak for America.  When Biden spoke at John McCain’s funeral, or Congressman John Dingell’s funeral, or his own son’s funeral; he told us about what America means.  His opening sentence from John McCain’s eulogy said it all: “My name is Joe Biden.  I’m a Democrat. And I loved John McCain.”

He constantly speaks of an America where we can cross party lines and where those with differences can still be loved.  That’s Joe Biden’s message.  I don’t know whether he’s the 2020 Democratic candidate, but his “lane” addresses the essential problem of our time:  he’s going to be hard to beat.

It’s Mitch’s Fault

“If I’m still the majority leader of the Senate after next year, none of those things are going to pass the Senate,”  “They won’t even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper — the guy who is going to make sure that socialism doesn’t land on the president’s desk.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell  – 4/22/19

Before there was Donald Trump, before there was “fake news,” before there was Twitter; there was Mitch. Before there was the Star Wars like “Resistance” to the current Republican Administration (worrisome for Resistance fans, the Rebellion in Star Wars didn’t always turn out OK) there was “McConnell Blocks.” Try “Googling” it, you’ll get over one hundred hits.

Mitch McConnell, the seventy-seven year old senior Senator from Kentucky, started in politics after receiving his medical discharge from the Vietnam War era Army.  He only served thirty-three days, exiting to become an aide to Senator Marlow Cook in 1968.  He has, except for a brief stint in private legal practice, been in politics ever since.  He first ran for office in 1977, elected as Judge/Executive of Jefferson County (Louisville).  He was elected to the US Senate in 1984 and he has been there ever since, thirty-four years.  He became Majority Leader when the Republicans won the majority after the 2014 election.  Through all of that, he has managed to amass a personal wealth of over $20 million. Government work is good.

Before Republican’s gained the majority, McConnell was the Minority Leader for eight years.  Upon the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, McConnell stated; “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term President.”  

It isn’t out of the norm for a Republican leader to want to defeat a Democratic President in the next election; in fact, it’s exactly normal.  The difference is the extent that Mr. McConnell was willing to go.  He was willing to completely abandon the values of bipartisan rule in order to do anything and everything to stop President Obama’s legislation. 

 Even when the Obama Administration took a Republican plan, developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and presented it to Congress as the Affordable Care Act; McConnell did everything he could to stop it, and led Republicans in a total boycott.  It wasn’t just that they voted against the legislation, they refused to participate in any negotiations about it.  When current arguments are made that Democrats shut Republicans out of the Affordable Care Act legislation, the reality was Republicans refused to participate.

In 2015, when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suddenly died of a heart attack, McConnell as Majority Leader quickly made it clear that President Obama’s appointee would not get a hearing or a vote.  As McConnell later said; “One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, ‘You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy’.”  

The Courts have been a singular focus for Leader McConnell since the election of Donald Trump as President.  In the last two years, McConnell has managed to fill 20% of the Federal Appellate seats in the nation.  As Federal judges are appointed for life, and McConnell has determined to place an emphasis on youth in his appointments; his actions will have a profound influence on US law for the next thirty years.

His coordination with the Federalist Society, a national organization of lawyers dedicated to conservative views on the Constitution, has provided a pipeline of nominees.  While the most famous recent appointees were Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, they join three other Society Justices; Thomas, Roberts and Alito, in changing the Court majority.  

The Federalist Society “court packing” is McConnell’s singular achievement, starting with blocking President Obama’s Merrick Garland appointment.  Whatever may happen to President Trump, either Constitutionally or electorally in the next two years, McConnell can definitely say “mission accomplished” when it comes to the Federal Judiciary.

That power is contingent on a Republican President, and a Republican Senate.  The Presidential election of 2020 is an existential turning point for the United States, but the choice for control of the Senate is almost as critical.  McConnell has made it clear that a Democratic President in 2020 will continue to be hamstrung by a Republican majority.  McConnell will be happy to return to his “grim reaper” role.

Thirty-Seven Percent

Thirty-Seven Percent: that is the current approval rating for President Donald J. Trump.  If it requires somewhere near 48% of the electorate to win (though Trump won in 2016 with 46.4%) it would seem that the President should in some way be working to expand his thirty-seven percent.  But his apparent strategy is to “stick to his guns” and continue to do exactly what he has done to amplify his base, without reaching out to anyone else.

Mr. Trump has good reason to believe that all he needs is his thirty-seven percent.  He simply has to look back at the election of 2016; if he can replicate those conditions, he can be re-elected as a minority President. As a novice politician, it’s the only experience he has, and the complicated math of the Electoral College serves to benefit him.  

It takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency, and the electoral math leans Republican. Twenty-five states with 224 electoral votes are likely to vote Republican (including Ohio, Arizona, Georgia and Texas.)  Seventeen states and the District of Columbia are likely to vote Democratic (including Minnesota, Virginia and Colorado) totaling 216 votes. This is despite the fact that those same seventeen states have three million more people in them.  That amount, three million, should be vaguely familiar:  it is the nearly the same number of votes that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton earned over Republican Trump in 2016. 

That leaves nine “swing states;” 98 electoral votes as the determining factor.  The litany is familiar:  Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada.  It is in the slim marginal differences in those voters that Donald Trump became President of the United States, and where he again hopes to prevail.

Mr. Trump has determined to ride two issues to his second term:  his contrived border crisis, and his potential impeachment.  Neither of these issues is likely to expand his voter base:  it’s hard to imagine undecided voters jumping onto the “I’m a victim being persecuted by the Democrats” bandwagon, or “lock migrants away and take away their kids.” But those issues will enflame his thirty-seven percent who will run out to vote to demand that the President, and the border, be walled off and protected.

Democrats are scared: afraid of the “Trump bogey man.” They are afraid that somehow that thirty-seven percent will turn into the majority of electoral votes once again, and they will wake up on November 4^th2020, to the nightmare of four more years. They are afraid of shadows:  the polls that don’t count Trump voters because they are embarrassed about their support, the power of the Christian right that supports a demonstrably immoral man, the shadowy Federalist Society that has gripped a majority of the Supreme Court, the cold thumb of Vladimir Putin on the scale of America’s electoral process. 

Democrats aren’t wrong to be afraid.  But as perhaps the most famous Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt said; “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  Democrats can’t be paralyzed by fear.  The election of 2018 showed that Americans will make other choices rather than follow the Trump drumbeat; the fact that Democrats now control the House of Representatives, despite the decade long effort of Republicans to gerrymander and suppress votes, shows what can be done.   What Democrats can’t do is become a common denominator to Trump.  Democrats can’t just scream that Trump is “cheating” by refusing to honor Congressional subpoenas and fighting every Congressional action in the Courts.  Democrats can’t claim to be “victims;” victimhood is the exclusive venue of Trump and the MAGA boys.

What Democrats can claim is that they are “upholding their duty.”  Democrats have a duty to protect the worker and the immigrant, the child and the senior citizen.  Democrats need to talk about healthcare, and improving wages.  They need to talk about protecting children at the border, but also improving American education.  They need to talk about helping improve lives for senior citizens, and protecting the environment for the future.

And Democrats also have a duty to protect our Democracy.  To do that, Democrats need to defend the Constitution against the incursions of the Trump Administration.  They need to protect the right to vote from state government’s suppression.  The need to protect those that struggle to protect themselves, from the LGBTQIA community to ethnic, racial and religious minorities.

In short, Democrats can travel many roads to the Presidency in 2020.  By “upholding their duty” to America, they can draw a striking contrast to “Trump victimhood.”  By doing their duty, Democrats and those who are undeclared in the middle or unmoored by the excesses of Trump; will come out to vote, inspired by a candidate rather than “holding their nose” to pick the lesser evil of two bad choices.  And if Democrats do this, then it won’t matter that the Electoral College leans red, or that voter suppression continues, or that the Supreme Court may allow the Census to be used as a Republican tool. 

In the end, Americans like heroes, not victims.  Democrats need to be heroic:  the contrast will do the rest.

Not Going Solar Today

Time to take a break from politics and talk about day-to-day decisions and the “Green Revolution.”

As befits a person of my age and political proclivities, I wander through Facebook from time to time. As I was perusing the different posts, checking on friends, calling out ridiculous alt-right claims, cheering the ones that support my view, and making sure the lost dogs find their way home; I noticed a paid ad for solar panels.  

“Set yourself free from the power companies,” they said, “zero money up front.”  

Now I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night (with or without solar power.)  I knew that the ad was too good to be true, but I wanted to understand how solar power works on homes and with the existing power grid, and what better way to find out than to reach out for information. And, Jenn and I would like to find a way to be more “green,” becoming a renewable power provider, rather than (here in Ohio) a natural gas and coal user.

The salesman came over, a nice young man from a nearby community, and took us through the process of solar energy.  With enough panels, he said, you can provide energy for one hundred percent of your needs. By producing more than you need during the daytime, putting the excess out on the power grid, you offset the amount used from the power grid at night: make enough in the summer months when the solar heating is at the greatest, and offset the winter months when the sun is lower in the sky and shining on the roof less.

Of course it isn’t cheap, it’s a big capital expense.  But the cost of panels, connections and installation are offset by: “THE END OF ELECTRIC BILLS.”  Here’s the pitch:  trade electric bills for capital cost financing for five to eight years. After that, you have freedom from the electric company.

It’s a fascinating process. The panels are arrayed on the roof section with the most exposure, in our case, a full southern face.  They are linked together to an inverter that translates the DC electric current produced by the panels to the AC current needed by the house.  The AC is run into a special electric meter provided by the power company, measuring both the amount produced by the panels, and the amount used by the house. If there is more power made than used, that power is credited to the house from the electric grid.  Think of running the electric meter backward and forward.

So we were excited when he called back with our “personal home plan.”  Jenn and I did some independent investigation showing that the likely cost of powering the entire electric use for our house would be about $47000 in capital costs. I was fascinated to see what the bottom line would be from my chosen company.

I had a foreshadowing of issues to come from the phone call before the meeting, “I’m bringing my sales manager along with me if that’s OK.”  It was even more shadowy, when the nice young man pulled out the “flip book” with pictures and quizzes, taking us through a full presentation of much of the information we talked about the week before.  I felt like I was no longer “going green;” instead it was the dreaded “window guy” or the kid selling Cutco knives.

But Jenn and I slogged through it with him; maybe the young guy had to impress his equally young boss. We waited an hour for the bottom line, those last few pages that would tell we wanted to know.

The big excitement – after tax credits it was only a $22,000 capital cost.  That was great, we would definitely be interested, even if for a few years we had to pay our “electric bill plus.”  We wanted to be independent, and we were willing to pay for it.

Then the first big disappointment – “.,,our specially designed plan would provide sixty percent of our electric needs for the year.”  Sixty percent – so we aren’t “free” from the electric grid at all, in fact we are still totally dependent.  “Well,” the manager said, “if we look at the potential increases in the cost of electricity projected over the next ten years, this will save you money.” But that was only a small part of our goal:  we wanted to become a renewable power source, not a lesser dirty power consumer.  $22,000 for sixty percent on our little 1800 square foot house with no trees:  that’s not a great deal at all.

The second big disappointment – the capital cost of putting our “sixty percent” system in place, would cost more than our current power bill, and then we would have to pay for the forty percent of additional power we needed.  Twelve years of increased cost, and at the end, still only making sixty percent.

We pressed them for a one hundred percent solution, but they really didn’t want to deal with that.  They said the power company wouldn’t let them do one hundred percent, and skimmed over the cost of ninety-five percent with an additional twenty panels. It must not have been part of their “shtick,” or they guessed that we wouldn’t pay the cost.  They never gave us a chance to find out.  They guessed wrong, it was sixty percent, not the overall cost, that was the problem.

Our young salesman got irritated, and the young boss closed his computer.  They thanked us for saying “no” rather than wasting their time, but it was clear that they felt like we did.

So we aren’t going to get solar energy – at least from the two young men who pitched us today.  But we will keep our “toes” in the solar field, maybe someone else can help us “go green.”

I’ll keep checking on Facebook.  

Twenty Years from Columbine

Last weekend was the twentieth anniversary of the mass shooting of students at Columbine High School, near Denver.  Eleven students and one teacher were killed, many in the school library.  Police officers surrounded the building and tried to negotiate with the killers.  Their efforts were in vain, the killers didn’t want to negotiate, they wanted to kill, and then die.  They were equipped with two 9mm firearms, two twelve-gauge shotguns, a High Point 995 Carbine with thirteen ten round magazines, and a Springfield 67H pump action shot gun.  They also prepared pipe bombs and rigged propane tanks to explode, but they didn’t go off.

The names of the killers are well known, but to respect the Parkland kids, who have demanded that murderers be denied notoriety, I won’t use them.  

It wasn’t the first mass school shooting, but it had a very different tenor than the shootings in Springfield, Oregon and Jonesboro, Arkansas.  The Columbine shooters spent many months developing their assault; practicing, purchasing more weapons, and creating a coordinated plan.  They didn’t walk into the cafeteria and start shooting (Oregon) or pull the fire alarm, then hide in the woods outside of the school (Arkansas.)  They planned, prepared, carried out the agenda, then died.

I was a high school teacher in Ohio during that time.  We desperately tried to learn the lessons of Columbine, frantically trying to figure out how to avoid their fate.  One lesson: the killers at Columbine had been “outliers” in the school, even having a page in the yearbook the previous year as the “Trenchcoat Mafia.”  There were signs to see; for teachers, administrators, other students, and parents. 

We learned that we had to know our kids, all of them, the good, the bad, and the silent.  We had to try to reach every one.  We might reach the potential attackers, or we might reach their friends who had an inkling of what was going on.  When I later became the Dean of Students for the school, it was one of the most important aspects of my job.

In 1999 there was no Facebook, no MySpace, no Twitter or Instagram.  Schools hadn’t begun to deal with those entirely different forms of communications.  But one of the Columbine killers had a private website on America Online, and posted a blog.  He wrote about his anger against society, and specifically against some of his Columbine classmates.  He also included instructions on how to build pipe bombs.  There were some who knew about the blog – but thought he was only “blowing off steam.”

We learned, even then, that we had to be attuned to social media, and as our current addiction to it developed, we had to listen to what kids said, and how they reacted. It wasn’t enough to say we weren’t interested, or try to ban phone use in school.  Besides, if the worst happened and an attack was made, the kid’s phones might be the only warning.

And the police learned. They changed their strategy:  no longer did they wait for hostage demands. The first officers on the scene are now trained to go in, ignore the dead and injured, and find the shooters. Columbine taught the hard lessons of time; we couldn’t give the killers more time to kill.

But what Columbine didn’t teach us is how do we control the weaponry used.  Our national response to the attack twenty years ago was to try to change strategies during the attack, and to try to find potential attackers before they come through the school doors.  But if anything, we have made it easier for them to get the weapons they want. We have rung our hands, sent “thoughts and prayers,” and allowed our laws regulating guns to become even more lax.

New Zealand was faced with their massacre in Christchurch only a few weeks ago.  It took them seven days to institute a nationwide ban on assault weapons.  Australia had their massacre in Port Arthur, Tasmania.  They “bought back” 643,000 semi-automatic firearms.  The United Kingdom had a mass school shooting in 1996. The weapon of choice there were pistols with multiple shot magazines, within a year they were banned.

But in the United States we have allowed ourselves to be hamstrung by the Second Amendment, and the most effective pressure group in history, the National Rifle Association. The NRA claims to be about firearms freedom; but a look at their finances reveals it is about the gun manufacturer’s profits.  

We have tried putting police in the schools.  We have administrators monitoring social media.  We have lockdown drills, and code word actions.  We talk about putting more money into mental health (though we don’t seem to get around to doing it) and we talk about bulletproof backpacks for kids. 

It’s been twenty years since Columbine, and we haven’t got it yet.  We can look to our English-speaking cousins all over the world for the answer, but it isn’t “politically palatable” in our current environment.  So on this terrible anniversary, we send our thoughts and prayers.  It’s all we’ve got. 

The Democratic Path

From my perspective it doesn’t matter how it’s done.  Getting Donald Trump out of the Presidency by the end of 2020 is the goal, how to do it is only the details.  Trump’s Presidency represents an existential threat to the meaning of America.  He has broken not only the laws of the United States, but the norms, values, and traditions that America stands for.  We have gone from a nation striving for grace, inclusion, and opportunity; to a nation of division, segregation, and growing income inequality.  Four more years of Trump will consolidate those changes.  We may not be able to recover.

From a national perspective, former FBI Director James Comey may have it right.  Comey suggests that the only way to begin national healing is to vote Donald Trump out of office.  Any other means, he feels, will simply cement the divisions into our political life; it is only through a national repudiation that the Trump philosophies can be ended.

But rank and file Democrats also have it right:  how can we allow a man who has so abused the power of the Presidency to go unpunished. He has to be held responsible for  his actions, but also because of the precedents he has created.  We not only have to stop him now but we need to re-establish norms for future Presidents; the formerly unwritten rules on how a President should behave in office.  

You will hear both arguments in public debate today, within the Democratic Party and among Democratic Congressmen.  The House leadership, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, both are calling for investigations but not impeachment.   Others, including the new “left” Congressional Democrats, want a Presidential impeachment, and they want it now.

A technical aside: impeachment is Congress’s way of bringing the indictment that Robert Mueller felt constrained by Department of Justice regulations not to do.  Impeachment is the bringing of charges, and is brought by majority vote of the House. Like an indictment, impeachment calls for a trial, with the trying body being the Senate of the United States. Two-thirds of the Senators are required to convict, with the penalty removal from office. In political terms (and it is a political rather than a legal action) it would require a majority of the House (the House Democrats could do it) then all of the Democratic Senators (even Joe Manchin) and twenty of the Republicans.  Given the current evidence, twenty Republican Senators aren’t likely to cross the “Trump Line.”

Politically, and barring the revelation of some new and horrific Presidential action or crime, Donald Trump will not be removed from office.  He will need to be defeated at the polls, just as Director Comey suggests. So why should the House begin the process, when it cannot be fulfilled?

The House of Representatives can serve an important role, even if the President cannot be removed. The House can serve as a continual reminder of what’s wrong with Mr. Trump’s Presidency, by highlighting the dysfunction, disinformation, and disastrous decision-making process that continues to go on.  They can do this by using the Mueller Report as a basis for impeachment inquiries, revealing the details to the American people through public hearings and witness testimony.  

It is one prong of a multi-layered strategy to win the 2020 election.  The American people need to be reminded of what’s wrong with the Trump Presidency, but they also need to see an alternative to his policies and actions. The House can hold hearing on the President, but they also need to hold hearing on drug costs, rising health care costs, minimum wage reform, and education costs.  In other words, the House needs to show the Democratic view of what America can be, not just hold up a mirror to see the horrors of the Trump Administration.

For the Democratic Presidential candidates:  talk about the issues and make your case for being the President.  We have a wide range of choices, growing almost daily, and we go from the extreme left of Sanders and Warren, to the extreme middle of Klobuchar, Biden, Beto and now Moulton.  These candidates are getting a chance to make their case.  Their statement on impeachment should all be as one: the House should proceed to investigate. 

Let the Chairmen; Nadler, Schiff, Waters, Cummings and Neal do their job showing what this President is. Let the candidates do their job of showing what a Democratic Presidency will offer.  Then let the voters decide, in a free, fair and unfettered election (we still have a lot of work to do there) to make the “revolution” of 2020 possible.  That’s the Democratic Path.

Process Crimes, Ghost Indictments, and Bastard Investigations

… we allow our Political opposition research to function as a basis for a warrant to spy on American citizens…none of the 37 people (Russians indicted by Mueller) will face justice, and God forbid if they show up and try to use our criminal process to try to uncover sources and methods that our intelligence community uses, so those were Ghost Indictments they’re never going to result in any consequence and they confirm what we already know… Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz on CNN – 4/20/19

Despite the fact that the Mueller Report should not have been authorized in the first place & was written as nastily as possible by 13 (18) Angry Democrats who were true Trump Haters, including highly conflicted Bob Mueller himself, the end result is No Collusion, No Obstruction! – Donald J. Trump tweet – 4/20/19 

The Mueller Report has been revealed (albeit a redacted version.) The Congressional Committees; House Judiciary, Intelligence and Oversight, are calling for the entire report to be released to them in a classified version so they can do their jobs. Judiciary needs to determine whether the President committed crimes, Intelligence study how to protect the United States from further Russian incursions into our elections, and Oversight to find a way to avoid failure in our electoral processes.  

The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Lindsey Graham, sees nothing in the Report they want to talk about.  No surprise there, Graham wants the Report to go away, and wants to try to refocus the American electorate on what he sees as the flaws and failures of the FBI intelligence investigation that led to the appointment of Robert Mueller.

Matt Gaetz, the annoying young Republican Congressman from the Pensacola area, is “doing his duty” for the Trump Administration by raising questions about the Mueller Report.  He echoes the Graham/Trump theme of the illegitimacy of the entire FBI look into the Campaign.  His argument depends on the false premise that the original intelligence investigation was based on the Steele Dossier.   The Dossier was commissioned originally by Republican primary opponents to Trump and then sold to Democrats for the general election.  Michael Steele, a former British Intelligence operative with close sources in Russia, wrote the disturbing report of Trump/Russian contacts and potential “kompromat” of the candidate – blackmail information.

It is a fascinating study.  But it was not the “predicate,” the FBI term of art for the legal basis of the intelligence investigation.  The actual predicate was recurring contacts between four different Trump campaign operatives and Russian intelligence, along with confirmed information that the Trump campaign knew about DNC computer hacking by Russia far before it was known publicly.  Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos had a drunken conversation with the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, revealing the hacking knowledge. The Ambassador reported this to US intelligence, making it the final impetus to begin investigating.

Trump, Graham and Gaetz are trying to sell the false narrative that the investigation was illegally based on Steele alone, therefore making it a “bastard” investigation.  Since ultimately the Mueller team evolved from that original mission, if Republicans can delegitimize it from birth, they can argue that the whole Mueller Report is unusable, the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

The second devaluation of the Report is to discount its results.  Perhaps the most important aspect of the Report is the way, in great detail, it outlines how Russian Intelligence infiltrated and corrupted the US election process:  manipulating social media, hacking into Democratic computers, and attempting to corrupt the election hardware.  To headline each of these, and to put Russia on notice that even their own domestic intelligence operatives aren’t anonymous, Mueller issued US indictments of many individual Russians.  

But to the Trump Team, those charges are “Ghost” indictments, somehow of less value because they cannot currently be prosecuted in court. In fact, Congressman Gaetz attempts to make a potential trial threatening, supposedly risking the revelation of US intelligence assets and methods.  His argument, since you wouldn’t want to try those Russians anyway, they are “sham” or “ghost” indictments.

I’m sure the Congressman would have described the formerly sealed indictment of Julian Assange as a “ghost” as well; with Assange ensconced in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London for seven years there seemed little chance he could be served.  But, a cat, a lack of personal hygiene, and a change in the Ecuadoran government drove him from his shelter, and today he awaits extradition hearings in London to come to the US:  some Ghost.

And finally there’s the supreme “waste of money” that the Trump forces claim Mueller spent, “…a thirty million dollar investigation that only found ‘process’ crimes.”  As almost every former Federal Prosecutor has made clear, process crimes such as perjury and obstruction of justice are just as important as the underlying criminal acts. Process crimes are crimes, if not, then the best liars and cheats would evade all prosecution.  Often it is through “process crimes” that prosecutors gain the leverage to reveal the full criminality below.

And besides, with the Paul Manafort case alone, the Federal government seized assets worth more than forty million dollars.  In that sense, the Mueller investigation was a net financial plus.

But it’s all just smoke.  The Mueller Report has revealed the President as a cheat, a liar, and a man willing to ignore Constitutional strictures and norms.  The Trump team can say what they want, and their base will believe what they are told; but ultimately the Report reveals to the American people what “their President” looks like.  It’s not a pretty sight, and regardless of what the Courts or the Congress are able to do, the electorate will make their evaluation clear in 2020.

Why, Why, Why did they Lie, Lie, Lie

He is the President, he’s staying the President, and he’ll get re-elected President Presidential Senior Advisor Kelly-Ann Conway – 4/19/19

Donald J Trump is a cancer on the Presidency – George Conway, Kelly-Ann’s husband– 4/19/19

This is the end of my Presidency, I’m f**ked! – Donald Trump, 4/17/17, the day Mueller was appointed 

President Trump is a victim. As he said at the release of the Mueller Report, “…no President should have to go through this.”  Attorney General Bill Barr continued this “victim” theme in his pre-release press conference, characterizing the President as: 

“…frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.”  Barr legally excused the President’s continuing acts of obstructing justice because of this frustration.  Let’s hope that doesn’t become a more general criminal standard: 

Defendant – “I didn’t file my tax returns because I was frustrated, your honor.”

Judge – “Oh, you were frustrated, then you can go home, have a good day!”

And Donald Trump Jr, is ignorant.  I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m simply stating what the Mueller Report said.  Mueller determined that he couldn’t charge Junior with conspiring with the Russians at the June 9^thmeeting, because Donny didn’t know working with the Russians to get stolen material to use against Hillary Clinton was wrong. The legal term is mens rea, “the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime.”  If he didn’t know it was wrong, he can’t be convicted.  So much for “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” go ahead and run a Presidential campaign, you don’t need to know the law, in fact, knowledge will get you in trouble.

But the overarching theme of the Mueller Report is that the Trump Campaign was in almost constant contact with Russian sources, and that the members of that campaign, led by the President himself, have lied over and over again about what they did.  Which begs the question:  why, why, why did they lie, lie, lie?

If they were truly “victims” as their bedtime story goes, of Federal agents who plotted a “coup” to overthrow the duly elected President: it they were truly “innocent,” then why did (and do) they continue to lie about what happened?  The short answer is “mens rea” once again, they really thought what they did was wrong, whether Mr. Mueller could prove it or not.  They acted guilty because they thought they were guilty, and but for the lying of defendants who anticipate a Presidential pardon, destruction of evidence (where did all the Bannon/Prince texts go) and obstruction of justice, they might well have been charged. 

Michael Cohen said it best as quoted in the report: the Trump campaign was a “branding exercise” that went tragically wrong.  They weren’t supposed to win, winning exposed the Trump organization to the legal scrutiny that the Trumps had spent generations trying to avoid. The Mueller report is just the first step.

The Mueller Report is a road map for other Federal Prosecutors.  It is also a road map for Congressional Impeachment, with the second volume on Presidential obstruction of justice laying out ten separate charges.  Mueller himself felt constrained by Justice Department policies:  he couldn’t indict a sitting President and he felt a “sealed” indictment to be opened after Trump leaves office was “unfair.”  The Special Counsel felt that if you deny a defendant their “speedy trial” and day in court by sealing the indictment for an extended period of time, you deny them justice.  And, as Julian Assange can attest to, sealed indictments don’t always remain sealed.  

But all of the actions of the Trump organization weren’t within the narrow scope of investigation that was Mr. Mueller’s charge. Mueller didn’t look into the loans from Deutsche Bank, and whether the Russians, or the Saudis, or the Qatari’s have an undue influence over the President through the money he owes them. Mueller couldn’t look, but the Congressional committees and the Federal prosecutors in New York can.  The Mueller investigation made over a dozen sealed referrals to other prosecutors; the conclusion of the Muller investigation is not the conclusion of problems for Donald J. Trump.  Maybe that’s why they continue to lie, lie, lie.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Today we will finally see a part of the Mueller Report.  We don’t know what to expect; how much will be redacted, and what facts and conclusions the Mueller Team reached.  Hopefully that will be revealed – I fully anticipate working through a colorful four hundred-page document in the next twenty-four hours.  I’ve laid in a supply of paper, color printer ink, and copious amounts of coffee for reading, and beer for ruminating.  It’s that serious, I want to know what Mueller learned in his two-year investigation, and I want to draw my own conclusions from his study.

We have been “played” by Attorney General Bill Barr.  So far, he has done the President’s bidding:  allowing a narrative of exoneration to marinate for the past two weeks, even though Barr himself made it clear that Mueller reached no conclusions about obstruction of justice.  We really don’t know what Mueller said about that, or about what Russians did, or about what the Trump campaign did.  All we know for sure is that Mueller was unable to reach a criminal standard for indictment regarding Americans conspiring with Russia.  With the Department of Justice having a policy preventing the President from being indicted, we don’t even know whether that was the sole reason for Mr. Trump being left out.

The Attorney General is an “odd man out” regarding Cabinet appointments. Since the Nixon years, we have expected him or her to take a different role than just a Presidential representative.  Ever since Eliot Richardson resigned as Nixon’s AG rather than fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, we have held the head of the Justice Department to a higher standard than the normal political appointee.  

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.  Americans expect their law enforcement to be fair, above board, and unbiased.  We certainly expect that the chief exemplify that role.  From Richardson’s replacement, Ohioan Bill Saxbe, to Clinton’s Janet Reno, to Obama’s Eric Holder; the AG has placed a barrier between the White House, the Presidency and the Department of Justice.  Even Jeff Sessions did his duty, recusing himself from the Trump investigation, and defending his department despite being continually lambasted by the President.

Bill Barr has proven that he sees his role as “the President’s Attorney,” not the attorney for the people of the United States.  We should have realized this, despite all of the original talk of Barr as an “institutionalist.”  He wrote an unsolicited nineteen page legal opinion about the power of the President and his inability to obstruct justice, and he has continued to act in concert with the White House plan.  He has joined the President’s theme questioning the validity of the Mueller probe, even going so far as to say that Federal agencies “spied” on the Trump campaign. Though he later tried to explain this as “legal spying,” his word choice was exactly the same as the President’s real attorneys, Giuliani and Sekulow.  

Last night we discovered that Mr. Barr has been briefing the White House on the Report, giving them a head start on their preparations.  The White House has been authoring a rebuttal, which I’m sure will be summarized quickly as soon as the actual Report becomes public.  Barr gave no such head start to Congress, and has acted disdainfully towards the House Committees most involved in investigating the election of 2016.  The Congress will get the exact same version of the report that the public will see, making it clear that Mr. Barr holds their Constitutional duty in low regard. In the past Congress got an unredacted version, and the public got the “rainbow” edition. 

There is a tradition in Washington called “Friday evening taking out the trash.”  It is when the stories that they want buried are released, Friday after five in the afternoon, when everyone has started the weekend.  Mr. Barr has tried to “trash” the Mueller report, releasing it on the Thursday before Easter and Passover weekend.  The result won’t be a report in the trash, it will mean that the media won’t get an Easter break this year.  Ari will miss Passover, and Rachel won’t go fishing.  

So this morning Mr. Barr has called a press conference, after the President tweeted him to do so.  The conference is about the report, but will be held several hours before the actual report will be released.  It is Barr’s last chance to shape the narrative, to put his obscure “unitary executive” spin on whatever it is the Mueller Report will reveal.  Mr. Mueller himself was not invited to participate.  It is vaguely reminiscent of a press conference in the summer of 2016, when FBI Director Comey tried to shape the Hillary Clinton email story:  no charges but reckless behavior.  We saw how well that turned out.

All of this action and reaction to the unreleased report seems to indicate that the Mueller Report will not be good for the Trump Administration.  If it actually did exonerate the President and his campaign from blame, then none of this “spin” would be necessary.  Like most of the Russia crisis, there seems to be so much smoke, there must be a fire somewhere.  

Today we will find out. And no matter how much shaping and spinning Mr. Barr, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Sekulow, Senator Graham, Congressman Jordan and all of the rest may do, we will soon know for ourselves what Mr. Mueller had to say.  And that’s the foolishness of all of this; the American people can and will read.  They will know directly without the filter of spin and interpretation.  By Good Friday, or at least Easter Monday, we will finally know the truth of what Robert Mueller did, and found:  Hallelujah!

Who’s a Card Carrying Member?

Let me be clear.  Since the day I took my famous escalator ride in 2015 to announce my presidential campaign, the Democrat harassment, fake news attacks, and blatant lies have never been about me.  Their target was you.

The liberal swamp hates the idea of people like you {your name here} being in charge of America, and there is no line the won’t cross to prevent that from happening.  Just look at the Phony Witch Hunt – NO COLLUSION.

In 2016, I was your voice, but YOU were the one that took our country back and made the liberal swamp and political leaders furious.  

Now headed into 2020, we have to remind them that this is your country, not theirs.

Since you’ve been such an important part of our movement, I wanted to give you the exclusive opportunity to become and Official 2019 Trump Executive Member and receive your PERSONALIZED membership card. – Trump Fundraising Letter – 4/13/19

President Trump’s campaign sent out an email this week, offering donors a chance to become “executive card members” of the Trump Campaign.  It’s fundraising, and every campaign from Trump to “Mayor Pete” is desperate for money. It’s not just for the cash: donating money is the surest way for a campaign to assure a vote, and capture an email or phone number for further campaigning.  

We “Liberals of the swamp” point out to the “perfect storm” of the 2016 election.  The combination of Hillary Clinton’s weakness as a political candidate despite her strength as a government leader; Russian interference both in social media and in stealing Democratic emails; Republican voter suppression in key states; and possible Russian manipulation of the actual voting process (we still don’t know):  it’s easy to say that it can’t happen again.

But, as my nephew-in-law is quick to point out (to my irritation) in our late night conversations, Trump did appeal to a lot of Americans who felt left out by the government. They saw the emphasis on the cities, the truly poor, the environment, the “Wall Street rich;” but not on them. They felt like Democrats in America didn’t care, and they voted accordingly.  While they may not have been able to afford to be a “card carrying member” of the Trump Campaign, many wore the badge, or more specifically the red “MAGA” hat, and cast their vote for Trump.  

Democrats could (and did) argue that the bailouts of 2009 that saved the auto industry and the finance markets saved jobs and everyone’s savings.  But somehow, Republicans who actually voted for those bailouts, were able to make it the “Democrats fault” by 2014, and the Trump Campaign could say they weren’t even involved.

Democrats argued that the Affordable Care Act provided insurance to millions, added benefits to all, and put pressure to hold insurance costs down.  But costs still went up (though not as much as they would have) and it was easy for Republicans to inaccurately conflate the rising costs of “Obamacare” with their own increasing health care costs, even if that wasn’t true.

The Trump campaign was somehow able to lay claim to patriotism, dividing Americans between “Black Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” when, in fact, we should recognize that we want police to be protected, and we want discrimination in law enforcement to stop.  Those are not mutually exclusive.  The Trump campaign was not the only ones to be “Proud to be an American,” but somehow they claimed it.

Right or wrong, Democrats lost those arguments to many Americans in 2016.  It wasn’t only to the “card carrying” Trump supporters, it was also to those working class white Americans who were convinced that Democrats represented “others” but not them.  In short, the Trump phenomenon was able to fill a need for a significant portion of Americans, and, like it or not, over sixty-two million voted for him.

The lesson for 2020 is pretty clear.  While liberals, including me, would like to see the investigations move forward on all fronts, Congressional, Judicial and in the press; the reality of American politics is that to a huge proportion that is at best a sideshow.  They either don’t care,  “…all politicians (or business men) do that…” or they feel like the investigations have taken precedence over their needs.

Democrats running for 2020 seem to get it.  Their emphasis is how to make America better for Americans, including the working class voters that felt left out by the Party in 2016.  Their talking about the issues Democrats should always be pushing: that many Americans haven’t seen an increase in spending power in years (what liberals would call income inequality) working far over forty hours a week, often at more than one job, to make ends meet.  

They’re talking about the cost of education, both for themselves and their kids.  When a candidate for President is still trying to pay off their own student loans  (several of them) they bring reality to campaigning.  It’s not just about their own loans, how can any parent look forward to their child’s future when, with or without college, it’s likely to include crushing debt.

And they’re trying to convince Americans that the future can include changes to protect the environment that can create new jobs and industries.  They are presenting a future where Wal-Mart’s automation (using robots for menial store tasks) isn’t a threat to employment, but an opportunity for advancement.  They are trying to present the future as a place of hope, not to be feared; America as already “Great,” not needing to be made “Great Again.”

The Trump campaign has found a way to mesh with many Americans who feel left behind. While not all of them will become “Executive Members” or be “card carrying Trump supporters,” Democrats will have some convincing to do to reach those millions who are disaffected.  You can’t control the weather, and perfect storms happen more than once.  It’s up to Democrats to reach out to everyone, to make sure we are more than just the party that’s against Trump.

Memories of Notre Dame

Yesterday we got home from our weekend trip, and fell to the couches to recover.  Soon, a familiar building came in view on the TV screen, and to our horror, smoke rose from the spire.  We sat and watched as the eight hundred year old Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, burned.  It looked like it must be totally destroyed, but after an hour or so, the French firefighters managed to staunch the blaze.  Today, Notre Dame still stands; damaged, smoke stained, roofless, but remaining on the Parisian skyline.  It will be repaired.

I have one direct memory of Notre Dame.  As a thirteen-year old, my family travelled to Paris.  Parisians are known for their “haughtiness;” unwilling to hear the fractured eighth grade French of an American boy.  I loved the city, but was frustrated with my inability to communicate. We went into the Cathedral, awed at the reach of the ceiling and the incredible faith in the labors of centuries. Gothic architecture draws the view, and the soul to heaven; Notre Dame is one of the great examples.

As we stepped out of Notre Dame, I asked a homeless man for directions.  He turned to me, and despite my middle school French, worked through a conversation on where we wanted to go, how to get there, and the debt he felt France owed to Americans.  “Vive l’Americans” he cried, thanking me at thirteen, for saving France in World War II. I pointed to my parents, who really were part of that effort, and he thanked them as well.

It was in World War II that my family had it’s other connection to the Cathedral.  My mother was a British “spy,” working for the Special Operations Executive (SOE) a branch of British intelligence.  She had finished her education in Belgium, and could speak French like a native.  Her job was to go into Nazi occupied territories, contact the Resistance cells, and arrange for sabotage or other operations.  She was flown in on small, one propeller planes called Lysanders; they could land on short fields, even farm fields, and quickly drop off, pickup and get back into the sky.

On one of my mother’s missions, she was sent to occupied Paris to connect with the Underground there. Mom, with a degree in English Literature from the University of London, was excited that her Underground contact was Sylvia Beach, the famous proprietor of the “Shakespeare and Company.”  The “bookstore” was so much more than just a place to buy books; it was the meeting place in the 1920’s for the prominent young authors of the time:  Hemingway, Joyce, Fitzgerald, Pound and others all gathered for discussions there.

Mom stayed with Sylvia Beach during her time in Paris.  She also did some shopping and some site seeing, and of course, as a good Roman Catholic, stopped to light a candle in the Notre Dame Cathedral.  As she told the story:

I was halfway (through my Rosary) when I was aware of a figure entering the pew.  He sat quite close to me and he had on a German uniform.  Am I now going to be arrested I thought – terrified of course. “Hail Mary, please help me in my hour of need.”

Out of the corner of my eye, I watched a long slender hand come out of his pocket.  He was a Luftwaffe officer – a sigh of relief –seldom did one get picked up by a Luftwaffe officer.  In his hand was an ivory rosary and he began his prayers.  I was compelled to look at him, he was blonde and handsome, and he turned and smiled.  I smiled back.  There we were, both praying to the same God and both of us, without a doubt, would have killed each other in a minute. (from the private writing of Babs Dahlman.)

Mom left the Cathedral, and proceeded with her mission.  A German troop train was destroyed.

Notre Dame Cathedral has eight hundred years of such stories; it has touched millions of lives, one soul at a time.  A new chapter will now be written, as the Cathedral again rises up to draw those minds and souls to the heavens.

A Family Thing

We had a family reunion, twenty-six of us.  It was my sister and brother-in-laws birthday (seventy!!) and we all travelled to Cleveland to celebrate.   We had a blast, lots of food, lots of drink, lots of laughing and high spirits.  It was one of those celebrations that will require a week to recover.

Relatives came; from Ohio, from New Jersey, from Colorado and Arizona.  It wasn’t a funeral or a wedding; we could have fun without a significant “event” beyond the celebration itself.   And like any family in our current political era, we brought widely divergent political viewpoints to the occasion.  

Our family trends from extreme “Resistors” to Libertarians to died in the wool conservatives, and while we don’t necessarily have any true “MAGA Hat Trumpers” we still are aware of everyone’s difference.   For most of the weekend, our political talk remained “among ourselves”:  the “Resistance” wing debated the latest Congressional moves and sorted through the candidates for 2020; then quickly altered the subject when the “non-resistors” came within earshot.  Since that was my end of the family political spectrum, I’m not sure what the “other” side did; but I expect they had a few of the same kind of conclaves. 

But later on during the two evenings of the weekend, when great food, craft beer and Irish whiskey helped breakdown barriers, we gingerly “crossed the line.”  Gently, across a border established by the round banquet table, two sides began to communicate.  Surprisingly, it didn’t erupt in angry words and recriminations:  “how could you support;” “do you regret choosing not to chose in 2016.”  We found areas of agreement.   Both sides allowed that the true evil of our current political system is money; if the process of needing millions of dollars to run for office doesn’t change, than corrupting influences, on all sides of the spectrum, will continue.  

But despite our tentative areas of agreement, the haunting prediction of “civil war” was also spoken. How can our nation, so divided and so fragmented into pockets of different “facts” and seemingly different values, ever recover?  In a nation with a choice of either silence or argument, with no alternative of calm conversation; how will we ever return to a time when we can all agree on what America is?

Into the night it was more conversation, this time about climate change.  It became an issue of “I don’t believe your facts, I have my own.” It took a while to get past AOC and the Green New Deal and cattle farts and cheeseburgers; to more serious consideration of how we produce our energy, and why we can’t lead the world in finding new sources of energy.  But at the end of that conversation, to one it came down to a deep distrust of government; anything that the “government” is for, then it must be opposed.

But in the small hours of the morning, two older men, friends for fifty years, reached for understanding. We talked about our families, about the uniting force of love that crossed political and ideological lines.  We talked about the ability of smaller governments, of towns and counties, to focus on the practical problems of their communities, and let go the partisanship of our national discourse.  On the macro scale there seemed to be little hope of change, but on the micro scale; family, neighborhood, towns; there is still the ability to unite to solve problems and to love each other.  

We are an extended family; extended in age, geography, and political beliefs.   We were able to celebrate the birthday of our siblings, parents, grandparents and cousins together.  There was no screaming (other that the two year olds) and there was no disgust.  And there probably were no minds changed either. But in fact we were able to discuss our differences and be Americans in celebration together across partisan divides:  it was because of love.

That’s where Americans will need to start.  We aren’t ready to put down our partisan sword and shield; we aren’t ready to listen to each other on a national scale.  But we can start to tentatively reach out to those closest to us; our family, our neighborhoods, our towns.  That’s where we can begin to piece our nation back together again – one little group at a time.  And as my old friend said, with can use love to transcend our differences.

The Pentagon Papers v Wikileaks:  It’s Different

Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London yesterday, placed under arrest by the London police.  Assange, the founder of the internet site Wikileaks, spent seven years claiming asylum in the Embassy, after jumping bail in London.  Assange was wanted in Sweden for sexual assault, charges that were later dropped.  The London police are currently holding him for extradition to the United States, where he is under indictment.

Assange made the mistake of annoying his Ecuadoran hosts.  Like “The Man Who Came to Dinner,” his seven-year stay may have been ended as much by an out of control cat and a lack of personal hygiene than any international pressure placed on Ecuador.

What we know of the US indictment, accidently revealed several months ago in a filing in Alexandria, Virginia; is that Assange is accused of helping Chelsea Manning, a US soldier stationed in Iraq in 2010,  break into US communications to reveal over half a million documents regarding the Iraq and Afghan wars.  Manning claims that she is a “whistleblower,” revealing US knowledge of their allies’ corruption, and a willingness to inflict collateral damage waging the war, including intentional killing of innocent civilians and even journalists.

Manning was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison after pleading guilty to ten counts and being convicted on seventeen other counts of espionage. She served seven years, then her sentence was commuted by President Obama.

Manning claims that her actions were similar to those of Daniel Ellsberg, the Rand Corporation analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971.  The Paperswere a Defense Department internal history of the Vietnam War, revealing the duplicity of the US government in their public explanations of the War.  Revelation of the Papershelped lead to further public protests against the war when they were published by the New York Times and the Washington Post.  The United States Supreme Court denied the US Government’s attempt to block publication of the Papers in the landmark case New York Times Co v United States (403 U.S. 713, 1971.)

Ellsberg was charged with espionage, with a possible 117 years in prison. But, due to government misconduct in investigating him, including breaking into his psychiatrist’s office to find information (executed by the Nixon White House “plumbers” who later made a similar break-in to the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building) all charges were eventually dismissed.  

Assange and Wikileaks claim that their role in the Chelsea Manning revelations was the same as the New York Times and Washington Post in the Pentagon Papers:  they were simply revealing information and serving as a “conduit” for whistleblowing information.  Many journalists on “mainstream media” defend Assange, arguing that to charge him puts the US Government on a slippery slope of muzzling reporters.

 Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post helped Daniel Ellsberg sneak the Pentagon Papers out of his Rand Corporation offices. They received the complete files, got their editors (and their lawyers) together, and determined to print the material. They even gave the US Government the opportunity to comment, and redacted parts that they considered too sensitive to ongoing operations.  They acted responsibly with the information they received.

That’s a huge contrast with the actions of Wikileaks and Assange. Assange is accused of actually participating in the stealing of the information, allegedly helping Manning with passwords to get to the files.  Wikileaks then took the entire dump and put it online, without any regard for possible security implications.  That is Wikileaks standard, get information and put it out, regardless of the consequences. 

Assange is accused of helping Manning, but also dumped the Edward Snowden information, more documents stolen from the US Government.  The Snowden files revealed government surveillance of US domestic communications, and were published by newspapers around the world.

Progressives in the United States welcomed both the Manning and Snowden downloads, using the information to try to curb the excesses of government reaction to 9-11 and the terrorist threats.  In that sense, the “whistleblower” aspect of Wikileaks was welcomed as the new way to gain insight into government actions.

But progressives weren’t so pleased when Wikileaks became the conduit for Russian Intelligence and the hacked Democratic National Committee emails in the 2016 election.  “Wikileaks” became a common theme in the Trump Campaign rhetoric, and definitely contributed to the success of the Trump candidacy.  

But Assange hasn’t been charged with conspiring with Russian intelligence, and he hasn’t been indicted for the Snowden information.  He has been brought to the bar for conspiring to assist in Chelsea Manning’s espionage.  Whatever the information gained, the US Government has a reasonable claim to maintain security, and to prosecute those who participate in breaking into their computers.  Assange, if he aided Manning in stealing the documents, has taken a step beyond journalism. 

The slippery slope really isn’t that slippery, the US prosecutors are on firm footing.  It is the difference between the thief and the reporter, and Wikileaks ain’t the New York Times.

Democrats: Eyes on the Prize

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pushed the envelope for Democrats.  Whatever it means to be a Social-Democrat, Ocasio-Cortez has taken traditional Democratic values:  the struggle of the common worker, the protection of the environment, improving healthcare and education; and pushed the boundaries of what might be done.  She has raised the bar, and forced more moderate Democrats to deal with her issues.

And while many Democrats don’t agree with everything she proposes, most recognize that her aspirational results should be the goals of the party.  How we get to raise average worker’s pay, universal healthcare, fix climate change and low or no cost education; the devil is in the details and will need to be worked out.  But these issues will be the Democratic Party Platform.

Democrats cannot forget to keep their “eyes on the prize.”  The immediate goal is to rid the government of Donald J. Trump, and begin to repair the damage that his four years in office has done.  If this isn’t accomplished, then all of the other goals are for naught; if it is accomplished, the United States can begin to move to a better future.

Eyes on the prize:  defeat Donald Trump in 2020.  

Which brings us to the biggest threat to defeating Donald Trump in 2020:  Bernie Sanders.  The Independent Senator from Vermont, who registers as a Democrat for the purpose of running for President, is leading the polls of avowed candidates for the Democratic nomination (Joe Biden has yet to enter the race.)  Senator Sanders is the best known of the gaggle of Democrats in the race, having run for the nomination in 2016 and earning 13,206,428 votes.  He lost to Hillary Clinton, who gained 16,914,722 votes.  

Sanders and his followers hold a grudge from 2016, where they felt that machinery of the Party were stacked against him (and it was, right or wrong.)   His lukewarm support for Hillary Clinton in the general election didn’t help enough in her razor thin loss to Trump.  

He leads the polls now, nine months before the first caucuses in Iowa.  But neither Hillary Clinton in 2016, nor candidates today, have made negative comments about the socialist from Vermont.  Senator Sanders has never been faced with an “attack” campaign. Candidates have not raised questions about his taxes either, though Sanders didn’t release them in 2016 (except for a 2014 summary) and hasn’t done so through today (though he does claim that he will release ten years worth on “tax day.”) This despite the growing power struggle in the Washington, as the Treasury Department defies the law by refusing to turn over the Trump tax documents to the House Ways and Means Committee.

In addition, the 2016 Sanders campaign paid women less than men for the same jobs, and had campaign operatives who worked with Paul Manafort in Ukrainian politics before joining the Sanders campaign.  But these flaws aren’t mentioned by his opponents, and neither are the vast promises Sanders has made, without a clear plan to pay for them.

So, why does Bernie still get a pass?

Senator Sanders looms as a threat to the Democratic Party, not only as a winning nominee, but also as a bitter loser.  If his supporters decide (as many did in 2016) that he wasn’t treated fairly, they may vote for a third party, or simply sit out the 2020 election.  Or even worse, Bernie could decide to run as a Socialist candidate, a third party on the left that would doom the Democratic Party candidate to a loss and guarantee a second Trump term.

Those conditions held Hillary in check in 2016, and Democrats recognize them today as well. So Sanders is coddled, without direct challenge, even though there are big differences between him and most of the other primary candidates on many issues.  But if Sanders were to be the Party nominee, he certainly wouldn’t be coddled by the Republicans.  

A Sander’s candidacy and the likely Republican smear campaign would drive moderate voters to either choose not to vote, or hold their nose and re-elect President Trump. Of all the candidates running for the Democratic nomination, the election path for Sanders is the least probable.  He fails to win the “middle” of the political spectrum.

Sander’s supporters argue a novel path to the Presidency.  They prophesize a millennial outpouring of support that completely changes the electorate by creating an entirely new voting population.  But Sanders still is weak among key Democratic constituencies, including African-American and Hispanic minorities. And the millennial outpouring is still only prophecy, the “Bernie Bros” haven’t shown their voting strength yet, if it exists at all.

Bernie Sanders has the least probable path to defeating Donald Trump. He is a polarizing force, unable to capture the “middle vote” that was so important in the 2018 Congressional victories. He is vulnerable to a negative campaign, one that he is yet to experience. Democrats: whether you agree with AOC’s plan, or fall in with the more moderate plans of Amy Klobuchar or Joe Biden; nothing gets done until Trump is defeated. Keep your eyes on the prize.

No Room at the Inn

“Our Country’s full – we’re full – no one can come in” – Donald Trump 4/6/19

President Trump has declared our nation closed.  He says “we’re full,” whatever that means.  He’s fired or left vacant virtually the entire top management of the Department of Homeland Security; they aren’t giving him the options he wants to deal with the border “crisis.”  There’s so much more to Homeland Security than ICE and the Border Patrol; it’s worrying that they may not be so focused on terrorism, or internet security, or election infrastructure.

The President is even rumored to want to fire the Homeland Security Counsel, the head lawyer in the agency.  The counsel keeps saying “no,” they can’t ignore court orders and laws, they can’t just “do what Trump wants.”  Mr. Trump is instead putting his alt-right advisor Stephen Miller “in charge” of the border situation. Miller is one of the authors of the child separation policy (and wants to bring it back again) and has had his ideas stymied again and again by the Federal Courts, even as recently as this week. 

Meanwhile, the President has doubled the number of H-2B visas.  These are worker visas issued to “guest workers,” mostly from Mexico, who serve as landscapers, and workers in hotels and amusement parks.  He has added 30,000 more visas to the program.  Maybe we are “sort-of” closed.

There is no question that there are more migrants at the border than in the past few years.  The situation in the Northern Triangle of Central America has gotten worse, that is the condition driving migration.  The American mantra, “Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free,” is now “go back, were closed,” unless you’re a good gardener or hotel maid for Mara Lago.  Trump needs sixty-one workers there, and more than 400 total at his properties.  He doesn’t seem to be able to afford Americans.

Current asylum laws and treaties came as a result of World War II.  The world recognized that the cost of the Holocaust was exacerbated by the unwillingness of nations to accept Jews and others running from the Nazis. The United States strictly limited immigration, and many were trapped in Europe to face concentration camps and gas chambers.  After the war, the United Nations developed a “right to asylum” based on credible fear of persecution or harm.  The United States was a leader in those negotiations, and signed onto the treaties.

Stephen Miller’s ancestry belies his political positions:  his Jewish family emigrated from Eastern Europe to escape pogroms in the early part of the 20^thcentury.  But his view of the migrants leaving the Northern Triangle is different, he sees them as both a racial and political threat to his ideology.  Miller fears the “browning” of America, where the white population for the first time is faced with a loss of majority.  Regardless of the policy at the border, within twenty years America will be “majority-minority” nation.  It’s not just racial, the nation of 2040 is more likely to support the Democrats rather than Republicans who have committed to a political death sentence by harnessing themselves to the “white middle class.”

So instead of following US law and treaties and sending more judges to adjudicate asylum claims, the Trump Administration has slowed the process down, stacking the migrants in Mexican border towns, then blamed Mexico for the migrants trying to cross illegally. Their strategies have been struck down by Federal Judges time and time again, including the child separation strategy to deter migration, and the new MPP policy of denying migrants who reach US soil the right to request asylum.

The Dustin Hoffman movie of the 1990’s, Wag the Dog, was a story of a President beset by scandal, who created a war in the Balkans to take the country’s mind off of his personal problems.  This President is creating a similar crisis at the Southern Border; trying to focus away from his ongoing legal issues.  It’s a “win-win” for him, it not only distracts but also works for him politically. The Trump Administration has clearly determined on a 2020 election strategy of “threading the electoral needle” once again by winning with a minority vote.  They can only make this work by gaining a huge turnout from the 40% that supports Mr. Trump, the “…I could shoot someone in the middle of 5^thAvenue” supporters.  Trump’s manufactured crisis on the border fits the bill.

26 US Code § 6103 (f) (1)

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request…

The law is clear.  It was passed as a result of the “Teapot Dome” scandal of the early 1920’s.  Secretary of Interior, Albert Fall, gained control of the US Naval Oil Reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming.  He then gave exclusive rights to that oil to the Mammoth Oil Company, in return for personal cash and bond payments.  The Wall Street Journal broke the story, and the US Senate led the investigation.  Albert Fall ended up serving time in prison for accepting bribes, and the Congress gained two significant powers.  

The first, confirmed by the Supreme Court in McGrain v Daugherty (273 US 135, 1927), allowed Congress to compel witness testimony under pain of criminal contempt. The second, an addition to the US Tax Code, allowed the Chairmen of the Senate Finance, House Ways and Means, or the Joint Committee on Taxation, to get an individual tax return from the Internal Revenue Service.  It is the law:  26 US Code § 6103 (f) (1).

President Trump’s “Acting” Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, Sunday made it clear that the President would not allow the Internal Revenue Service to obey the law, and would do everything in his power to withhold his taxes from Congress, despite the law’s clear intent.  While the Secretary of the Treasury has not responded to the House Ways and Means Chairman’s request for Donald Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns, it is unlikely that he will voluntarily defy the President.

The Chairman will be forced to go to Court to compel the Secretary to produce the returns, and the clear intent of the law will likely mean the Courts will order him to do so.  It sets up a confrontation between the Court and the President.  As President Jackson once said about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall; “…John Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.”  Perhaps President Trump will join Jackson in defying the Court, or perhaps he will, like President Nixon and his tapes, accede to a Court ruling.

Yesterday another Federal judge made a clear order.  Federal District Judge Richard Seeborg issued a nationwide injunction, stating that the United States could not send asylum seekers back across the border to Mexico to await their hearings.   This despite the President’s gutted Homeland Security Department trying to institute Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) that would do exactly that.  The President even told Border guards in California this weekend to prevent migrants from crossing the border, telling them the “…country is closed.”  The guard administrators told their personnel to ignore the President’s order because it would disobey the law.

The President of the United States has found himself burdened by the restrictions of our legal system; in the past few days he has decided not to allow legality to stop his actions.  Just as we have become used to a “fact free” and “truth free” Presidency, we now are faced with a “scofflaw” President.  

The President avoiding the constraints of law is even clearer in his actions regarding the Department of Homeland Security.  Unable to convince the current Secretary to violate Court orders, the President has fired her, as well other high officials in the Department.  

The Deputy Secretary job is vacant, and the Under Secretary is rumored to be next on the block.  The President also fired the Director of the Secret Service, and nine other senior jobs in the Department are either vacant or filled in an acting capacity.

The Constitution of the United States in Article II, § 2, provides that the Senate shall consent to the appointments of all other officers of the United States, including public ministers.  The vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security, now filled by “acting” officers without Senate approval, is another way that the President has found to avoid the constraints of law.  Mr. Trump says; “…I like ‘acting’ because I can move so quickly. It gives me more flexibility.”  Currently seven cabinet level positions, and eight agency heads are “acting” without confirmation.

The President may feel that he has altered the Court system enough that he can win these fights.  His two appointees to the Supreme Court, as well as the ninety-one lower Court appointments that have been rammed through the Senate, may give him some hope of success. But one of the foundations of the Federalist Society, the legal society that has provided Mitch McConnell fodder for the Bench, is respect for the Constitution that grants Congress the power to determine the laws.  

26 US Code § 6103 (f) (1) has been the law for ninety-five years.  The power of Federal Judges to interpret Federal law has been established since Marbury v Madison in 1801.  Will the Supreme Court turn over both Congressional and Judicial powers to the President, out of gratitude for their jobs?  Or will they take their lifetime appointments, and stand for the Constitution the Federalist Society claims to revere?  We will soon see.

Leadership in America

I learned about leadership early in life.  I was in Boy Scouts at its height of popularity back in the sixties and early seventies; we had a troop of forty or fifty boys, with a leadership structure: Patrol Leaders who led groups of ten, Assistant Senior Patrol Leaders and the Senior Patrol Leader, older boys, who were “in charge” of the troop.  Those boy/leaders were advised by even older boys, Junior Assistant Scoutmasters, and adults, the Scoutmasters.

My troop in Cincinnati, Troop 819 in Wyoming, Ohio, had adults who were committed to letting the kids do the work. Clayton Warman, my first Scoutmaster there, had fought his way across Europe in World War II, earned a battlefield commission, and three Purple Heart medals.  He was a career Proctor and Gamble man, which was all I really knew about him when I was a kid. I just knew that Mr. Warman was a very “proper” man, who wanted the kids to lead the troop.  He saw himself as the advisor, who helped make decisions, but also let mistakes happen. 

He was followed by Tom Morgan, another career P&G guy, who navigated strategic bombers in the Air Force after the war.  Tom was a lot more relaxed, and was dedicated to letting kids lead the troop, without much interference from the adults.

So that’s how I learned about leadership, first as a Senior Patrol Leader, then as a Junior Assistant Scoutmaster.  These men knew to let us go, encouraging us in the right direction, but allowing us the “rope” to learn about how to lead, and how to get others to follow to reach our common goals.  It worked: we had a tremendously active troop, out every month (even in sub-zero weather) with two weeks of summer camp where the younger kids learned, and a “high adventure” expedition where the older boys were challenged.

That’s the leadership model I thrived under in my life.  Luckily for me, most of my “bosses” believed in that model as well; they gave me a job, and let me have the space to get it done the best way I could.  Whether it was in political campaigns as an operative, in the classroom as a teacher, or in athletics as a coach; they let me find my own way to succeed.  It’s the same model I used with the folks I worked with, my assistant coaches, my staff on campaigns, and the groups of kids I helped.  Here’s the job, let’s find a way to get it done together.

My first Principal, Pete Nix, passed away yesterday.  He was another of those Clayton Warman kind of guys; strong, determined, and willing to let you do your job.  Pete believed in “doing what’s right for kids.”  That was his most important goal, and he hired the people for his schools to get the job done.  He was a model of an administrator, he could be stern (I broke a window in my classroom – reporting that scared me to death) but he could also be fun (as an Alabama man, he made it clear that not standing for Dixie was a serious employment risk.)

Kids will remember him as scary, but also as the best pep-rally speaker ever.  When he got done, the whole school was ready to take the field.  He motivated, he lead, but he allowed others to lead as well.  

That model of leadership seems to have been lost.  In schools, “data-driven” decision-making has become a cover for micro-managing.  “Data doesn’t lie” is the line; but of course, data doesn’t tell the whole story of human interactions, what schools are all about. But administrators are too afraid to allow their staff the room to lead, every box must be checked, every step coordinated.  No wonder those administrators look so weary, they spend all of their time trying to do everyone else’s job.  

This form of “leadership” does not allow for creativity, or for mistakes.  It presses everyone into a common “form” so that they are easily controlled.  Trying to “raise the worst” has resulted in “smothering the best.”

And it’s not just in the schools, this is the new “American Way” to lead.  It must be some great new academic model, get your “data” and keep those you lead “in line.”  But it’s not the model that Clayt Warman or Tom Morgan or Pete Nix (or Marty Dahlman) used, and it’s not the model that encourages new leaders to learn and improve.  It makes the numbers look good.  But numbers aren’t faces, whether it’s kids in school, or employees doing their job.  

Mr. Warman and Mr. Nix are gone: I hope the next generation will find the kind of role models that those men were for me, and find that faces are more important than data points on a graph.

Let Biden be Biden

(OK – so when not looking for Hamilton references, I fall back on The West Wing!!)

I saw a post on Facebook from a former student and current friend the other day.  He was in the locker room at the gym and was shocked when a man started a conversation with him, without any clothes on.  The guy was talking to him, and he was NAKED!!  

At sixty-two, I grew up in a different era.  I was a swimmer, and a wrestler, and a track sprinter; being naked in a locker room was always just part of the deal.  Even in the locker room at Dad’s tennis club, it was completely normal to have a conversation with strangers, some much older, with little or nothing on.  It wasn’t that we ”hung out” naked, but there wasn’t a rush to cover up, and it didn’t seem to get in the way of discussing the  “play of the day” or any other topic of conversation (avoiding saying that came up!!)

I coached high school athletes until two years ago, and I am well aware that times have changed.   Even in wrestling, where nudity at weigh-ins was not only expected but required, the rules now require everyone to be in uniform on the scales.  There is no such thing as being naked in a locker room; kids even wear swimming suits in the shower.  When a full change is required, it is quick, and furtive.

That’s not the only “norm” that’s changed in the world today.  I am a “contact” kind of guy, a hand on the shoulder, a pat on the back (not on the butt, I never cared for that), the occasional joyful hug, and for people I’m close to, the forehead to forehead “talk.”  I’ve lived that way for sixty-two years, and never intentionally “invaded” someone’s privacy.   In fact, I tried to learn to recognize which folks were uncomfortable with contact, and respect their boundaries.  

It has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with finding a way to relate, to be compassionate and empathetic.  It was a hug when my best pole vaulter broke the school record, whether it was Kyle or Sammi.  It was an arm across the shoulders when we failed, and a forehead-to-forehead talk to regain focus when everything was going wrong.   And sometimes even a “Gibbs slap” (gently) to the back of the head for bonehead moves (like losing a $350 pole vault pole.)

There’s a picture of Vice President Biden forehead to forehead with a woman, deep in conversation. The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize winner Jonathan Capehart was head to head with Biden too. It’s not about sex, it’s about relationships.  It’s the way of Joe Biden, and the way of his generation that is all too quickly passing.

So, while I’m not in locker rooms often anymore, and change in them even less, I know that no matter what I’m comfortable with, others aren’t comfortable with nudity even in a place to change clothes.  And while I’m not coaching anymore either, I also am aware that what seems to me like a natural extension of personal contact may now be considered violating someone else’s space.  

Joe Biden will figure it out.  He’ll do what needs to be done politically; he’s already figured out how to acknowledge the concerns of the women involved and accept responsibility without apologizing for doing something he didn’t (and doesn’t) consider wrong.  We know he’ll “slip up” along the way, it’s too much a part of him.  The millennial media will eat it up, and Democrats will have a crisis moment.  

There are lots of Democrats running for President (and even a quasi-Democrat named Bernie Sanders, who seems to only be in the Party when it suits his needs.)  There are fantastic women running: Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Kristen Gillibrand.  There are dynamic men running: Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Jay Inslee, Mike Bennet (I hope, he’s pretty good) and, of course, Beto O’Rourke. There will be a lot for the Party to sift through, and a wide-ranging spectrum of ideas to choose from.  Hopefully, the Party gets the most important point: we need to choose a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump.

But if Joe Biden really does become the Democratic candidate for President, we will have a great contrast. Two men of the same generation; one who reaches out to people in order to connect with them, and one who reaches out solely to pleasure himself.  That’s a contrast that Democrats should be able to win with.