Category: Uncategorized

Heritage

I am torn.  Full disclosure:  I am the son of an ex-communicated Roman Catholic mother, and a Jewish father.  I grew up in Cincinnati, surrounded by my Jewish relatives.  We had a Christmas tree in the living room, and, as designated by my uncle, a Hanukah bush in the recreation room.  I was raised Episcopal (the joke was that’s as close as Mom could get us kids to Catholic). But I was also well aware of Jewish traditions.   While I could say the Lord’s Prayer, I could easily recite the Seder supper prayer over the wine and bread, in Hebrew, even though I wasn’t sure what it meant.

And one of those traditions was an unwavering support of the State of Israel.  Besides our amalgam of religions, both my parents were veterans of World War II.  Mom had to search the liberated concentration camps, looking for other members of her Special Operations Executive unit. The Holocaust had real meaning to her, memories that she never shared. Dad was moved from intelligence to finance in the US Army, because it was much more dangerous for a Jewish man to be in Nazi occupied territory.  We grew up with an awareness that being Jewish, even just half Jewish, even just an ethnic Jew not a religious one; changed things.

I didn’t realize that, until I got one of my first jobs, working in a Congressional office in Washington and then in Cincinnati.  I overheard a conversation between the Office Manager and the Congressman, talking about the Irish legislative aide (another young college student) and the Jewish scheduler (that would be me).  Only then I realized that part of the reason I had the job, was my “perceived” Jewishness.  They didn’t know I was Episcopal (a non-practicing one) but at that point it didn’t matter.  They had a young “Jew” on staff.

Zionism

So my parents, and my relatives, and literally everyone around was in favor of Israel.  We read novels, like Exodus by Leon Uris. It told the story of Zionism, and how the Jews in Palestine managed to turn desert into cropland.  And we marveled at the tenacity of tiny Israel holding off the combined might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the rest; first in 1948, then ’56, then ’67, and once again in 1973.  

As for the Palestinians, the Arabs living in the area before Zionism and the Holocaust, and the flood of Jewish immigrants?  We were told that Israel wanted them to stay, but the Grand Mufti in Cairo and other religious and military leaders ordered them out of Palestine.  That was to clear the way for the Arab invasion, driving the Israelis, the Jews, into the sea.  And because the Arab goal was to remove Israel, there was no reason for the Palestinians to “settle” into the surrounding Arab countries.  They were kept in camps, on the borders, ready to move back in when the “time came”.  The problem for them was, that time never arrived.

Now we now know that story was only partially true.  The Israelis also wanted the land the Palestinians were on.  So there was pressure for the Palestinians to leave from the Jews as well.  And, realistically, most of the Israelis regarded the Palestinians as a threat and danger to their new communities.  So the Arabs were calling for the Palestinians to leave, and the Israelis were “greasing the rails” for them to get out of the way.  

Palestinians

The refugee “camps” became permanent fixtures on the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Golan Heights in Lebanon and Syria, and the Gaza Strip along the Egyptian border.  What were supposed to be temporary “camps” became permanent, seventy-five years from 1948 to today.  

And those camps became incubators for extremism.  Young Palestinians saw few ways forward.  They couldn’t assimilate into the Arab countries nearby, because they weren’t wanted.  They couldn’t go back to their ancestral lands, because those were now in possession of Israel.  And they struggled in a “temporary” society that had little infrastructure, education, health care, or means to provide for themselves or their families.

Palestinians couldn’t find a “legitimate” political way.  They weren’t allowed to participate in Egyptian, Syrian, or Lebanese politics.  In Jordan, which actually did try to make them citizens, Palestinians led a revolt against the King, that was put down violently.  So they couldn’t be citizens of that country either. They were expelled back to the West Bank area.

Terrorism

And Israel essentially washed it’s hands of the matter, a kind of out-of-sight, out-of-mind thing.  Palestinians became the “essential” workers of Israel, farming the Israeli fields and doing manual labor.   It shouldn’t be a surprise that extremism, and terrorism, grew out of the Palestinian camps.  The airplane hijackings of the 1970’s, the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and countless smaller attacks and suicide bombings after are directly related to the camps.  When there is no hope, why shouldn’t a young man or woman aspire to “sacrifice their lives for the cause”, to become a martyr.   What else was there to do?

So here we are; a week after the worst terrorist assault in modern history.  Hamas, the terrorist element controlling the Gaza Strip, launched a brutal surprise attack against Southern Israel.  They killed civilians, the elderly, children, babies, kids at a “rave”.  The massacred over a thousand, and took more than two hundred as hostage.  They lost as many of their “fighters” in the process, according to Hamas, martyrs to the “cause”.

Israel legitimately has the right of “self-defense”.  In their “righteous might”, they have bombed much of Northern Gaza to rubble.  They are poised at the border, ready to launch hundreds of thousands of soldiers, tanks, and artillery against Hamas.  And Hamas surrounds itself with the other Palestinians, again caught in the middle of this long-running, incredibly ugly Middle East conflict.  To Hamas, sacrificing for their cause is “sacred”, even if there isn’t a choice.  To Israel killing Hamas, root and branch, is an absolute necessity. 

Morality 

Israel demands that Palestinians leave the Northern half of Gaza, populated by more than a million, so that the battlefield is cleared.  And Hamas is demanding that they stay, as a “cloak of protection” against Israeli force of arms.  Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left their homes with what little they could carry, and headed south, compacting into what already was a highly populated area.  Israel has cut off access to Gaza, not just food and supplies, but electricity and water.  And Egypt refuses to open their border, and allow at least some Palestinians an escape from the coming Israeli onslaught.

It is a moral no-man’s-land.  Sure Israel has the right to destroy Hamas, to defend its citizens, and to seek retribution for its loss.  But this isn’t some fight on an empty battlefield, on the “hill of Meggido” (the Biblical site for the battle of Armageddon, actually in Northern Israel).  This is a battle in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.  And there is little way out for the “non-combatants”, the Palestinians who would choose not to sacrifice for Hamas.  

The Truth

So I am torn.  Israel must defend itself from Hamas.  But a nation founded as a response to attempted genocide, cannot morally commit the same against the Palestinian people.  There is no moral “high ground” that allows for the destruction of the people of Gaza.  That ground is reserved only for the destruction of Hamas.

I heard a Palestinian American the other day make a significant point.  He said that Americans believe that all people are equal – in theory.  But somehow, we act as if a Palestinian life is less valuable than an Israeli life. It’s hard to argue that point.  We: the Israelis, and their biggest supporter, the United States; need to maintain the “high moral ground”.  To do that we must find a way to save Palestinians, even as we “branch and root” out Hamas from Gaza.  

That is the truth of this matter.  It won’t be easy, but it is necessary.

The Constitution

It’s been twelve days since Kevin McCarthy was removed as leader of the House of Representatives.  The Speaker’s job is the only Constitutionally mandated leadership structure in the House (Article 1, Section 2, Part 5).  All of the other titles we talk about:  majority and minority leaders and whips and committee chairmen; are constructs of political parties.  

The authors of the Constitution were very familiar with “parties”, but they really didn’t approve.  They felt that partisanship would represent narrow interests, something in our Federal system that was more a “state government” thing.  The Congress should act in the broader interest of the Nation; political parties would get in the way.

I guess, looking at our current situation, they were right.  But political parties emerged even during the Washington Administration, and by John Adams’ Presidency there were clear party delineations.  And it’s been that way ever since.

The House cannot operate without a Speaker.  The Speaker has the ultimate authority to determine actions, even if there are ways to “get around” a Speaker who refuses to act.  The House can even overturn the Speaker’s decision.  But if there’s no Speaker to get around, no decision to overturn, then there can be no action.

Temp-Job

McCarthy knew how tenuous his hold on the Speakership was.  He had to agree to “party” rules allowing any majority party member to move to “vacate the Chair” (in the past it required five or even ten to agree).  As McCarthy was only elected by the bare minimum required to win, 216; if one member who voted for him wanted him “vacated”, then he was vacated.  And, thanks to Matt Gaetz of Florida, here we are.

So McCarthy also wrote a rule for a “Temporary Speaker”.  That allowed the House to remain in session.  And there are some Congressmen who are calling for the Temporary, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, to allow other House business to continue.  Some Democrats even offered to vote for him to become the “official/temporary” Speaker. But all of that is unprecedented, and could be unconstitutional.  So we wait.

Some call for the Democrats to join with Republicans and choose a Speaker.  After all, there are 213 Democrats, and McCarthy only lost by a couple of votes.  And there are those Democrats who expressed interest in doing so.  But “politics ain’t beanbag”.  The Democrats want some share of power if their votes will determine the Speaker.  No Republican has offered that kind of sharing, so Democrats remain solidly behind their own leader, Hakeem Jeffries.  If a few Republicans want to vote for him, this whole problem would be solved.  But that’s not happening either.

Extremes

The Republican Conference (all the Republicans in the House) first elected Steve Scalise of Louisiana, and then Jim Jordan of Ohio, as their nominee for the Speakership.  The Conference “rule” used to be that the candidate who got the majority of votes in the Conference, would then get all of the Republican votes on the House floor.  That was the “definition” of being a Republican (or Democrat) in the Congress. But that “rule” went out the window in 2022.  Now Republican Congressmen aren’t “bound” by the Conference decision.  And that’s why no Republican can get the majority 217 votes to become Speaker, at least so far.

What was wrong with Scalise?  He was a member of the Conference leadership for a decade, and represents the “establishment” in the Conference.  Essentially, he was little different from Kevin McCarthy, with all of that political baggage.  So while Scalise gained a slim majority of the Conference, many of those who voted against him refused to vote for him on the floor.  So he withdrew from the race.

Next the ultimate heretic, the Congressman who helped create the Freedom Caucus to manhandle the Republican even farther to the right, was nominated by the Conference.  Jim Jordan is as extreme-right a Congressman as there is in the Party, without the vaudeville acts of Marjorie Taylor Greene or Matt Gaetz. And he has the blessing (at least temporarily) of Donald Trump.  But even that is not likely enough; the more centrist (it’s hard to call any Republican Congressmen a moderate – that’s an extinct species in the Conference) are refusing to vote for Jordan on the floor.

He’s still “whipping” votes; making deals to try to reach 217.  But if Scalise, the master of the “whip count” couldn’t; it’s not likely the Jim Jordan, rated the 431^st (out of 435) most effective legislator in the Congress, will (Newsweek).  

Under Pressure

Meanwhile, the pressure mounts.  Americans want a House of Representatives that can do something, anything.  The crisis in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the looming budget crisis all are closing in.  Republicans realize that if they can’t get their House in order, voters will blame them in 2024.  And while Democrats are doing a masterful job of keeping this a “Republican” problem, in the end this is an American problem.  

So what happens next?  Is there no “centrist” the Republicans can turn to?  Where are the “moderate” Republicans and Democrats who came to Congress to get something done, not just keep their office?   Any 217 Congressmen can organize, choose a Speaker, and run the House of Representatives.   Will the pressure grow so intense, that there will be a power-sharing deal between Republicans and Democrats (cats and dogs, fire and water, yin and yang)?

My guess is: no.  My guess – the Republican Party will find a body, a candidate that their Conference can agree on, with maybe a few Democratic votes, and a little, really, little, amount of power-sharing.  Maybe just a “deal” on the issues at hand, Israel, Ukraine, the Southern Border, and the budget, to get us through 2024.  

The sooner, the better.

Massacre

It’s Thursday.  Last Saturday, Hamas launched a massive attack on Israel.  They broke through the wall on the border, they came through tunnels, they landed  by sea and they even used paragliders.  They attacked some military targets, but they also laid waste to civilian settlements.   Men, women and children, were massacred, and hostages were dragged back across the border to Gaza.  

One particular target was a “rave”, a concert in the desert near the border area.  Thousands of young people came to enjoy the music and the trance-like quality of dancing through the night under the stars.  Early in the morning, Hamas gunmen appeared, firing into the crowd and chasing the revelers through the desert.  Over two hundred and sixty were killed.  More were brutalized and taken as hostages.  

Over a thousand Israelis were killed on Saturday, and at least a hundred taken hostage.  Missiles were launched at major cities, airports, communal farms and other targets.  The Israeli “Iron Dome” defense system was overwhelmed, and some missiles found their targets.  US officials were caught off-guard and so was the Israeli government.  US and Israeli intelligence totally missed the lead-up to this attack.  It was 9-11, or the 1973 Yom Kippur War.   

Distinctions and Differences

This attack also put a finger in the middle of an American dilemma regarding Israel.  Traditionally, Americans of all political stripes support Israel.  But recently, the plight of the Palestinians has become more apparent.  Palestinians are caught in the middle, driven away from their traditional homes in Israel, and segregated by the surrounding Arab countries in camps around the Israeli borders.  There are radical extremists among them, terrorists.  They are supported by nations like Iran and Syria, interested in destabilizing the region.  Hamas, one of those groups, led this assault.  They sent more than a thousand of their own fighters to their deaths in suicidal attacks.

The terror is so fresh, the pictures so real, the tears of parents and friends so evocative, that it’s easy to forget distinctions.  All Palestinians are bad, or so it seems today.  Leveling Gaza, one of the most heavily populated areas in the world, seems “only fair”.  But there is a distinction between “all Palestinians” and Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Jihad.  And Americans need to remember that.

Jonathan Greenblatt is the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League here in the United States, a leading organization supporting Jewish causes.  He is clear:  call this terrorism, call this evil, call this a Terrorist “Final Solution”.  It was the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.  And he’s not wrong.  But this battle should be about terrorism and extremism, not a “final solution” to the “Palestinian problem”.   It would be easy to gloss over the difference.

Collateral Damage

We are going to hear the military term, “collateral damage” in the coming days.  We are already seeing it.  While the Israelis are notifying residents of Gaza when and where they will attack, the destruction in the densely packed cities there is immense.  The leadership of Hamas is physically intertwined with the structure of Gaza.  Their headquarters are hidden in civilian apartment buildings.  They literally hide beneath Palestinian civilians, and now, perhaps behind the hostages. Civilians are going to die to kill Hama’s leaders.  It will be easy to say that it’s a “tit for tat” response.  But that also puts Israeli and American actions perilously close to the same moral level as the terrorists. How far that goes will be an existential question for Israelis and Americans alike.

There are rumors that Iran directly supported, or even approved, this attack.  And there is no doubt that Iran supports Hamas, and even more so, Hezbollah, another terrorist group on Israel’s Northern border.  But, according to both Israel and the US, there is no direct link between Iran and this surprise attack, yet.  The Wall Street Journal disagrees.

That’s become an American political talking point.  President Biden just obtained the release of six Americans imprisoned in Iran.  Part of the negotiations included the reallocation of $6 billion in Iranian money, held frozen in banks.  The money was transferred to a bank in the United Arab Emirates, but remains under US Treasury control.  None has been allocated. The agreement will allow it to be spent on humanitarian aid to Iran, “checked off” by the US government.  But the President’s critics now say that the agreement “financed” this terrorist attack – demonstrably untrue, but said this morning on Fox News none-the-less.

Nations at War

We are still in the “shock” stage of this terrorist attack.  And Israel is still under real assault by Hamas rockets.  Israelis are still finding the dead, and identifying the hostages.  And already Israel is striking back at Gaza, hitting targets inside the narrowly compacted confines of the city.  But what comes next?

Israel is planning if it’s possible to retrieve hostages.  And they absolutely plan on total retribution against Hamas. The United States will support whatever Israel does, both financially, and with direct military involvement.  The US Navy sent the Gerald Ford Carrier Group to the Eastern Mediterranean, with seven ships, seventy aircraft, and ten thousand US personnel.   And while those armaments probably won’t be directed at Hamas, they certainly are available against nation- states like Syria or Iran should they try to get involved.  The US serves as “checkmate”.  If Iran or Syria determine to intervene, they will face the “righteous might” of the US Navy.

The war in Ukraine still goes on.  And the US House of Representatives is still paralyzed by a failed Republican leadership.   When someone finally emerges to become Speaker, they will face conflicting international needs:  Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and, of course, the US Southern Border.  

Things won’t get easier – and if Iran decides to get involved, it likely to get much tougher.

• Little babies – safe in their cribs
• Forty aligned in logical rows of a Kibbutz nursery.
• Screaming in unknowing terror as they’re butchered,
• Heads cut off in some medieval ritual – the corruption of blood.
• They didn’t deserve to die that way.

• Children, awakened in bed by hushed parents’ tones,
• Hiding in “safe rooms” as they hear unfamiliar language unwelcome at the door.
• Remaining silent, despite the terror, 
• Sensing the fear of their own mother’s whispered commands.
• The strange voices fading away, followed by the thud of  metal on the floor.
• An explosion, smoke slipping under the door. 
• The searing heat as a home is consumed by flames.
• They didn’t deserve to die that way.

• Young soldiers, obligated and proud to serve in the IDF.
• At quiet outposts along the border.
• The holidays; waiting to go home, to Seder supper.
• To family and friends. To younger brother’s Bar Mitzvah.
• To girlfriends at the café.
• Automatic fire cut off retreat, and finally, cut off their lives.
• They didn’t deserve to die that way.

• Young dancers, celebrating life in the Negev.
• Entranced by the beat and the lights; enhanced by the magic of mushrooms.
• Dancing an ancient ritual,
• Some alone, but most in circles of close friends and new strangers,
• Gaining energy from the spirit around them.
• Swaying through the night – waiting to celebrate a desert dawn.
• Quick warning came, followed by the rattle of AK-47s. 
• The panic, running; the biting burn, the massive damage of the bullets of war.
• They didn’t deserve to die that way.

• Farmers, wresting crops from land,
• That was barren brown desert only two generations ago.
• Controlling the water to make their world green instead of dry.
• Proud of work, of produce; of crops grown by the force of their hands.
• Dragged into the streets.  Murdered before their families.
• Wives and daughters raped in the monster age-old ritual of sex turned power turned torture.
• They didn’t deserve to die that way.

• Old, survivors of the wars.
• Children in ‘48.  Teens in ‘56.  Soldiers in ‘67. Leaders in ‘73.
• Retired to well-earned rest, their reward a home by the sea.
• Where nations threatened to drive them, to drown them.
• A sea that proved  to be their coast to enjoy. 
• Dragged from their beds, shoved from their wheelchairs.
• Murdered in public.
• They didn’t deserve to die that way.

• The camps and the tortures.  She survived it.
• The single event of history to justify the founding of Israel.
• The Holocaust, Hitler’s Final Solution for the Jewish people.
• She lived to see a new nation grow.
• A life that was the history of her new found homeland.
• Born in struggle, in war, in hatred.
• Survival by strength of will, against the greatest of odds.
• Only a few left, the last of that founding generation.
• She lived through the worst the world could do,
• Only to be imprisoned once more, a victim of the hate that bookended her life.
• She doesn’t deserve to end that way.

• Hamas came with medieval energy, AK’s and grenades instead of scimitar swords.
• They committed atrocities as old as warfare; of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun.
• Retribution born of decades of hate and loss.
• But butchering babies, burning children, raping women, murdering men?
• Their grievances are great, but their acts are beyond exception.
• An abrogation of their humanity.  
• What else to do but treat them accordingly?
• Because no one deserves to die that way.

Respect

Ohio’s Issue One is on the ballot.  It’s really pretty simple.  Either a woman can make her own choice about her own body, including whether to have an abortion, or she can’t.  If Issue One fails, the state of Ohio has waiting in the wings the “Heartbeat Bill”.  It specifically bans all abortions after six weeks with limited exceptions.  The state legislature (not medical science) has decided a heartbeat is detectable at six weeks. There is a rhythmic nerve impulse, but it’s not a heart.  The limited exceptions are:  death or irreversible damage to the mother or ectopic pregnancies.

I respect my friends who disagree with abortion.  Many of them have the religious belief that human life begins at conception.  They absolutely have the right to believe that, and to live their lives upholding that view.  But I don’t believe that they have a right to enforce that religious view on other citizens who don’t share it.  That is, by definition, Un-American, essentially creating a state religion.  So while there is an honest and respectable disagreement about abortion, it shouldn’t be in law. 

Twisted Facts

I also realize that many Ohioans, even some of my close friends, believe that by banning almost all abortions, they are protecting human life.  They see themselves as the modern “abolitionists”.   And I expect that those friends will vote accordingly on November 7^th, and try to defeat Issue One.  I disagree. But they have the right to their own opinion, and I respect their desire to voice that view on the ballot.

What I do not respect, is the gamesmanship, the twisting of facts, and the outright lying that is going on about what Ohio’s Issue One will do.  Let’s start with the twisted language that will appear as the “summary” of Issue One on the Ohio ballot.  Instead of putting the actual amendment wording on, the “summary” twists the proposal to something else.  

That language was written by the Republican Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, one of the leaders of the anti-abortion movement and a candidate for the US Senate.  Since when in our “fair” government, does the leader of one faction get to choose the language for the other faction?  Since now, I guess: like a lot of other things  it’s “fair”, at least here in Ohio.

What About

What I also do not respect, is the “what-about-ism”; the falsehoods , distributed by the “Vote No on Issue One” Campaign.  To read their propaganda, Issue One is a whole list of “Woke” talking points.  But the actual proposal is not.  It’s about guaranteeing a woman’s right to make a choice about what happens to their own body.  For example:

• Issue One is not about “castrations or trans-surgery for minors”
• Issue One does not redefine the word “individual” in the State Constitution.  Issue One does not “delete” Ohio’s medical and legal age restrictions.
• Issue One does not allow so-called activists to instruct minors on sexual practices (really, it doesn’t).  

What It Is

Issue One does guarantee some things:

• Issue One DOES prohibit the state of Ohio from following the craziness of Texas, where individuals are allowed to almost automatically win civil law suits of $10,000 against people who help women have abortions: boyfriends, nurses, doctors, even cab drivers.
• Issue One DOES allow the state to restrict abortions after fetal viability (the Roe v Wade standard) but  still allows later abortions when it protects the patient’s life or health.  Instead of the whim or religious belief of a politician in the legislature, that determination is at the professional judgment of a physician.
  • ( Those are the hardest abortions, when the fetus is not viable, or pregnancy will be fatal for the mother.  The nursery is already painted, a name chosen, and the shower presents all picked out.  It isn’t a choice, it’s a medical necessity).
• And of course, Issue One DOES allows women to choose an abortion up to the point of fetal viability.

And that’s what it’s all about.  

I respect the right of my friends to disagree.  We have had this disagreement for all of my life, and we’ve still managed to maintain our friendships.  But let’s allow the people of Ohio to determine their vote on the real Issue One, not, false claims.  It’s how we have had “our say” since Ohio was established on March 1^st, 1803.

Let’s not lie about it. Early voting begins tomorrow.

Lying in Wait

There are forces in the world waiting.  They wait for the moment, for the exact second, when the other side is “distracted”.  They are poised to pounce, to invade, to conquer; at the exact time when a Nation is least prepared.   

Vladimir Putin saw the United States in disarray.  Sure Trump was out of office, but his foreign policy damage continued.  The State Department, gutted by the Trump Administration, was stripped of many professionals who spent years learning their trade.  Decades of acquired knowledge was lost.  America’s European allies now questioned how committed the US was to NATO, and particularly Article Five, the guarantee of mutual aid.  And even worse, they questioned the future.  The Biden Administration might say anything, but couldn’t guarantee their promises would be honored by a future President, particularly if that was Trump.

The United States continues to be turned inward, fighting internal political battles that are all-consuming.  And, right or wrong (I believe right), the new President Joe Biden pulled US Troops from Afghanistan. It was, perhaps inevitably, ugly and chaotic.  The “Greatest fighting force the world has ever known” looked weak, disorganized, and disheveled.   The civilians clinging to the wheels of US C-17 “Globemasters” as they taxied on Bagrum Airbase, looked hauntingly familiar, like the civilians hanging from helicopter skids taking off from the US Embassy in Vietnam.  The US withdrawing in humiliation from another long, unsuccessful war.

Fever Dreams

So it should be no real surprise that Putin took the opportunity to try to fulfill his own “fever dream” of Russian hegemony.  He launched a “lightning strike” attack at Kyiv, what the foreign policy world calls a “decapitation attack”.   It failed, and the successful Ukrainian resistance bought the needed time. The Western World responded.   

The same logic applies to what happened Saturday morning.  Israel is distracted.  The Prime Minister is dodging criminal charges.  His political allies weakened the Court system. They moved power to the legislature, the Knesset, where they control.  Many, perhaps most, Israelis see this power grab as an attack on Democracy, and are in the streets protesting.  Even the vaunted Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is weakened, as veteran reservists refused to serve a government they see as moving towards autocracy.

Israel’s greatest ally, the United States, openly questioned the Prime Minister’s actions.  Just in the past couple weeks, Biden met with Netanyahu at the United Nations in New York, and asked him to retract the autocratic changes.  Many in the US Congress spoke out against the Netanyahu administration.  And so Israel looked weak, both internally and to the world. So, the force, quietly waiting, decided to strike.

Israel Surrounded

Israel is a Jewish nation.  Many Palestinians, mostly Islamic, were pushed out of Israel into three directions: East to  the occupied West Bank area, North to the Golan Heights in Lebanon, and South to the occupied Gaza region.  The West Bank and Gaza Palestinians organized as a Palestinian government, but broke into factions.  The West Bank area is controlled by the Palestinian Authority, but Gaza is controlled by the US defined terrorist group, Hamas. (While Palestinians in the north are technically in the country of Lebanon, that area is controlled by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran). 

Saturday, Hamas attacked across the border into Israel.  They broke through the “impregnable” border wall, launched thousands of missiles, and landed by sea and even by glider into Israeli territory.  Hundreds if not thousands of Hamas forces fought in the streets of Israeli villages.  Perhaps worst of all, Israeli soldiers and civilians were taken as hostages, taken back to Gaza.

The United States is moving to support the Israeli government.  All talk of Israeli democratic reforms are on hold in the face of this attack.  Even Netanyahu’s opposition in the Knesset is pledged to support him, Israel is locking down the other borders to the east and north, preparing to counter any efforts there. Rockets were launched from the Golan Heights, but only at Israeli outposts in disputed territory. 

There is no question that Israel, and the world, was caught off guard by this attack.  The vaunted Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, gave no warning.  Neither did the vast amount of electronic intelligence apparatus, much of it supplied by the United States.

Disarray

Hamas will not maintain control of the captured Israeli territories.  The IDF will likely respond with overwhelming force, doing whatever is necessary to retrieve the hostages, or their bodies. (Just announced – hundreds of civilians were killed at a music “rave” in the desert near the Gaza border).  

Israel will certainly exact revenge on Hamas.  But Saturday’s attack reveals the fallacy of Israel’s strategy of “containment”.  For seventy-five years Palestinians have been occupied and segregated.  Nothing has changed for them.  So the most extreme among them, Hamas, launched a suicidal attack, one that ultimately can only bring great damage to Gaza. It is an act of Hamas’ desperation. But it will force Israel to look even crueler, bloodier, and hateful to the rest of the world.  And they will achieve Hama’s goals:  to bring suffering and uncertainty to Israelis, and display the plight of Palestinians to the world.

It is another symptom of a world in disarray.

What Will we Fall For (Hamilton)

I write a lot, (about 1600 essays since 2017, maybe a million and a half words), and I read a lot too.  And recently I’ve read “messages” from Europe.  While there is occasional resentment of America (even that term: that “we” are Americans, while Canada, on the same continent, are Canadians), there is also admiration.  The United States took on the challenge of world peace for more than half a century.  Sure that often made Americans arrogant, the bull in the China shop, but in the end, the United States was “on the line” for the Western World.  

And that continued across party lines; from Truman to Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon.  Regardless of Democrat or Republican, US commitment was clear.  Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, America transitioned to the new world threat, radical extremism.  It took a fierce shot to the American head, 9-11, to make it clear that there was no defense like a good offense in that battle.  And to my liberal friends, that doesn’t justify the “stupid” wars, like Vietnam and Iraq, nor the loss of rights in the “Patriot Act”.   That was American arrogance, not protection.

So Europe could depend on two things:  protection and arrogance.  It was a reasonable trade-off.  Until the rise of Donald Trump.  Now, many Europeans are worried about America.

America First

To be clear, Donald Trump is an opportunist, not a creator.  He is not the originator of the “MAGA” philosophy, echoing the discredited 1930’s “America First” isolationist movement.  No one can conclude that isolationism, a concept that didn’t work in the relatively simple time of the mid-twentieth century, will work in our current intertwined world.  The computer I’m typing on now was made in China, and the car I drive manufactured in Toledo, Ohio, with parts shipped in from Korea, Mexico, and Canada.  We can phone India, video Russia, or even chat with Nepal, at the touch of a keyboard.  The entire world is literally in our pocket.  Isolationism today makes as much sense as pretending the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.  It does.

The Trump Presidency shook the world’s confidence in American commitment.  And much of the world gave a great sigh of relief when Joe Biden gained the Presidency.  It wasn’t that Biden is some “dynamic” leader.  To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s memorably comment to Dan Quayle:  “Biden is no Jack Kennedy”.  But Biden represents a calm return to America’s role in the world since 1941.  Even his age is appropriate:  Biden understands what the United States is supposed to do, because he literally lived it. 

So a United States still in disarray, three years after Biden defeated Trump, rattles the rest of the Western World to the core.   The fall of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker is, “…all in all, it’s just another piece of the wall” (wow, I’m down to Pink Floyd lyrics!!).   Europeans looking for evidence of the “fall” of the “Pax Americana”, need look no farther.

Righteous Might

Except I really don’t believe that.  This is not the end of the “American Century”.   This is a part of a regular cycle in American life; one that we’ve seen throughout our recent history.   Teddy Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson all contributed to making the US a world power.  Then after World War I, the Nation pulled back from world involvement, first in the twenties, then even more during the Great Depression.  But Franklin Roosevelt led America to fight against Fascism with, as he said, our “Righteous Might”.  

And soon after that victory at war, America “retrenchment” became evident in the McCarthy era.  That’s our “dark secret”: teachers were muzzled, language altered. The baseball Cincinnati Reds became the “Red-Legs” for a decade; they couldn’t be just “Reds”, that was Communist!  We even changed the “Pledge of Allegiance”, adding the “…under God” part, to differentiate from atheistic Communists (1954).  McCarthyism is echoed in today’s world; ask your local history teacher whether they have “open discussions” about current events anymore.  If they’re honest, you’ll hear it’s too “dangerous”, not just for classroom order, but to keep their job.

Ultimately McCarthyism fell through its own weight in dishonesty.   By the 1960’s America was “back” again.  But we had crises of conscience in Vietnam, corruption during Watergate, and  confidence during the Iran hostage era.  And we needed military “successes” to reassure  ourselves we weren’t failures.  The “grand” invasions of Granada (1983) and Panama (1989) “proved” that we were “back again”.  We put a final stamp on our victories as we  watched General  Schwarzkopf  lead American troops to mop-up Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War.

New Seeds, New Struggles

And with that invasion, we inadvertently planted the seeds for the next generation’s struggle.  Radical extremists attacks were already a part of America’s experience, 241 Americans killed in the barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983.  But it became more evident with the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, where retribution was hampered by the moral/political crisis of Bill Clinton’s behavior.   And then it was onto George Bush, and 9-11, and the “…whole world hearing” what America’s might could do.

Our “righteous might” led us into Afghanistan, and our political hubris led us into Iraq again.  Perhaps it was the revulsion at what those wars did to us, and more importantly did to our children, that set America up for the “MAGA” agenda we face now. 

So what’s next?  America will find its way out of our current complexity.  It’s already happening:  we are holding responsible those who tried to subvert our democratic traditions.  They aren’t going “quietly”, but they are going.  The process even demonstrates a positive of the American system; what the Federal Courts can’t get, the State Courts are. And the same is true in the US Congress.  It’s not “pretty”, and it’s not efficient.  But it is a part of a “cycle”: as American as the Pledge of Allegiance or baseball.   We’ll be back.

Self-Immolation

The Republicans of the United States House of Representatives set themselves on fire yesterday.  With no one to blame but themselves, they fired Kevin McCarthy as the Speaker.  They don’t have a replacement, but the remains of the McCarthy caucus took the temporary chair, led by little Patrick McHenry in his bowtie.  His first actions:  lash out at Democratic leadership, particularly Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, by throwing them out of their “privileged” hide-away offices.  

They can’t get it together enough to control their own caucus, something Pelosi deftly did with similar fractions two years ago.  And they couldn’t convince four of their own eight “rebels” to rejoin the fold.  But that’s the Democrats’ fault, of course.  Democrats did what every “good” neighbor does when they hear the couple next door screaming at each other.  They stayed out of it, hoping not to hear something that would require dialing 9-11.   Sure it’s embarrassing, but if you make the call, then the whole world gets involved, and the couple say “nothing happened”. 

And just like the fighting couple on the day after; the Republicans are uniting in blaming Democrats for their own self-destruction.   Funny, the rebellious Gaetz faction blamed McCarthy working with Democrats as the reason for firing him, then the McCarthy faction blamed Democrats for not saving McCarthy’s… well, him.   And McCarthy himself felt perfectly comfortable blaming Democrats for all of the drama of the near shutdown, even though they stepped into save the country from closure.  

See what happens when you call the police?  So, what’s the next move?

We Didn’t Start the Fire

It depends how long the Republicans let the fire go.  The obvious “candidates” for Speaker: Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, Tom Cole, Elise Stefanik; are never going to agree to the deal that McCarthy made.  Why would they take the job if any Matt Gaetz (don’t worry, he’ll get what’s coming soon) can call for removal.   To accept those “hostage” terms means to, like McCarthy, be a Speaker in name only.  That was good enough for Kevin; a lifetime of Mr. Speaker, but not for anyone else (except maybe Newt Gingrich). 

There may not be a “real” Speaker of the House for a while.  And meanwhile, the nation faces two time bombs.  The first is obvious:  the deal that brought down McCarthy expires the week before Thanksgiving.  It takes three:  the House, the Senate, and the President, to get the budget deal done.  If there remains no leadership in the House, then the Nation is heading to a cliff of closure, right before we carve up the turkey.

And, more importantly, the United States is committed to support Ukraine.  Literally the whole world is “watching” and asking:  will the United States keep its commitment, or will we return to the Trump era of withdrawing from world affairs, by crying “America First”.  Support for Ukraine takes all three political bodies as well.

Learn to Deal

If any potential Republican leader wants to become Speaker without the Gaetz caucus, then their only choice is to make a deal with the Democrats.  That makes Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies a potential king (or queen) maker.  It takes only five Democrats to neuter the crazies, if only a Republican leader would make a deal with the Dems.

And what would that deal be?  Aid for Ukraine, perhaps with increased Southern Border spending as well.  A budget resolution through the November 2024 elections, perhaps with a freeze on increases, but without the Republican fever dream of slashing social programs. 

So the future Speaker of the House has a decision to make.  He, or she, can give the power to their own party’s “crazies”.  Or they can give-in to some of the Democrats’ needs.  If politics is the “art of compromise”; we need an artist to step forward and lead the Republicans in Congress.  

Perhaps Nancy Pelosi would give them some lessons.  They’ll need to take a walk; they kicked her out of her office in the Capitol.  You can find her in her main office, 1236 Longworth House Office Building (I worked in that building back forty-six years ago).  It’s just across Independence Avenue. There’s even a subway you can take from the Capitol basement; get on-board.

Robert’s Rules

I do not claim to be an “expert” in the rules of the House of Representatives.  But I once was a self-taught student of Robert’s Rules of Order, the famous procedural rules for almost every form of legislative or governing body.  I learned from the well-worn 1915 edition I acquired from my Uncle Lee as a teenager. 

The US House of Representatives does not use the actual Robert’s Rules.  But both the House Rules and Robert’s Rules have a common ancestor – Thomas Jefferson’s Rules for the conduct of the United States Senate, written while he was Vice President of the United States (and therefore President of the Senate) in the last years’ of the 18^th century.  Jefferson was bored with the job, and compiled the rules for “something to do”.

Knowing Robert’s Rules gave me an advantage as a student legislator at Denison University, where I was quickly made Parliamentarian of the Student Senate.  And it does give me an advantage in “committee”, where I still remember the sequences needed to “pass” a proposed action.

The Original Deal

If you’re still awake after all of that; it’s time to go into the “weeds” of legislative procedure, and the current “motion to vacate the chair”.

Here’s the situation.  Congressman Matt Gaetz, Republican of Pensacola, Florida, led a critical block of votes in the election of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives.  To get elected Speaker requires a simple majority of the House, 218 votes.  The Republicans have a 221 vote majority.  So the math is that if five Republicans decide not to follow the “party line”, there isn’t a Republican majority at all.  Democrats have 213 votes (one seat is vacant), so if five “break-away” Republicans joined with all the Democrats, then that coalition would  become the majority.

Gaetz and four other Republicans extracted a whole contract full of promises from McCarthy as he was trying to become Speaker.  It took fifteen rounds, fifteen full votes over three days of the House of Representatives, with Democrat Hakeem Jeffries getting 213 every time, for McCarthy to finally broker a deal and gain a majority and the Speaker’s chair.

The Debt Deal

But the rookie Speaker was soon faced with the debt limit bill (link to an essay on all of that).  Congress intentionally places a “block” on itself, limiting the amount of debt that the United States can acquire.  When the government reaches that block, the House and Senate are required to raise the limit, otherwise the government must stop spending money (and therefore shut down).  Now keep in mind, all of the money the US government spends is voted on by the House and Senate in the first place.  So they spend the money that creates the debt.  To make it simpler, it’s like establishing your own credit limit on a credit card.  You can either not spend more than the limit, or you can raise the limit to meet the amount you’ve spent.  

So if Congress didn’t spend the money, the debt limit wouldn’t be a problem.  But, of course, then Congress wouldn’t be Congress either.  So they spent much more than the debt limit, and had to vote to raise the limit to pay the bills.  Otherwise the US would default on its obligations.

McCarthy negotiated with House Minority Leader Jefferies, Senate leaders McConnell and Schumer, and President Biden to reach a deal on the debt limit.  The deal applied to both the immediate debt crisis, and the budget authorization which Congress would face three months later.  And that deal passed with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats.

Renege on the Deal

But the debt limit vote violated McCarthy’s agreement with Gaetz and his comrades.  So three months later when the budget resolution came up, they went in for the “kill”.  They refused to be part of a conservative Republican majority who wanted to pass a limited resolution to fund the budget for forty-five days.  That resolution included steep cuts to social services, increased border funding, and no money for Ukraine.  It was a victory for conservative Republicans, and  it totally reneged on the deal McCarthy cut with the Democratic leaders on the debt deal.  It would never pass the Democratic controlled Senate, nor would the President sign it.

But the Gaetz crew wanted even more.  They wanted the House to vote on all twelve spending bills, a process that would take weeks.  The US Government would have to shut down, as there would be no authorization to spend money.  So the Gaetz faction wanted to hold the US Government hostage for a better deal.  And they wanted to hold McCarthy hostage for breaking his agreement with them.

Deal with the Devil

McCarthy then did the “unthinkable”.  He put a new resolution on the floor, that simply continued current spending for another forty-five days.  There were no cuts to social services, and no border funding.  The only thing missing was money for Ukraine.  But it won the support of 209 Democrats along with 90 some Republicans.  McCarthy kept the government open, at least for forty-five days, and used the strong Democratic minority to get his resolution through, even though it required a two-thirds majority of the House.

McCarthy kept the government open, and he circumvented his own rebellious “Gaetz’s Faction”.  And now Matt is ready to get his revenge.  It’s called a “motion to vacate the chair”.  As part of Gaetz’s original deal making McCarthy Speaker, a rule was written giving any member of the majority Party the “right” to make a “motion to vacate the chair”.   So over the past three days, Gaetz promised to make that motion, and, by simple majority vote, remove McCarthy from the Speakership. Last night, he pulled the trigger.

What Deal Now

But where will young Matt get his majority?  McCarthy his solid control of most of his Republicans, at least two hundred.  They aren’t voting him out.  For Gaetz to succeed, he’d have to have at least his five, then ALL of the Democrats to agree to remove McCarthy. 

What can Gaetz offer the Democrats to help him overthrow the Speaker for the first time in US history?  Well; McCarthy did break his agreement with Democrats made during the debt ceiling debate.  Gaetz can offer Democrats more Republican chaos. Democrats can use that in the 2024 election.  And if Dems do take up Gaetz’s offer, who would then become Speaker?

Not Hakeem Jefferies, the leading Democrat.  Gaetz’s faction might vote with Dems to remove McCarthy, but they wouldn’t vote to give them control.  So we would revisit last January, when the House spent days trying to determine the Speaker, and no one Republican seemed able to unite their Party.  

The Deal on Vacating

Here’s the Parliamentary process:

• Gaetz’s notifies the “chair” that he is filing a motion to vacate
• The motion is “privileged” – it must be brought to the floor for a vote in two days
• The motion can be amended by sending it to committee, or “tabled” (put away) but only by majority vote
• If it gets a vote, 218 must agree to “vacate the Chair”
• At that point, there is no Speaker of the House.  The only business the House can conduct is the election of a new Speaker, no matter how long that takes
• There also is no one second in line to succeed as President.  If the President and Vice President were out of office, the next in line would be Patty Murray, the Democratic Senator from Washington state and the elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

Thanksgiving Deal

Will Democrats somehow save McCarthy?  What political “deal” can they extract, and can they trust whatever they get?  Will Republicans carry out a threat to expel Gaetz?  That takes two-thirds vote of the whole House.  Even if every Republican but Gaetz votes to expel, it would require seventy Democrats to join in.   Republican’s have an ethics committee investigating his behavior, perhaps that long awaited report will be enough remove him (sex with a minor, among other things). That’s regardless of other Republicans like George Santos (under Federal indictment) or Lauren Boebert (hanky-panky in the theater in front of kids), or Marjorie Taylor Greene (general principles), all keeping their seats.

And, most importantly:  come November 16^th, the week before Thanksgiving, will we be right back at the beginning again?   The sign, “Closed for Thanksgiving”, might have whole new meaning. 

Ah-Hah!!!  I’ve found another term to hang around the neck of some candidate, along with “bleeding heart liberal” (neutered to “Progressive”) or demagogue (trimmed to “Populist”).  It sums up an entire load of loathing held deep down for decades.  You don’t have to describe what a candidate stands for or believes.  You just have to use one word to paint them as unacceptable to the “masses”:  just call them “woke”!!!

School Desegregation

It all started with the second phase of educational desegregation in the 1970’s.  Phase one was in the late 1950’s and early 60’s. It required school districts to integrate, allowing black students to attend “white” schools, and white students to attend “black” schools.  That was the product of the two Brown v Topeka Board of Education cases, and most Americans, once they got past inherent racism, realized it made sense.  The black kid who lived down the street from a public school, shouldn’t have to walk past that school to attend another one far away, simply because of the color of their skin.

But it soon became clear that the “neighborhood school”, so deeply in-bred into an American culture like a Norman Rockwell’s painting;  was synonymous with racially segregated schools.   Letting black students into Little Rock Central High School; outlawing “white” schools and “black” schools, didn’t change the racial makeup of most public schools. If the attendance area was almost all one race of the other, then the school remained segregated.  The result was that Brown wasn’t altering most American education.  And so a new term entered the American racial lexicon:  bussing.

White Flight

In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, students were bussed across school districts to reach some racial balance.  The goal was to have black and white students going to schools together; bussing was the only way to desegregate our educational systems.  But the division it created was huge:  taking away “the school” that generations of locals attended, forcing them to “the other” side of town, and making them go to school with “them”.  It really made folks angry.

The next “move” was called “white flight”.  If you didn’t want your kid in an integrated school across town, then move out of town, out of the district, out of the county.  There were rural schools, technically desegregated but practically “all white”, just across the county line. If you were willing to move out in the country and commute into town, your kid could go to a neighborhood school, usually of all one race.  And that’s what many did, here in Columbus, and in most large cities in the nation.  

Or there were private schools, where practical segregation was still “available”.  If only the government could help pay for that private, segregated education.  That’s when the movement for public funding of private schools began.  We have a special term “educational” term for that – vouchers.

Awake or Aggrieved

Folks who wanted truly desegregated schools, not just on paper but in fact, were “awake” to the realities of America.  They saw past the law, Brown v Board of Education, and saw that the “neighborhood Black school” was still getting less.  “Equality” was more than just equality in law, it had to be equality in opportunity, in access, and in facilities.  That wasn’t going to happen until everyone of every race had the same amount of “skin in the game”.  Folks who understood that were “awake” to reality – they were “woke”.

Many white parents were “aggrieved”.   When desegregation extended to higher education, and then into the work place, they became even more “aggrieved”.  And so a new political polarity developed:  “white grievance” versus “woke”.   And in the past couple of decades, when equal opportunities were extended to women and to LGBTQ persons, the “grievance versus woke” divide became a even more potent political force.  Grievance came to represent the lost “advantages” of White men over women and minorities.  “Grievance” drove the Tea Party movement (especially when the first  black President was elected).  And tapping into “grievance” was Donald Trump’s “superpower”.  With all his immense failings, it still is.

Shorthand

So when DeSantis or other Republicans use the shorthand term “woke”, they are simply trying to tap the power of grievance that many white, and particularly white male Americans still feel.  They won’t define what they really mean by “woke”.  After all, who wants to say that they are losing their advantages because of race, or gender.  That sounds like whining, like white men can’t compete on a level field, and need “help” to make it.  And no one wants to admit that.  

So they harbor their yearning for the “good old days”; when minorities, women, LGBTQ folks, weren’t allowed to compete.  They hold close to their grievance, their “hurt”, their lost “rights”.  And for those whose eyes are wide open, and see what’s fair, what fits into the American story of greater equality and inclusion:  why those folks are just “woke”.

Last night, Congress passed a “continuing resolution” to fund the government for the next forty-five days. It took the Democrats in both the House and the Senate to get it done. Absent from the resolution is increased funding to Ukraine. Democrats on both sides of the Congress believe they have a deal for that – but Speaker McCarthy seems unable to keep “handshake” deals, and besides, he might not be the Speaker for much longer. More to come…but last week the “charges” against Joe Biden were “obviously” more important to the House Republicans than keeping the government open.

What’s App

I didn’t spend a whole lot of time watching the “Impeachment Inquiry” in the House of Representatives Thursday, but I did catch the summaries.  There were expert “lawyers” brought in by the Republicans, most prominent among them Georgetown Professor Jonathan Turley.  He (and the others) made it clear that there is no evidence showing that President Biden committed a “high crime or misdemeanor” and should be impeached.   Surely impeachment must require at least some evidence:  none is none.

So what are the Republican Congressmen so fired up about?  There are a series of text (or What’s App – I thought those disappeared when sent) messages where Hunter Biden, the cocaine-fueled son of the President, seemed to offer influence by “the big guy” or “my uncle’s brother” to potential buyers.  Hunter seems to be trying to sell the influence of his father; first the Vice President, or later the former Vice President, or candidate for President.  

Hunter Biden clearly tried to cash in on his last name.  He wanted to ride the coattails of his powerful father.  There’s not really a question about that.  Hunter needed cash, and he had the connections to get it.  It’s unseemly, it’s un-American, and it’s possibly illegal.  That means that Hunter, already indicted for falsification on a gun purchase permit and an admitted tax evader, might be in further legal trouble.  

Cashing In

But all of that begs the question:  is Joe Biden, former Senator from Delaware, former Vice President of the United States, and the current President of the United States; involved?  The Republican Congressmen on the House Oversight Committee pointed to Hunter’s messages as some kind of “proof” that the President was participating through his son in selling influence.  At worst, maybe the President himself took bribes.  Why would Hunter obliquely mention his father in the messages if it wasn’t so?

Well, Hunter might do that so he could cash in.  Let’s look at some other similar activities in recent history.  In 2017, Michael Cohen, the former attorney for Donald Trump, was literally “selling” his access to the new President on the open market.  Rudy Giuliani did much the same thing.  And the Trump businesses were booming – particularly the Old Post Office Hotel in Washington, DC.  Nations looking to gain some influence with the Trump family spent millions of dollars on rooms and amenities, on golf courses and dinners.  They were trying to “purchase” an “in”.  

And Jared Kushner gained millions in investments from Arab royalty, while serving as a senior advisor to President Trump.  As he negotiated the “Abrahamic Accord” at the end of the administration, he was also making sure his loans on New York City properties were covered, by some of the same governments he was dealing with for Middle-East peace. 

It’s all ugly.  But it’s also, mostly, legal (Kushner may well have crossed some lines).  But Jared, or Don Junior, or Michael, or even Rudy trying to “peddle” influence, doesn’t constitute a crime by the twice impeached, four times indicted, former President of the United States.  If it’s a crime, it’s a crime for those others.  And every Republican on the Oversight Committee would “fight to the death” to keep Mr. Trump clear.

Trust an Addict?

Hunter was  addicted to cocaine.  He was so screwed up, he gave his laptop, likely with self-incriminating information and certainly near-pornographic selfies(that Marjorie Taylor Greene gleefully showed the Nation); to a blind computer repairman who wore a tam-o-shanter (you can’t make that up).   Hunter was hard up for cash – a cocaine habit will do that to you.  He was also an experienced lawyer, with a Georgetown undergrad and a Yale Law School degree.  And he had a famous and saleable last name.  

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that he used that name to get cash.  People on drugs steal things from their families all the time.  One of the “clues” of a kid’s drug use, is all of a sudden money and valuables come up missing.  Is it the parents’ fault that their child steals money out of a wallet and buys drugs?  Of course not.  The toughest part for parents of kids with drug problems, is their absolute loss of trust.

Hunter had something to steal, the appearance that he could get his powerful father to do something.  He certainly wasn’t going to send “What’s App” messages saying he might be able to influence his father.  That’s not saleable.  What was a “real product” for him to sell was the absolute assurance that his father was “on board”.  

$200 stolen from Dad’s wallet is not evidence that Dad was paying for drugs.  The messages that Hunter sent is not evidence that Joe Biden was selling influence.  It is evidence that Hunter was trying to.

And that’s a very different thing.

World War II

The battle in Ukraine goes on. But it’s not the trench warfare we’ve heard about that’s so reminiscent of World War I.  It’s more like World War II, with battle lines separated by fields of anti-personnel mines (Foreign Policy).  For the Ukrainian forces to advance against the Russians, they need to first to clear the terrain of millions of mines.  Ukrainian forces are doing so carefully, preserving the lives of their sappers.  They even have “underwater” sappers, clearing the streams where their forces may need to cross and fight.  

All of the mobility created by NATO tanks and armored personnel carriers can’t begin until those mines are cleared.  Even though a M-1 Abrams tank is unharmed by anti-personnel mines, the infantry following behind would still be at risk.  Even an anti-tank mine usually doesn’t destroy that vehicle, though it often disables it for a time as the tracks are broken.  But the scope and scale of mining operations is amazing:  over 67,000 square miles of Ukraine is the battlefield (Washington Post) and mined, with at least thirteen types of anti-personnel mines and at least thirteen more types of anti-vehicle mines (Human Rights Watch).

Butcher’s Bill

So for those decrying the “failure” of the Ukrainian summer offensive, a couple of things to consider.  It’s not over.  The Ukrainian Army has carefully removing the mines, before they sent their precious soldiers across to face the Russian forces.  That sounds like a prudent strategy, especially for a Nation with limited personnel resources, and already high casualties. Russian casualties are near 300,000; including 120,000 killed and 180,000 wounded.  Ukraine has far fewer, with 70,000 killed and 120,000 wounded.  But Ukraine has far fewer people to fill their battalions (New York Times). 

In the past three months, Ukrainian forces have made small gains, particularly along the southeastern front. It’s taken that long to create a “salient”, a bulge into the Russian line around the village of Robotyne (now destroyed), that Ukrainian forces hope to exploit.  Their goal is to “breakout” of the salient, and drive to the coast of the Sea of Azov.  That would cut the Russian forces in two, with those in the Crimea and Kherson regions split off from direct supply from Russia in the north and east (NYT).  

Winter Comes Early

It hasn’t happened yet.  It’s taking time and the clock is ticking.  Winter comes early and hard in Ukraine, where the “southern coast” is the same latitude as Bismarck, North Dakota.   And it doesn’t help that there are delays in the mobile armor Ukraine needs from Poland, and the United States.  Of the 190 US Bradley Fighting Vehicles promised, more than half are already on the battlefield  (Washington Post).  But it takes supply to “feed” a breakout.

Historically, the best analogy might be the months after the Normandy Invasion, D-Day, in World War II.  After successfully getting off the beaches on June 6^th, 1944, Allied forces took nearly three months to breakout of  “hedge row” country, and complete the conquest of Normandy.  They then raced to the German border, arriving in November.

Stalemate not Settlement

The goal is similar for the Ukrainian offensive today:  breakout and race to the coast.  It hasn’t happened yet – but it’s still possible.

For those in America who say it’s time for a “settlement”, to end the battle – they are premature.  And for those who decry “it’s time to save lives”; it’s not their lives to save.  Ukraine has an opportunity for victory.  Victory means an end to a struggle against Russia that’s lasted nine years – since Russia stole the eastern and southern provinces in 2014.  “Settlement” means stalemate, with Russia troops still in parts of Ukraine, and a battle and war simmering for more years and even decades.

It’s not just about Ukrainian military success.  It’s about ending the conflict with a resolution, rather than a compromise.  Should the current Ukrainian offensive succeed, then Russian forces will be in an untenable position.  They will be forced to withdraw.  And should the offensive stop, then Russia will be always poised to reignite the conflict, whenever the whim strikes Putin to re-establish the Soviet Union.

Who He Is

Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time”.  Vladimir Putin has shown us who he is:  a ruthless killer, willing to kidnap a whole generation of Ukrainian children to turn them into Russian soldiers; willing to face the economic wrath of the world so he can rebuild the Soviet Empire.  

Or to misquote George W Bush:  we can look into Putin’s eyes and see his soul.  And his soul is the soul of Stalin.  If Ukraine is captured, why would he stop?  Poland is next, along with the Baltic Nations; all NATO members, all requiring direct US military intervention.

Ukraine is paying the price for the whole Western World right now, the price of resistance to Putin’s aggression.  The least we can do is help foot the bill, even when it gets tough, and even when it gets expensive.  Our treasure in exchange for their blood.  It’s better than the alternative.

Ukraine Crisis

• Battle for Ukraine – 9/29/23
• Putin’s Disaster – 7/11/23
• How Good Are They – 4/10/23
• Marking Territory – 3/15/23
• Ukraine and America – 2/28/23
• Kherson – 11/14/22
• When Winter Calls – 9/12/22
• A Full Plate – 7/26/22
• Ukrainian Independence – 6/30/22
• No Victory Day – 5/10/22
• Desperate Moves – 4/27/22
• This is the Time – 4/20/22
• The Winning Message – 4/18/22
• Victory Day – 4/12/22
• Chapter Two – 4/11/22
• Zelenskyy’s Choice – 3/31/22
• The Gaffe – 3/28/22
• Putin’s Choice – 3/27/22
• Far Away From the Front – 3/20/22
• The Next Step – 3/17/22
• Thinking the Unthinkable – 3/14/22
• Russian Oil – 3/11/22
• Kyiv’s Choice – 3/8/22
• The Logic of Madness – 3/7/22
• Lights Out – 3/6/22
• Ante Up – 3/3/22
• State of the Union  3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin  2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19

Reality

Here’s my reality:  President Joe Biden is old.  He’ll be even older when he takes office on January 20^th, 2025, eighty-two.  And from my perch here at sixty-seven, that’s definitely old.  Is the Presidency a “younger man’s job”?  Sure it is.  We saw the energy and vitality President Obama brought to the office.  Historically we look at Teddy Roosevelt and John Kennedy as men whose youth changed their times, energized the Nation, and set us on a new course.  

In 2020, I was a Pete Buttigieg fan, before I voted for Biden.  In 2028 (I’ll be seventy-two), I look forward to deciding among Pete, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Kamala Harris and perhaps others not yet on the scene.  The future of the Democratic Party is bright.   But it’s not time to “call the future”; it’s not time to move on from Joseph R Biden.

Rise to the Challenge

Before the 45^th President, I was a “true believer” in the ability of the Presidency to “make the person”.  My example was George W Bush, a “light-weight” candidate, who entered the Presidency under the thumb of his Vice President, Dick Cheney.  But Bush rose to the moment of 9-11, and ultimately reclaimed his Presidency from Cheney and Rumsfeld.  There were plenty of mistakes, and plenty of decisions I disagreed with, but Bush became “Presidential”.  The office made the man, he rose to the challenge.

It was my hope that somehow Donald Trump would find that grace in office as well.  But he proved to be the exception.  At each interval of crisis, Trump chose the wrong path.  After Charlottesville, it was “…good people on both sides”. On the border, he sanctioned ripping children out of the arms of parents. And worst of all, during the pandemic,  he chose political expediency over leadership. It was clear that this deeply flawed man was not changed by the responsibilities of our highest office.  

Call the Future

And if the twice impeached, four-time indicted, charged with 93 separate crimes, ex-President was not running for office again, then I too might call “the future” now.  But just as American history has called on men to “rise to office”, it has also called Joe Biden to stand for the common man.  Biden is the literal polar opposite of Trump.  He is modest where Trump is brash, he is calm where Trump is bombastic, he is seasoned where Trump has failed the tests.  Sure Biden is old, and so is Trump.  But, as Biden himself would say, don’t compare him to the “Almighty”, compare him to his opponent.  

History called Biden out of retirement, like an old warhorse pulled out of the pasture.  It was, and is, his job to counter-balance Trump in a way no other politician can.  “Average Joe” versus “Golden Escalator Trump” is the story of our era.  And since Trump refuses to go away, Biden is the last, best chance to defeat him, again.

Republican Choice

Need proof?  Even Republicans are figuring it out.  DeSantis, the “golden boy” can’t touch Trump.  He can’t “out-Trump” him, and he can’t “out-youth” him, and he can’t “out-fundraise” him.  And don’t even start on Vivek Ramaswamy, as Chris Christie says, a candidate that sounds like “Chat GPT”.  He made some press, but barely scores double digits in Republican polling. 

Republicans are deciding to make the 2024 election another existential threat to American democracy.  They are choosing their “charismatic” (hard to imagine) autocrat, who threatens our Constitutional freedoms on multiple levels, as their candidate.  And America has determined the counter to Trump:  Biden.  So it’s two old men in 2024.  For John Wayne fans, it’s “Rooster Cogburn or The Cowboys or The Shootist”.  It’s Biden’s final act of a political career that started sixty years ago.  

Existential Threat

To me, 2024 isn’t about conservative or progressive.  It’s not about the economic issues; whether rich people should get a tax break to “trickle down” their wealth to us masses, or the US should ignore climate change. This election is about a man who believes the Presidency should be unchecked by the rest of the government. It is about the essential definition of democracy:  should “the people” decide what the laws are, or should a select few make the decisions for all.  2024, like 2020, may determine not just which political party controls the White House, but the literal fate of the Constitutional experiment of American democracy.  

To be truthful, Biden is too moderate for me.  There are other Democrats (not Bernie) who more closely represent my political views.  But time has chosen Biden, old as he is, to stand for American values at a time when they are most threatened, more than at any other time in our history.   And that’s really all that matters. 

I stand with Biden, again.

This is NOT a Sunday Story – even if it starts like one. There’s plenty of politics here!!!

Bengals Fan

I was born and spent most of my childhood in Cincinnati.  Like it or not, I became a Bengals (football) fan in 1968, the first year they played in the AFL.  They shared Nippert Stadium with the University of Cincinnati for that first year, with Greg Cook, a UC alum, as the quarterback.

Being a Bengals fan I’ve learned when to care, and when to let go.  There have been some great years:  a couple in the ‘80’s, one in the late 90’s, and then this past couple of years.  And there have been some awful years, when the Bengals “freed” me from concern, usually by the third game or so.  I got my Sundays “off” in those several, many, seasons.

Many of my relatives are Cleveland Browns fans, and we have a good natured rivalry.  Oddly, good year or bad, the Browns often beat the Bengals, giving my nephews bragging rights.  However, the rest of the Browns’ seasons have been pretty sad. I give the nephews the sympathy they deserve most of the time.  

Selling Souls

Both Cleveland and Cincinnati have “sold their souls” for quarterbacks in the past year.  Cleveland picked Deshawn Watson off the list of suspended NFL players (sexual impropriety to therapists), paying $350 million over ten years for his presence in the backfield (and hopefully not on the massage table).  Cincinnati paid even more, close to three-quarters of a Billion dollars, for Joe Burrow, an Athens, Ohio boy who made very, very, good.  

So why are we talking about football on this NFL Sunday morning?  Because how the Browns and the Bengals handle their two quarterbacks should be instructive to Kevin McCarthy, the beleaguered Speaker of the House of Representatives.

DeShawn, the $350 million man, is known for his “jailbreak” (hah!) form of play.  He starts in the pocket, then runs wide and far, improvising plays with his receivers.  He’s also a running threat himself, the “eleventh man” the defense can’t cover.  It’s that “loose” form of play that makes DeShawn great.

Burrow also can run, but is best known for his precision passes from the pocket.  Give Joe an inch, and he can thread the football to whichever receiver gets single coverage.  He can see the “whole field” in a split-second, so quickly that defenses can’t react to his throws.  And if he can’t find an open receiver, Burrow himself can scramble to make up the difference.  Unlike Watson though, Burrow is a technician in the backfield, rather than a loose cannon.  

Square Peg

The Bengals coaching staff does everything they can to capitalize on Burrow’s abilities.  They have rebuilt the offensive line, twice, to get him the time needed to read defenses.  And, when Burrow has a deficit, like he does now with a damaged calf muscle, they try not to put him in a position to have to run.

The Browns coaches, much to the dismay of many fanatical Browns fans (including a nephew or two), are trying to make DeShawn into a “pocket passer”, like Burrow.   DeShawn was an improvisor in college at Auburn, and with the Houston Texans.  Presumably he was in high school as well.  So while the Browns literally “bought” a scrambler, a runner, a “draw the play in the sand” quarterback; it’s clear that the coaches want him in the pocket, carefully dissecting defenses, and throwing precision passes.  They want Watson to be like Burrow.  But he’s not.  And the Browns are struggling because of it. (By the way, the Bengals are struggling too.  Burrow is playing hurt, and the calf injury is impacting his ability to throw long precision passes – his biggest asset).

Sold Out

Which brings us to Kevin McCarthy.  Like the Browns and Bengals, McCarthy paid a huge price to gain the Speakership.  The Republican majority is so narrow, literally five Republicans can defeat any motion on the floor.  Extremists in the Republican caucus demanded concessions from McCarthy, so many that it took fifteen ballots for him to even secure the position.  Like the Browns (and the Bengals), McCarthy has “sold out”.   He owes and keeps his Speakership at the “will” of any five Republicans.  And five that are united together hold his fate in their collective hands.

McCarthy wanted to be Speaker.  It was a lifelong quest.  He wanted the title so much, that he gave away most of the power of the Speakership in order to get the title (an earlier essay on that situation:  Better to Reign).  The laundry list of “promises” (Matt Gaetz’s secret list) was long.  The extremists demanded:

• Control negotiations on the government debt
• Control negotiations on the government budget
• Impeachment hearings (inquiries) of President Biden
• Hunter Biden hearings
• Force the entire Congress to vote on the critical policies of the MAGA Agenda like the border policy, the “woke” Defense Department, and defunding the FBI and the “weaponized” Justice Department.

McCarthy is the “quarterback” of the House of Representatives.  But unlike DeShawn Watson; McCarthy isn’t “forced” to play “out of position”.  He did it to himself.  McCarthy can’t blame someone else for his predicament, and he is now faced with shutting down the Government at the end of the month.  

He can’t even call his own plays.

His deal to become Speaker made it impossible for him to actually act as Speaker.  He can’t throw, he can’t handoff, and he can’t even scramble.  All he can do is watch his Republican caucus tear itself apart.  The extremists on one side are mirrored by the few Republicans who won their seat in a “Biden” district, where the President won in 2020.  Those few can’t afford to adhere to the MAGA agenda – they’ll lose their seats in 2024.

Close the Doors

What’s going to happen?  Well, we’ve got seven days until a government shutdown.  That seems inevitable.  It will take thirty days for a “rump” coalition of the few moderate Republicans and the minority Democrats to get a motion to the floor without the Speaker’s help.  So that could be the end of October.

Or McCarthy could realize that he will have to act like the Speaker, even if it costs him the Speaker’s job.  He could reach across to the Democrats, and, like John Boehner in 2015, patch together a one-time coalition to keep or re-open the government.  Of course, if he does that, the extreme Republicans will do what the Brown’s coaches could never do – they’ll bench McCarthy, just like they benched former Speaker from Cincinnati, John Boehner. 

So who is the backup, willing to give even more away than McCarthy did? Elise Stefanik of the Great State of New York.  She’d be happy to step over McCarthy’s prone body to become the second woman Speaker.  But the price will be high.  Not just for the Speakership, but for the Nation.

Oh, and I do have a finish for the football analogy.  If Kevin McCarthy is DeShawn Watson, perhaps the right quarterback, but with the wrong plays coming in from the sidelines; then who was the precision passer Burrow? You probably already figured that out:  Nancy Pelosi!!!  She managed to control a House majority exactly the same size as the one McCarthy has now. There was still some drama, but ultimately her Democrats followed her playbook, and governed.

 “…here is a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason…(but)…as far as the coverage was concerned [Manson] appeared to be rather a glamorous figure.” – Richard Nixon

Helter Skelter

It was August, 1970.  Richard Nixon was the President of the United States, a year and a half into his first term in office.  But that August, the focus of the Nation wasn’t on the President, nor the Vietnam War that was grinding on with 334,000 US troops on the ground.  America was watching the trial of Charles Manson. He was accused of leading a “cult” to murder actress Sharon Tate and seven others.  

We were fascinated, and not just with the gruesome and bloody spectacle of the attacks.  Manson was connected to some of the best known celebrities of the era, including Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boy’s.  How Manson went from rubbing elbows and dropping acid with some of the leading singers of Southern California rock, the “Laurel Canyon” crew; to a knife wielding murderer, caught America’s attention.  Even now, fifty-four years later, it still does.

Manson and four of his followers were tried in Los Angeles court through the summer of 1970 and into the fall.  With the high profile of the victims and all of the lurid publicity surrounding the murders, outside influence on the jury was a particularly sensitive subject. So when in August, the President gave his opinion of the Manson evidence in an off-hand comment to reporters, it struck a legal “nerve”.  Like most Americans, Nixon was fascinated with the case, and he had an opinion on it.

Nixon Precedent

But the problem was, that Richard Nixon wasn’t most Americans:  he was the President of the United States.  Manson defense attorneys jumped on the statement, demanding that the presiding Judge, Charles Order, declare a mis-trial.  As evidence they presented the front page of the Los Angeles Times, headlined by “MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES”.  While Order didn’t go so far as a mistrial, he did hold a hearing, questioning the jurors whether they were influenced by the President’s statement.  Meanwhile, Nixon “walked back” his opinion, praising the patience of a jury that listens to the facts in the case, to make their decision.

The Jurors answered no, that the President didn’t “influence them”, and Orders continued the trial.  Manson was sentenced to death, but later changes in California law commuted that to a life sentence.  He died, still in prison, in 2017 at 83 years old.

Nixon’s actions had a powerful influence in American jurisprudence,  at least, until the past few years.  (Now you probably anticipate a diatribe against the former, twice impeached, four time indicted, President. Hah!!  It’s not “his turn in the barrel”).  Yesterday I was stuck in the house, waiting for the “lawn guys”.  So I spent much of the day watching Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States testify to the House Judiciary Committee.

Judiciary

There are two Judiciary Committees in the Congress.  The one in the Senate tends to be serious and studied. Senators determine whether Presidential appointees for Federal judges will be approved and in particular, appointments to the Supreme Court.  The “heavy hitters” of the Senate (often the ones with Presidential ambitions) find their way to that Committee.  President Biden, Vice President Harris, and candidates Ted Cruz and Cory Booker, are all Committee alumni or members.

The House Judiciary Committee doesn’t get to pick judges. It is one of the most partisan Committees in the House – especially in this era.  The Judiciary Committee is where the House begins impeachment inquiries.  Currently Republicans are in the majority, and the Chairman is Jim Jordan (of couldn’t pass the Ohio bar exam fame).  Jerry Nadler of New York is the senior Democrat, along with Adam Schiff of California. But Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Chip Roy, Thomas Massie, and Mike Johnson (Louisiana) are all combative members of the Republican “Freedom Caucus”.  They make Darrell Issa of Benghazi Committee fame, on this committee too, look passive.

They tried to tear the Attorney General limb from limb.  Their “Caucus Line” is that Donald Trump is being persecuted by the “Democrat-Biden Justice Department”, while Hunter Biden is getting a break.  While there is no evidence against Joe Biden, the President, there is a lot of questions about what Hunter was doing, particularly in his cocaine-fevered era from 2015 to 2018.  The old adage about the “sins of the father, sins of the son” is reversed in this case, or at least the Committee Republicans want it to be.

Under Investigation

A Department of Justice Special Prosecutor is still investigating Hunter.  But House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio doesn’t seem to be worried about “tainting” a future jury.  He’s not interested in the “Nixon Precedent”, because, of course, he’s really not interested in Hunter Biden at all.  In fact, given the evidence, he’s not going to “get” Joe Biden either.  But what he can do is follow the first rule of propaganda.  If you say something, over and over and over again, it really doesn’t matter if it’s true.  If you say “Biden Crime Family” often enough, someone will believe it.

Ultimately, Hunter’s expensive but “worth every penny” lawyer Abbe Lowell will use the Committee hearings as a defense in court.  “How can Hunter Biden find an impartial jury after all of that?”  Any of a dozen New York Post headlines will do.  And we will have to wait until November of 2024 to see if Jordan is successful in fatally wounding President Biden with the sins of his son.

And who is very aware of the “Nixon Precedent”:  President of the United States Joe Biden.  He’s not talking about the Trump indictments.  He wants to make sure that his opinions don’t become a part of the Trump defense.  And of course, he doesn’t want anything to keep Trump from going on trial before the 2024 Presidential election.

Wrestling

Back in the early 1970’s, I was a high school wrestler.  Wrestling then, and now, places a huge demand on athletes.  It’s not just the hours of practice, honing skills on the mat.  It’s the immense conditioning required to successfully compete for six minutes with 100% effort from every muscle group: calves to biceps, quads to neck, fingers to toes.  And in a tournament, you do it again and again, up to six times in a day (under current rules).  

Add to that weight control, something completely foreign to teen athletes used to burning all that they can consume, and more.  But wrestling is precise:  at the moment of weigh-in, your body must be less than or equal to the required weight.  There is no leeway; an ounce over, and you’re out of competition.  Often the hardest part of wrestling isn’t in the practice room.  It’s in the middle of the night, when hunger tries to overwhelm commitment.  There’s an old wrestling joke about dreaming of eating a giant marshmallow, and waking the next morning to find the pillow gone.  But the real nightmare is dreaming you’re eating a box of pop tarts, and waking to find the wrappers all around.  The hunger is real.

So after all of that, the rules about fingernails, beards and hair length seemed petty, not worth arguing about: “I’m starving, so get me on and off the scale so I can eat.  I’ll chew my nails, and my buddy will trim my hair. As a fifteen year old, please tell me to shave, that would be an honor!”

Old School Rules

Our athletic department decided that the “hair rule” of 1970’s wrestling was good for the entire athletic program.  Because wrestler’s hair had to be above the eyes, ears, and neckline; so did every boy’s hair in our athletic program.   Our Athletic Director was serious, standing at the team bus door as we boarded for wrestling, swimming, and even track.  He checked every boy to make sure we didn’t go “hippie”.   He even checked Kenny, our All-Ohio 185 pounder, who was Black.  The AD carefully unkinked Kenny’s hair, pulling it out to see if reached the top of his ear.  When it did (barely), he pulled out the Trainer’s tape shears, and chewed into Kenny’s hair.  

Some of our best athletes in high school chose not to compete.  It was only a couple of years past the sixties, and hair length was a part of many of their political statements.  It wasn’t until I was in college track, that hair length became a personal statement, not a team rule.  There was nothing like a high hurdler with a full “fro”.  The sides of his hair flapped in rhythm with his arc over the barriers.  

Texas

All of that seems like ancient history, a half century ago.  Even wrestling gave up on hair rules decades ago, going for “hair control” instead.  But in Texas today, there is a student now twice suspended for having hair that “could” go longer than his ears, eyes, or neck.  But this Black teenager has his hair carefully styled, crafted into a tight curl on his head.  Sure, if it was unbraided it would hang down his back.  But it isn’t.

This isn’t an athletic department rule, it’s a mandate for every boy in the school. And his “potential” violates the “dress and grooming code” of Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvie, Texas.  The rules state:

Male students’ hair must not extend below the top of a t-shirt collar or be gathered or worn in a style that would allow the hair to extend below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes when let down.”

I guess his “failure” is in the gathering.

Law School

Over the past decades there’s been a lot of discussion of school uniforms.  Some public schools, including nearby Reynoldsburg, chose to require their kids to wear khaki pants (or shorts) and sports shirts in school colors.  But there’s a huge cultural gap between khakis and sports shirts, and determining what’s acceptable hair style. 

When I was in law school one of the standard process of questioning was “whatabouts”.  As we split legal hairs in class, we pushed our arguments to extremes.  So, for example, if a student was Buddhist and shaved his head, can a school enforce a “hair policy” designed to prevent shaved heads (skinheads)?  What about an Orthodox Jewish student with side curls, or a Jamaican Rastafarian?  Can school rules legally infringe on religious freedom?

But if a “religious exemption” is placed in the “hair code”, what about a cultural one?  Should a Native American student be required to follow the “Barber Hills” rule?  And if not him, then shouldn’t an African American student be able to claim the same exception?  Should a transgendered girl be required to have a haircut – and what rule applies?  

This issue just isn’t worth all the energy, effort that could better be applied to improving student achievement or even keeping kids safe from violence. It’s not matter of discipline, it’s a process of cultural “bullying”: fit in, or face the consequences.

What Matters

I was an educator, and for several years was directly responsible for discipline in a public high school.  I was around when boys started to wear – oh my goodness – earrings!  My big discovery was that individualism didn’t seem to influence discipline.  We had big problems:  drug use, kids acting out on their emotions with violence, kids quietly failing school. Those were so much more important than how long hair was (or whether it was pink, green or brown).  Rather the guy with a Mohawk who felt positive about it, than the unknown kid falling into despair.  

For those who think hair will “disrupt the educational environment”, the critical phrase from Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court case about student First Amendment rights; here’s my experience.  The only folks really disrupted, are the parents picking up kids after school, the “old school” administrators in the office, and a few teachers.  And all of them are “adults”, who ought to know better, and get over it.  Who isn’t disrupted?  It’s the other kids in the classroom.  They don’t care about hair, or “holey” jeans, or even the “furry” kid with a tail.  

They are the only ones that matter.  

Hillsdale

Hillsdale College is a private, liberal arts school. There are 3204 students; set on 400 rural acres in Southern Michigan just north of the Indiana border.  “Free Baptists” founded the school 178 years ago and Hillsdale still considers itself a Christian college.  Its modern claim to fame is as the leading independent college “free” from federal and even state regulation.  Students at Hillsdale cannot get federal or state financial aid.  Instead, Hillsdale matches what they would get from private funds.  This allows Hillsdale to avoid complying with any Federal and State regulations regarding education, including Title IX protections.  In 1984 they pledged to follow their own non-discrimination policy. But “…with the help of God, resist, by all legal means, any encroachments on its independence” (Hillsdale Website).

Instead Hillsdale increased their endowment by establishing the Center for Constructive Alternatives, a national center for conservative thought.  Since then, Hillsdale, along with other privately financed academic institutions like the Heritage Foundation and the Claremont Institute, make up the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement.  They also have strong Cross Country teams, competing in GMAC conference and NCAA Division II.

I originally knew about Hillsdale as a coach.  Cross country successes put them on the list of small colleges my good runners might be interested in.  Like Cedarville near Dayton and Malone in Canton, a runner looking at Hillsdale had to consider more than academics and athletics.  They had to decide whether they were willing to accept the strict religious and behavior codes that those institutions demanded.   A runner had to not only be “good enough” for their team, they had to “fit in” on their campus.  None of my kids went to Hillsdale.

1619 Project

I didn’t end up on the political end of Hillsdale until the New York Times published The 1619 Project (NYT).   That massive study looked at American History from a very different “lens”; the impact of enslavement on the economic, cultural and moral development of the United States.  “1619” made important points that “regular” American History, particularly the history taught in public schools, ignored.  As a teacher who learned “our” history in the 1960’s and 70’s, “1619” opened a whole different perspective.

Many Americans were challenged by “1619”.  They discovered that the “story” they knew so well wasn’t real, and their entire framework of history was changed.  Many reacted with anger and denial to “1619”, and looked to “defeat” the idea.  Hillsdale College was a big part of the “1776 Project”, a counter to “1619”. It defended the traditional, 1950’s version of the American story.  As an educator, I wanted to know what both sides were saying.  So I signed up to get “1776”.  That put me on the Hillsdale list, and I’ve been there ever since.

Postulates and Theorems

The College publishes a newsletter called “Imprimus”, an up to date primer for the conservative movement.  Last week I read an article about “The Twitter Files” and the “existential threat” the US government now poses to American democracy itself.   Without going to “into the weeds” about the Twitter Files themselves, the article outlines a set of assumptions that conservative academia has about our recent history.  And it is those assumptions that make it extraordinarily difficult for us to communicate across our ideologic boundaries.

When I was a sophomore in High School, I took geometry.  I was never a “math kid”, and worse, I was uninspired by our geometry teacher.  In spite of that,  I did learn about postulates and theorems.  Postulates were “givens” that required no proof.  They were simply accepted as fact.  Theorems, on the other hand, needed proof.  The best parts of geometry was watching the teacher lick chalk from his fingers, and getting out of the class at the end of the year.  But the concept of postulates and theorems stuck.

Reading “The Twitter Files” I realized how different the postulates were between conservative  academia and my own sources.  Which leads me to the following discovery.

Liberal and Conservative cannot communicate with each other, because we fail to share a common set of postulates to base discussions.  If we don’t agree on fundamental facts, postulates, how could we possibly solve greater problems, theorems.

The Laptop and Russia

So what postulates did I glean from “The Twitter Files”?

The Hunter Biden laptop absolutely revealed a direct financial connection between Hunter’s corrupt actions and Joe Biden.  The Biden laptop information is “postulate”, fact without question, regardless of the “chain of custody” issues, or the lack of President Biden’s replies

The FBI used undue influence to keep the laptop story from “breaking” on social media, particularly Twitter (now X).  The FBI was working on the “postulate” that Russia exercised a massive mis-information campaign during the 2016, impacting the results.  The author of the article rejects that premise completely, minimizing the impact of the Internet Research Service efforts, and claims instead that the FBI was working to elect liberals – because (postulate) that’s what the FBI  (and other government agencies) do, even during the Trump Administration and under Republican leadership.

Russian involvement in the 2016 election was a “hoax”, as was “the official Covid narrative”.

Insurrection and the Deep State

Donald Trump did nothing to incite an Insurrection (and, in fact, the Insurrection itself was just a protest, like Black Lives Matter marches of the summer before). “…That same day (January 6, 2021), key Twitter staffers correctly determined that Trump’s tweets did not constitute incitement of violence or violate any other Twitter policies.”  Therefore Twitter had no “right” to ban Trump, and only did so under pressure from the above mentioned government agencies.

“Twitter was taking marching orders from a deep state security apparatus that was created to fight terrorists, not to censor or manipulate public discourse.” In fact, “The FBI in particular has directly meddled in the last two presidential elections to a degree that should call into question its continued existence.”  

“…The administrative state has metastasized into a destructive deep state that threatens to bring about the collapse of America’s constitutional system within our lifetimes.”  Once you accept this as a postulate, then any actions the FBI, Homeland Security, or other agencies take to protect voting or social media from manipulation is, in fact, attempting to collapse the Constitutional system.

Squares and Parallelograms

How can we possibly get back to the “old days”, when conservatives and liberals could discuss across their ideologies and reach compromise?  If we don’t even share the same history (1619 versus 1776, Russia involvement in 2016) or view of the role of government (continued existence of the FBI), or believe in the dangers of un-regulated social media; then where is the point of mutual agreement?  

If we can’t even agree that a square has four equal sides, where do we even begin to talk?

Proud Boy

Enrique Tarrio, former leader of the Proud Boys and convicted seditionist, has a problem.   He was just sentenced to twenty-two years in federal prison for his role in the Insurrection of January 6^th, the longest sentence yet.  Before it went to trial, he was offered a “deal”:  plead guilty and serve nine to eleven years in jail.  But Tarrio decided to gamble on a jury.  

Before the deal was offered, Federal prosecutors asked Tarrio about links to ex-President Donald Trump. Tarrio held fast to his story – there were no links to Trump, and that Tarrio himself didn’t have a “role” in the Insurrection.  So now he has at least eighteen years to think about it.

And that’s his dilemma.  Whatever Tarrio might know or say, he’s going to serve a long time in jail.   IF he has more knowledge of a Trump connection, he might still be able to shave years by cutting a deal.  But, if Trump wins the Presidency in 2024, Tarrio could be released as early as January, 2025.  If Tarrio implicates Trump now, and Trump still gets elected, he certainly wouldn’t pardon him.   So for the former Proud Boy, it’s probably better to wait.

Meadows’ Quandary

Federal Special Prosecutor Jack Smith faces the same problem from the other side.  Mr. Trump is the only defendant in the Washington DC Federal case, but there are six other unindicted co-conspirators, and more unnamed participants.  A critical potential witness is former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.  According to his assistant, Cassidy Hutchinson, Meadows was the nexus of communications to and from Trump on the days before and during January 6^th, including connections to the “War-Room” at the Willard Hotel.  

The ultimate burning question of January 6^th is:   did the President simply stoke the crowd and set them onto the Congress, or were his actions part of a defined plan to incite violence, and disrupt and delay the Electoral vote count?   There are only a handful of people who know the definitive answer to that question; the men in the Willard “War Room”, Mark Meadows, and the former President himself.

The Federal indictment named Meadows, but only as a “witness”.  Has he “flipped” and gotten an immunity deal with Federal prosecutors?  Meadows was also indicted in the Georgia state RICO case, for many of the same events.  If he is required to testify in the Federal case, the Georgia charges require him to “Take the Fifth”.  

So – will Meadows hold fast and take his chances in Georgia?  Or, will there be additional indictments from Jack Smith?  Will the Federal prosecutors arrange for immunity in Georgia for Meadows, so that he can testify in both matters?  Or, will Meadows, like Tarreo, wait (and pray) for a Trump win in 2024, and a Presidential Pardon?

Hard Time

Federal prison time is “hard” time.  Most Federal sentences are 85% served, unlike state sentences which are closer to 50%.  A twenty year Federal sentence is at least seventeen years actual time behind bars. But the charges in Georgia are no less serious.  The felony RICO conviction can carry a five-to-twenty year sentence, and very likely will result in a decade of incarceration.  It might be in a place like the Washington State Prison in Davisboro, a minimum security facility far out in the Georgia countryside.  Serve time in a “country-club” or a “real” prison, either way for men like Meadows, Clark, Eastman, et al., not only will their careers be over, but they will be old men when they emerge from imprisonment.

Their dilemma:  admit guilt, “rat out” their co-conspirators, and cut their future time in prison in half or more.  Or “hang tough”, loyal to the ex-President, and end their lives as an asterisk in the Wikipedia article like Howard Hunt (3 years), Attorney General John Mitchell (a year and a half), or Gordon Liddy (four and a half years) of Watergate infamy. 

Of course maybe Trump will win in 2024.  That thought bring shudders of disbelief.  I guess if that happens, the least thing we’ll have to worry about, is a few “country-club” prisoners getting back on the streets.  

The Nation will be in a whole lot more trouble than that.

Matt Gaetz

Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida made the point.  He said that the Speaker of the House, his fellow Republican was; “Out of compliance”.  Gaetz then went farther and said that if Speaker McCarthy didn’t get “into compliance”, he would cease to be the Speaker. 

And what is this “non-compliance” that the youngish Congressman from Pensacola proclaimed? 

There are actually two answers to that question.  But before we get to those answers, we need to understand how a junior member of the GOP would feel empowered to threaten the Speaker, and get away with it. Kevin McCarthy went through an excruciating exercise to achieve his life dream of becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Republicans have a narrow majority in the House, five votes more than the Democrats under the new leadership of Hakeem Jefferies.  But a “rump caucus” of extreme Republicans refused to vote for McCarthy, dragging the process of electing the Speaker on for five days and a full fifteen roll call votes.

Wacked-Out  

The few, the proud, the wacked-out extremists of the Republican caucus exacted every concession they could gain from McCarthy.  Tempers flared as the last needed vote, Matt Gaetz,  scaled up his demands.  One of McCarthy’s allies had to be restrained from doing what a vast bipartisan majority of Congressmen  wanted to do – smack Gaetz in the mouth.  And it was all on live TV, in front of the whole Nation.

McCarthy ultimately gave it all up, doling his powers away, in order to gain the title of Speaker.  Clearly the title was more important to him than the ability to act as Speaker.   And he also gave away his ultimate “fail safe” protection.  Instead of requiring five or even ten members to agree to call for a new Speaker election, McCarthy allowed that any, single member of the majority Party could trigger a new Speaker vote.  Kevin’s life-dream hung on razor’s edge every day, depending only on the whim of Gaetz or Boebert, or one of the other “rumpsters”.  

He’s survived  for nine months.  But now Gaetz is calling his IOU, and demanding that the Speaker, the leader of his Party in the House, third in line for the Presidency, get “in compliance”.  And Gaetz isn’t bluffing; McCarthy already gave him the power to declare the Speakership up for grabs again.

Empty Impeachment

So what’s “the deal”?  The extremists demand the impeachment of President Joe Biden, before any incriminating facts are confirmed or even gathered, or charges levied.  The want Biden tried, not because he might have done anything wrong, but as retribution for the impeachments of Donald Trump.  Over the past several months, the Congressional Republicans have assiduously searched for evidence of “the Biden Crime Family”.  They failed miserably, with their lead witness turning out to be a Chinese spy and “on the lam”.   

But it doesn’t matter.  A deal is a deal, as Matt Gaetz so rudely stated: “Get in compliance or get gone”.   And so the Speaker announced yesterday that there would be an “Impeachment Inquiry” – not quite an impeachment, not even a hearing by the Judiciary Committee to determine impeachment, not even a vote by the House to begin the inquiry.  It’s to be more Hunter bashing and ash stirring, looking for some ember to coax to a Biden consuming flame.

Modern Benghazi Hearings

McCarthy itself said it best, in an accidental moment of honesty back in September of 2015.  The House put together a Benghazi committee, that spent millions of dollars in seven different investigations.  McCarthy told Sean Hannity on Fox:

 “…everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

The goal of the impeachment “inquiry” is not to remove Joe Biden.  The goal is to so tarnish Biden that he seems equal to the twice impeached, four-time indicted former President who is likely to lead the Republican ticket in 2024.   If you can’t raise Trump up, you can drag Biden down, just like they did to Hillary. 

Shut It Down

And all of this is on top of a second “Gaetz and Company” demand:  that the Congressional budget be radically slashed.  The clock is ticking:  the budget resolution expires on September 30^th.  Without some joint House/Senate action, the government will shut down.  The Senate is well on the way to assuring continuity, with twelve budget resolutions out of Committee and on the way to a full vote.  But the House has passed only two. 

So not only does McCarthy have to begin impeachment inquiries, he also has to find a way to mollify his “crazies” and keep the Government going.  It’s not likely to happen, at least without some tacit support of House Democrats.  But if the Speaker goes to Democrats for support, he absolutely, positively would be “out of compliance”.    

And “out of compliance” might well mean a return to Kevin “just” being the member from Bakersfield. A shut down of the United States Government looms ahead, and there’s no reasonable solution in sight.

Which, of course, begs the question:  if Gaetz, Boebert et al. pull  McCarthy down, who becomes the next Speaker?  Who is willing to give away the “farm” for the title? And who will reopen the government, if there’s no one in charge?

Postscript

Matt Gaetz tonight – appearing on MSNBC’s The Beat the Ari Melber, said that McCarthy was “lying like a dead dog”. I guess Gaetz’s isn’t planning on backing off anytime soon. Meanwhile, McCarthy today was “waffling” on calling the Biden “investigation” an “impeachment inquiry”. Maybe it’s just an old fashioned inquiry – not an impeachment one??

Division

I was talking to a veteran this weekend.  We know each other well: I was his high school cross country coach.  Surprisingly for these days, we were actually talking politics, but more in general than in specific.  We talked about the great divide in America, the polarization to the point where “talking politics” outside of your own bubble is a recipe for anger and insult.  And he reminded me of something.

He knows I’m a Democrat, but he said:  “I don’t know what you think of George W Bush as President, but we’ve never been more united than on September 12, twenty-two years ago.”  And I told him the truth, I didn’t like much about George Bush before that week.  In fact, I struggled to accept him as President, seeing him as elected more by the five Republicans on the Supreme Court than by the Nation.  But that week, after September 11^th  2001, I was united with the rest of the Nation behind his leadership. 

We Heard 

Bush’s own actions did it.  The military and the Secret Service shuffled him around like a pea in a shell game on September 11^th:  He fled a second grade classroom in Florida for Barksdale Air Base in Louisiana, and then Offutt Air Base in Nebraska.  It was at that moment, hidden in a bunker, Bush “became” President.  He ordered Air Force One back into the air, the only plane in the American skies, and he flew back to Washington.  He spoke to the Nation and the World.  And then, three days later, he went down into the still smoking wreckage of the World Trade Center.  He held up a bullhorn, surrounded by hard-hat workers and firefighters.  He started to speak and the workers farther away yelled out, “We can’t hear you”.  And Bush responded with a spontaneous phrase that galvanized a Nation:

“I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” 

America – we knew it was time to go to war.  And we were more than ready, even the Democrats who voted for Al Gore ten months earlier, even those of us who protested Vietnam.  We were ready to make those that attacked feel America’s wrath.  It wouldn’t last; the “justified” war in Afghanistan morphed into a less clear attack on Iraq.  The atrocities at CIA “Dark Sites” and Abu Gharib created fractures in American resolve.  But for those first weeks, months and even maybe that first year; we were the America of December 8^th, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor.  We were the “Great Democracy”, willing to use the “righteous might” of our forefathers to avenge our losses.

Defenders

For me, those days have the crystal clear memories of the moments before a car crash, the second-by-second hyper-focus that never goes away.  I’ve written about that before, in an essay titled Eighteen Years Ago.  And I’ve told the “stories” around 9-11, from the stirring monuments to the courageous survivors in other essays, including Twenty-One Years Ago and Shanksville.

Many of the young men and women I taught around that time felt compelled to defend our Nation.  They went to war in far-away places, in situations where there were few “rules of engagement”, at least for the enemy.  Some sacrificed their lives, and many more sacrificed their youth and their health to make sure that those  “… people who knocked these buildings down would hear from all of us”.    They went for the same reasons my father’s generation went to Europe and the Pacific in World War II.  

Teachers

My friend and I are both teachers, though I am retired.  He teaches medics how to deal with crises, hopefully not like 9-11.  What used to be a common memory, like a current event in his classroom, is now a page in the history book.  Most of his students are too young to remember anything but the images of collapsing buildings – maybe a memory of the day, more likely impressed from thousands of repetitions on television.  And while they may know the “facts” of 9-11, they cannot “remember” the unity of the 12^th.

We are America.  Do not let the division of today, determine our necessary unity tomorrow.  History shows the error of foreign leaders  “taking advantage” of American divisions. It didn’t work; not in World Wars I and II, not on 9-11, not even in Ukraine.  American politics is like a family – the brothers can fight each other like mortal enemies, but don’t let an outsider attack one.  The brothers will be shoulder to shoulder fighting back.  

It’s hard to imagine such unity right now, Red Hats and Rainbow Shirts.  But it doesn’t require a National disaster to achieve it.  Unity is still here.  We see communities come together, regardless of politics, in disasters and crises.  We can still work together for the betterment of our towns, regardless of who we choose for President.  

I am a “blue” living in a sea of “red”.  But we are all American.  And today is not only a day to remember the fallen on 9-11, but a day to remember the unity of the day after.