Must be Jackson Browne week – Running on Empty

Outrage

Outrage:  that should be the response of Americans every day to what’s happening in the Trump Administration.  We are outraged about detention camps on the border, pedophile friends protected in Court, and blatant daily lying by the White House.  We should be even more concerned about the President’s state of mind.  Here’s Thursday’s daily tweet.

……The Fake News is not as important, or as powerful, as Social Media. They have lost tremendous credibility since that day in November, 2016, that I came down the escalator with the person who was to become your future First Lady. When I ultimately leave office in six……..years, or maybe 10 or 14 (just kidding), they will quickly go out of business for lack of credibility, or approval, from the public. That’s why they will all be Endorsing me at some point, one way or the other. Could you imagine having Sleepy Joe Biden, or @AlfredENeuman99…..or a very nervous and skinny version of Pocahontas (1000/24th), as your President, rather than what you have now, so great looking and smart, a true Stable Genius! Sorry to say that even Social Media would be driven out of business along with, and finally, the Fake News Media!

The author of this rambling nonsense is in control of the nuclear “football.”   He represents the United States to the world.   His command structure has an Acting Secretary of Defense replaced another Acting, and the prospective Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs accused of “inappropriate” contacts. The legitimate question we should ask:  who is in charge?

The answer seems to be no one.  

Just Another Day

Since Donald Trump came down the “golden escalator” in June of 2015 (not November 2016) at least half of America is on an unhealthy adrenalin rush.  Now, over four years later, it is hard to remember what it was like to listen to the news in the morning and not be angry.  It’s hard to remember a time when we had confidence in our leadership.  The now resigned Ambassador from the United Kingdom said it best:

“As seen from here, we really don’t believe that this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional, less unpredictable, less faction-riven, less diplomatically clumsy and inept” and  “For a man who has risen to the highest office on the planet, President Trump radiates insecurity … There is no filter [that prevents Trump making offensive comments] … We could also be at the beginning of a downward spiral, rather than just a rollercoaster; something could emerge that leads to disgrace and downfall.”

Thursday we heard the President cave-in on the Census Question.  Trying to “make lemons out of lemonade,” he instead ordered the Departments of the Federal Government to find a way to identify citizenship status from their existing databases.  But he went even farther, suggesting that states should take that information, and use it to continue the partisan gerrymandering that has been so successful for the Republican Party in the past decade. 

His new head hatchet-man, Attorney General Bill Barr, made a sycophantic speech telling Trump he was doing a great job, and suggesting that Congressional Districts be apportioned by citizens rather than by population. The dark shadow of Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller loomed in both speeches.

By the way, Thursday we also got to envision Alan Dershowitz, aging Harvard Professor and Trump apologist, getting a massage at Jeff Epstein’s Florida estate. At least, he says, he kept his “whitey tightys” on.   That nightmare is thanks to the reporting of Axios‘s  Jonathan Swan.  It’s just another day in Washington.

Stay Warm

It’s hard to stay outraged for four years:  hard to remember what “normal” used to be.  And it’s hard to imagine what our nation and world will be like if Donald Trump is elected again. Many are “running on empty,” it seems like we have little outrage left to give. 

There is a not so good “Brat Pack” movie from the 1980’s called Red Dawn, about teenagers who go into the mountains to fight off a Russian invasion of America.    C. Thomas Howell starts as one of the freedom fighters. In one scene he is told by a rescued Air Force flyer, “all that hate is going to burn you up, kid.”  His reply:  “it keeps me warm.”

So “Resistors” I say to you – “stay warm.”  Much as we thought the Trump Administration wouldn’t survive a term in office, today it looks easier to defeat him in election than it does to impeach him.  We are fifteen months away from the 2020 Presidential election, eighteen months from the potential end of the Trump Presidency.   A Trump defeat in 2020 in no sure thing, but the world is “woke” to what a Trump Presidency now means.  

Stay warm – we have much to do.

A Politician’s Life

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, started his thirty-fourth year as a Republican in the United States Senate last January. Before that, he spent eight years as the Judge (Chief Executive) of Jefferson County, Louisville, Kentucky.  

He started as an intern for Republican Senator Cooper of Kentucky at twenty-two, followed by law school, a very brief few weeks in the Army Reserve (medical discharge for optic neuritis) during the Vietnam era, and four years as a political staffer. After a stint with the Justice Department, he ran for the Judge position in Jefferson County.  He has, with the exception of a couple years in the seventies, spent his entire working life as a career politician.

Pushing the Envelope

Amy McGrath was born while McConnell was in the Justice Department.  She grew up in Northern Kentucky, just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati.  Childhood visits to the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio, inspired her to want to fly in the military. As a middle school student, she discovered women weren’t allowed to fly in combat.   

She wrote her Senators (one was McConnell), and all of the Congressmen on the Armed Services Committee. While McConnell never responded, Democrat Congresswoman Pat Schroeder wrote back, encouraging McGrath to follow her dream.  McGrath won a nomination to the US Naval Academy in 1993, the same year that Congress lifted the ban on women becoming fighter pilots.

Graduating from the Academy, she took a commission in the Marine Corps, and became a Weapons System Officer in F-18 fighters.  She flew fifty-one missions in Afghanistan, provided air support in Iraq, and, after corrective eye surgery, earned her pilot’s wings.  McGrath became the first woman to pilot a combat mission in the Marines during her second tour of duty in Afghanistan.  

McGrath also earned a Masters Degree in International and Global Security Studies from Johns Hopkins University.   She retired from the Marines after twenty years of service, ending her career as a Lieutenant Colonel.  In 2017 she ran for Congress in Kentucky’s 6^thCongressional District around Lexington, losing to Republican Andy Barr by less than 10,000 votes or 3.3%.  Barr won with 60% of the vote in the prior two elections.

Changing Washington

Amy McGrath announced her candidacy for the Senate on Twitter:

I’m running to replace Mitch McConnell in the U.S. Senate. Everything that’s wrong with Washington had to start somewhere—it started with him. With your help, we can defeat Mitch and defend democracy.

McConnell responded with a website entitled Wrong-Path McGrath calling her an “extreme liberal” and  “just another Washington Democrat.”  The website also claims that the retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel is “weak on border security.”

Running against the second most powerful Republican in America will be no easy task, but McGrath announced she raised $2.5 million in the first twenty-four hours after her announcement.  McConnell has virtually unlimited funds to match against her, so it will be a highly publicized campaign.

McGrath has an additional issue.  In 2016 Kentucky voted for Trump over Clinton by nearly 30 points, and he will be on the ballot in 2020. McGrath’s key strategy will be to separate McConnell from Trump, citing McConnell’s inability (or unwillingness) to pass legislation that helps average Kentuckians.  In a CNN interview she said:

“A lot of these things are being halted by Senator McConnell.  Kentucky is tired of the swamp and the dysfunction and people in the state don’t like both political parties. Folks like Senator McConnell who have been around for 34 years are not the answer.”

Politics of the Senate

Kentuckians will make a choice for themselves and the rest of the nation in 2020. McConnell, the self-described “grim reaper” for any Progressive legislation, is the poster “turtle” for Congressional gridlock.   His rating in Kentucky is poor; only 36% approve of his performance, while 50% disapprove.  He is the most unpopular Senator in the nation.

Democrats know that winning the Presidency without controlling the Senate is a prescription for future gridlock. They need to recruit strong candidates across the nation. McGrath joins fellow aviator Mark Kelly in Arizona in challenging Republican incumbents.  

Other vulnerable Republican seats include Cornyn in Texas, Perdue in Georgia, an open seat in Kansas, Collins in Maine, and Gardner in Colorado.  Democratic candidates haven’t solidified for those seats yet, but Democrats need to make a “full court press” throughout the nation. This will not only increase the chances of Democratic wins, but also force Republicans to financially defend nationwide.

As the Democratic Presidential race narrows down, hopefully some unsuccessful candidates will return home to run for Senate.  O’Rourke or Castro in Texas, Hickenlooper in Colorado, and Bullock in Montana would all be solid Senate candidates should their Presidential aspirations fail.

Great Candidate

Lieutenant Colonel McGrath is a solid candidate for Senate, with a great story, great experience, and realistic stand for her home state of Kentucky.  She is the kind of Democrat that can win there, especially running against the “king turtle” of the real Washington swamp.  She is exactly what the Democratic Party, and the Nation, needs.

The Land of Misfit Issues

So here’s a list that should make any Democratic candidate shudder:  bussing for desegregation, abolishing the Electoral College, statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, and reparations for slavery.  

So here’s a list that should make any Republican strategist gleeful:  bussing for desegregation, abolishing the Electoral College, statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, and reparations for slavery.

The Liberal Dream

Look, I’m a liberal Democrat.  I believe in desegregation as a way of making the generational change to end racial bias. The Electoral College is an anachronism designed to protect the “government from the whims of the masses.” It didn’t even work with Trump.  I am heartily in favor of statehood for Puerto Rico and DC; the contrast in treatment after the hurricanes in Texas and Puerto Rico clearly makes the case.   America would be better if we recognized our ancestor’s mortal sin of slavery. We need to acknowledge that our nation still gains benefit because of it, and our need to rectify the atrocity.

But I also recognize that to a lot of other Americans, with differing political views; these issues range from “flighty” to “crazy.”  These are not the issues Democrats should fight the campaign of 2020 on.   

Wedge Issues

They are the “liberal” dream, but they are also some of the most divisive issues of our time. Bussing for desegregation of schools tore many in my generation apart.  It was the driving force in the formation of many of our cities today, with the growth of small nearby rural towns into suburbs to avoid urban desegregation.  This issue is not just one that will energize the Republican base, if Republicans can make the case to the suburbs that Democrats will, “send your kids to the inner-city schools” the “soccer Mom” vote, disgusted with Mr. Trump, will turn back to him in a minute.

Statehood for Puerto Rico and the District will be characterized as a Democratic “coup” to take over the Senate.  The four new Senators that new statehood brings would certainly be Democrats, and while both of those places deserve their seats in the House and Senate, it plays straight into the Trump “brown people taking over” theme.  

The same Democratic takeover case can be made about ending the Electoral College.  In popular vote, the Democratic Party has the majority of votes. While in my “liberal, one person one vote” mind, that should be enough, the alt-right argues:  “New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco will determine our President.”  That’s not quite true, but it makes the point for them.

Payback or Change

The concept of reparations, of Americans today held responsible for the economic and humanitarian sins of our fathers, is a perfect “wedge” issue.  Logically, how can anyone argue against the fact that African-Americans today still bare the effects of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, segregation and discrimination?  The sins of the past are still sins of the present, and only by recognizing this will America  “move on.” 

Reparations are a very public and dramatic way of doing so.  But it seems to be so difficult for folks to “get it;” most don’t know the White House was built by “contract” slaves, and don’t recognize that the difference between urban and suburban schooling are a direct result of slavery and discrimination.  

Instead the right spouts an “American dream” speech:  we can all “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps,” whatever those are.  Reparations needs to be fought for, but should be discussed in different terms.  Reparations means some kind of “payback;” but America needs a kind of “reconciliation and truth” moment. It should recognize what was done, what is still happening and what can be done to correct the problem.  Just call it something else.

An Existential Threat and an Old Voter Model

There is an existential threat to America:  his name is Donald Trump. Defeating him needs to be the primary goal of the Democratic Party. We need to be the party of working folks, income growth, healthcare, women’s rights, protecting our environment now and in the future, racial ethnic and identity equality, and honest and open government.  If we do those things, we can get the United States to repudiate the hate and ugliness of the past four years.  

Then Democrats can govern, and do those things and more.  But we’ve got to win first.  While there are lots of hopeful election models out there, the current one is pretty simple.  There are 40% of the people who identify as Democrats, and around 40% who are the “Trump” base.  That leaves 20% of the voters who make the decision about who wins.

Democrats can create an environment where the middle twenty percent welcome with relief the change from Trump. Or Democrats can get boxed into a political environment where fear and lies “win,” forcing the twenty percent to swallow the disgusting Trump once again. We need to keep our eyes on the prize.

To Tell the Truth

The Trump Administration wants to put a question on the 2020 US Census:  are you a US Citizen.  

The Question

It seems like such a simple, seemingly innocuous question.  Why shouldn’t the census ask this?  Why shouldn’t folks be required to tell the Census Bureau their citizenship status?  What could be the harm?

The Census, written directly into the Constitution, requires the counting of “all persons” in the United States.  It required that folks who are NOT citizens be counted, and in fact, contained the infamous clause defining slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting.  Indians were excluded as they were supposedly outside of US sovereign control.

So if the census was supposed to count every person, including a fraction of each slave, then the original intent of the founding fathers was clear: count everyone, not just citizens.  That number, the “enumeration,” was used to divide the states into Congressional Districts, and later to provide Federal aid to the states.  Any action that interferes with the specific goal should clearly be questionable.  So why would a question about citizenship status interfere with a full “enumeration?”

The Problem

This is the era of ICE roundups, detention camps, and Presidential tweets threatening removal.  An undocumented person filling out the census form admitting to being a non-citizen is a likely as a bank robber filling out their income taxes with; “profession-bank robber.”   Non-citizens who want to stay in the United States would simply avoid filling out the forms, and everyone in their household, citizen or not, would fail to be counted. 

The Census Bureau promises that the forms are anonymous, never specifically revealed. But this is also the era of ICE “ambush” meetings, when the undocumented migrants are invited to discuss their status and then find themselves on a plane out of the country.  There is little reason for them to have faith in any government agency.

So it makes common sense that the “question” will make the census less accurate, less minority representative, and more white.  For that reason, this particular question hasn’t been asked since 1950.  But the Trump Administration has pushed for it to be included.

The legal record shows that the idea supposedly originated with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.  He then asked the Justice Department to help with “justification.”  Attorney General Sessions created a rationale for the question helping to enforce the Voting Rights Act.  But it is difficult to see what value it has, and even more shocking that the Trump Administration would care about voting rights.

It’s About Power

It turned out they didn’t. The idea of putting the question on the census actually originated with North Carolina Republican consultant Thomas Hofeller. Hofeller, recently deceased, was an expert in gerrymandering political districts for the Republican Party.  He realized that the impact of the citizenship question would be to reduce the counted “population” in many Democratic districts, allowing Republicans to get more power by enhancing their relative strength.  By under-counting not just the undocumented, but their children, relatives and friends living with them; Republicans win.

After Hofeller’s death, his estranged daughter turned his computer files over to the organizations suing the government to stop the question.  It showed that both the Department of Justice and Commerce were lying to the Courts and to Congress about the origin and purpose of the question.  

This Supreme Court, with a conservative majority favoring broad Presidential powers, would have been willing to allow the President to place the question on the census (a well educated guess.)  While the true reasons were discriminatory and therefore illegal, the avowed Voting Rights argument was enough “fig leaf” to cover a Court majority.  But the revelation of the Hofeller information pushed the Chief Justice far enough that he sided with the four liberals on the bench, and ordered the question left off.

Chief Justice Roberts though, left the President a “backdoor” to re-litigate the question. If the Administration could come up with a non-discriminatory reason, then they could have a new hearing on the case. 

The Do-Over

So the Trump Justice Department is struggling to rephrase their Supreme Court argument, and deal with the Hofeller information. The entire Justice Department team, the experts on Constitutional litigation who made the original argument, were removed or quit.  Instead, a team from the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Division was put in to make the new argument.  As former Acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal stated: “They fired the A Team, and brought in the F Team.” But there is a third problem.  

In the first Court appearance, the Justice lawyers argued “the need for speed.” They used it to gain an expedited hearing in the Supreme Court, saying the Census had to go to the printer on June 30, 2019.  So even if they find another “fig leaf” for Chief Justice Roberts, Justice now has to overcome their own arguments about the deadline.  It would be hard to argue; “Oh, the deadline only applied if we won the case, since we lost we can print the census later.”  It’s difficult seeing any of the Court members respecting that.

But it’s the Trump Administration, and all sorts of things happen that are difficult to imagine. Four members of the Court were willing to hide behind the “fig leaf” of Presidential authority, without looking underneath to see the ugly discriminatory intent..  So the new Justice “team” will try again, even though the “leaf” has already come off, and “we all know, what we know*.” 

*of course, from the musical Hamilton

Open Borders- A False Choice

            The Law

Title 18, §1325. Improper entry by alien

• (a)  Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
• Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

The History

Under Title 18,§1325 of the Federal Code it is misdemeanor crime to cross the US border outside of the legal “ports of entry.”  That same section also provides for non-criminal fines that can also be imposed.

Prior to 1929, it wasn’t a “crime” to cross the border outside of the ports of entry locations.   People who illegally entered the United States were still deported, but, they simply weren’t charged with the “crossing” crime.  They were, legitimately, charged with being illegal “residents.”

The reasons for the 1929 law were clearly racist, aimed as much against Asians as Mexicans. It was marginally enforced through the Depression.  Deportations were more likely for illegal residents then, as competition for scarce Depression era employment.  Once World War II began, there was less enforcement as the need for workers increased.  

Today

Today the law still remains on the books, defined as a “First Degree Misdemeanor.”  Both the Obama and Trump Administrations have used this law to take custody of migrants found coming across the border outside of the few “ports of entry.”  This criminal “charge” under the Trump Administration has become the justification for detention camps, child separation, and now child detention camps. 

The logic the Trump officials argue is this:  migrants crossing outside the ports of entry are breaking the law.  Lawbreakers must be punished, and if we don’t hold them, they might disappear into the US population and avoid punishment.  Therefore we must put them in detention.  

Castro’s Solution

It is already illegal to be “unlawfully present” in the United States. That simply means that someone is in the US without legal permission.  So the difference between “improper entry” and “unlawful presence” is that a migrant who crosses the border to ask for asylum, a legal right, is not necessarily “unlawfully present.” They are in fact legally allowed to come in to ask for asylum.

If, as former Housing Secretary Julian Castro calls for, §1325 was removed, the result then would not be “Open Borders.”  

It would work this way.  The Border Patrol (getting out of the detention camp guard business and back to what they are supposed to do) would apprehend those crossing the border outside of the ports of entry.  Those with a lawful purpose, seeking asylum, would be processed and released, to return later for their asylum hearings.  When this was done in the past by ignoring §1325; 85 to 90% return to appear at the hearings.  They wanted to be in the United States legally.

Others apprehended, smuggling drugs or people or for other reasons, could either be charged with the crimes they committed, or for being “unlawfully present.”  Those would then be held for trial, just like any other criminal.

The False Choice

This is not OPEN BORDERS, as the Trump administration has claimed.  They have created a false choice, their detention camps or unregulated access to the United States.  The choice really is, DETENTION CAMPS (or more correctly, concentration camps) or HUMANE TREATMENT and recognition of the legal right to claim asylum under US Law.

The benefits:  the United States would no longer be in the “detention camp” business, and worse, in the child separation business.  The Border Patrol would also not be in violation of Federal Court Order in the Flores Agreement, that states that they cannot detain children for longer than 72 hours.  And the cost of caring for the migrants would be carried by their relatives already in the US, or the humanitarian agencies along the border, and not by the US Government.

The drawbacks:  it would require an increase in the number of prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges to deal with the asylum claims.  Currently there is a backlog of close to a million claims nationwide; whether we imprison folks or not, we need to expand our legal system for this issue.  

Oh, there’s one more benefit.  We wouldn’t need a “WALL” to stop folks.  We could spend that money more wisely somewhere else, maybe in aid to the Northern Triangle of Central America, where even Republicans agree the migrant crisis begins.  The anticipated WALL cost of $40 billion would go a long way towards changing conditions at the source. That might make the rest of these responses less necessary.

Before the Deluge

Tornados in the Midwest, heat wave hits the East Coast, a named hurricane (Andrea) formed before the official season begins.  This is our new normal:  weather extremes.

Baseball and Climate Change

We can’t look at any one event and say:  that’s global warming, that’s climate change.  I read an interesting baseball analogy, used by a sixth grade teacher in Oklahoma in a lesson about climate change.  She said it’s a lot like baseball in the “steroid” era.  During that time, more home runs were hit than in any time before.  The reason: some baseball players were using muscle building steroid drugs, enabling them to hit the ball farther.  

The teacher made the point that just because a player hit one home run, didn’t mean that player was using steroids.  The only way to really know was to look at the player over time, over seasons.  When a pretty good ball player hit fifteen home runs one season, then comes back twenty pounds heavier and hits forty the next year, it might be reasonable to guess he was on steroids.

It’s the same with climate conditions.  No one hurricane or tornado is evidence of global warming, even the category four or five storms we have seen in the past few years.  It’s the number of major storms we now see, seemingly a guarantee to have two catastrophic hurricanes or more in any season.  Just like the ballplayers, there were always home runs, but now there are so many more of them.

Live at Eleven

Tornados, blizzards; it’s not just the intensity, it’s the number of storms at that intensity. That’s the evidence to show we have changed our environment.  

Yesterday we had our annual “street flood” on my block; it rained a couple of inches in less than an hour. Our city has done a great job improving the drainage but no one, including “we the flooded,” is willing to pay to prevent the “annual” inundation. As long as it’s only once a year, we live with it.

So we went out and played in the water, yelled at the trucks speeding through the flooded street and pushing waves into the garages, and hoped that there wasn’t another “pop-up thunderstorm” coming soon.  Another two inches and the fun would be over, the floods would be in the house.

It was a joke on Facebook, come and see the new “waterfront” property.  On an obviously slow news day, the WCMH Channel 4 television station sent a crew out to shoot the scene.  There was a “live at eleven” broadcast right from our driveway (really.)  When I asked why this was important tonight, the crew said it was better than last night’s murder.  I guess that makes sense.

It’s Our Choice

The city has made our flooding problem once a year, instead of once a month.  That’s a financial choice made by our community.  But should the climate make the once a year flood a monthly event, then we will be faced with a financial choice.  Either we spend a lot more to enlarge the storm sewers, or we spend a lot more to repair the constant flood damage to our property.  

That’s the same choice we are making about all of the climate change issue.  We can spend the money and change our priorities now to reduce the damage we are doing, or we can spend the money and change our lives to fit the new environment we are creating.  We can get steroids out of baseball, or everyone can take steroids.  Either way, we are making the choice, and we will pay the price.  We are still, as Jackson Browne once sang, “Before the Deluge.”

Don’t Bet the Ranch

According to Forbes Magazine, Sports bookies think Donald Trump is a shoe-in to win.  In a listing of the “odds” on the website Sports Betting, betting a $1 on Trump would earn you back only $1.11. The next best bet is on Harris, with $1 returning $2.75.  

It’s not so hard to imagine that sports betters are willing to get into this “horse race.”  These days with legal online betting, you can put a wager down on almost anything.  Even such a “blue-blood” sport as women’s tennis has a betting line, and the recent upsets by a teenager at Wimbleton have “shaken the betting world.”

I’m not a gambler, but I do know that successful gamblers use past performance to predict future outcomes. It makes sense that an incumbent President, with good economic numbers, and a clearly dedicated core of support, would be the “odds-on” favorite to win the White House.  

History Doesn’t Lie

History seems to make Trump that good bet.  

Bill Clinton won re-election in what seems like similar circumstances.  He won his first Presidential election with less than a majority, only gaining 43% of the popular vote in 1992 (Note: this was a three-way election, Bush had 38%, and Ross Perot 19%.) He lost control of the House of Representatives in 1994, and was investigated by Independent Counsel Ken Starr during the 1996 election.

But the economy improved in his first term, and the 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole came from the conservative side of the Republican Party.  In the primaries, he went even farther to the right to offset his strongest opponent, Pat Buchanan.  Clinton himself was from the middle of the political spectrum.  More liberal Democrats (like me) saw him as “Republican-Lite.”   Clinton won in 1996 with 49% to Dole’s 41%.

George W Bush also won under similar circumstances.  He defeated Al Gore, literally by “a hanging chad” in the election of 2000, losing the popular vote but eking out an Electoral College victory.  And while the Democratic candidate in 2004, John Kerry, seemed to have a solid chance, Bush was able to ride his strong performance during 9-11 to a second term.

He Fits the Bill

So what’s different with the Trump 2020 candidacy?  He too had a minority of the popular vote in 2016.  He also has improving economic numbers, with the job market growing and the stock market setting record after record.  And the loyalty of his base is undeniable.  Even a President who talks about the Continental Army capturing airports during the Revolutionary War doesn’t seem to shake their confidence in him.

Trump lost the House of Representatives in 2018 to the Democrats, and is under something like twenty different investigations, from his personal finances to cooperating with the Russians to win in 2016.  And the Democrats are likely to nominate a “liberal” opponent. Even if a more moderate candidate like Joe Biden wins, he will be forced to move to the Left in the primaries.

The Gambler’s Choice

If you are a cold, dispassionate gambler, you probably don’t put money on the 2020 general election at all. There’s no profit to be made on betting on Trump, and the odds, and history, are against anyone else.

But, my non-Trumpian friends, don’t tear up your tickets yet.

Like Trump or not, we know one thing more than anything:  he has upended political tradition, changed the way politics works, and has made “unconventional” and “unprecedented” the norm.  That’s one of the things that makes “the Resistance” crazy; Trump does things that would have destroyed the Presidency of anyone else, from Obama to Reagan.  It doesn’t seem to matter, he blindly plows on ahead with his 40% cheering him on.

The saysing goes, “there’s is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.”  If you are “unprecedented” then the precedents of the past shouldn’t apply.  If you break the “norms” then you can’t expect the norms of the past to count.  The inertia of past performance, of history, won’t apply as strongly to a President who is rejecting history left and right.

Look inside the numbers: the employment numbers are good, but wage growth is stagnant.  That means people are finding work, but the work doesn’t pay the bills.  No wonder employment is up, people need to hold down two jobs to make it.  

The stock market is booming, in large part because of the Trump Tax Cut. It gave billions of dollars (actually over a trillion) mostly to business.  And the businesses did what you’d expect:  they turned a bigger profit thus pushing the Market even higher. Those cuts don’t seem to have translated into stronger American industry, and the average voter isn’t feeling “good” about their personal finances.

How Do They Feel

Trump won the Electoral College through a very slim margin in three states, 77744 votes out of 120 million plus to be exact (here’s the Trump World essay on that.)  The best analysis is that those voters got exactly what they wanted, an “unprecedented” President who didn’t believe in “norms.”  

The question anyone betting now has to ask, is this:  now that those voters got what they wanted, are they happier for it?  If the answer is yes, then Trump really might be the safe bet. But, if the answer is determined by the unimproved  economic quality of their lives, then it’s likely they will act in an unprecedented manner, and do what angry voters often do:  throw the bum out.

Independence Day Rage

How can I express my feelings about what my country; under the 50 Star Flag, in the name of its citizens, in my name; is doing to migrants on the border?  What can I write that can possibly explain the horror, the frustration, and the disgust l feel in what my fellow Americans are allowing in El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, and probably all over the United States?  How can we respond to a Border Patrol (CBP) that views migrants as less than human, treats them like cattle to be warehoused, and jokes about it on Facebook?

It’s Our Emergency

Why is this not a “national emergency?”  Where are the buses, the emergency shelters, the MRE’s (meals ready to eat used by the military)?  Hell, there’s a Subway Shop just down the street, they should send a six-footer over and knock on the door.  This is not out in the desert, hidden from view.  This warehousing of humans is occurring in plain sight, right in the middle of our towns.

This is not a “necessary” outcome of more migrants coming to the border.  Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, claims that some of the fault lies with the “traffickers” or “coyotes.”  He’s right, those folks are profiting from getting migrants across the border.  But no matter how you slice it, it’s not the “traffickers” or “coyotes” that are being held responsible in this mass incarceration.  We aren’t holding the traffickers, we have their victims.

We are holding those VICTIMS in mass detention.

Government Created

Many migrants coming to the border is not a new problem.  The problem is the Trump Administration response.  They determined that migrants crossing the border were criminals to be jailed:  jailed without hearing, without due process, and without legal recourse.  The regular places to hold folks in detention, many of them run by private contractors (the same ones who run private prisons) and not the government, are filled.  

This left the overflowing backlog to sit in the “holding cells” at the Border Patrol stations.  No one provides a place, so they just stack up to capacity, then over-capacity, and then even more.  We now have rooms literally full of people, so full that they can’t lie down to sleep and can’t move.  The migrants call them “ICE boxes,” and not just because are in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, buildings. They are kept so cold that the migrants feel like their freezing to death.  I suspect it’s to keep the smell down, since it may be months between showers, or a change of clothes. 

We are doing this to men, women, and children.  The “rules” say that these migrants should be in “holding” for seventy-two hours, there are now many who are exceeding forty days.  Children, by Federal Court order; cannot be held by Homeland Security for more than three days. They must be turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services.  

But the children aren’t processed fast enough, and their overwhelming numbers have swamped the Border Patrol, grinding the process to a halt.  There are relatives who could take the children; there are HHS shelters available for them.  Instead, they are trapped in rooms, sleeping on floors, no showers, no clean clothes, for weeks.

Fix This!!

No matter what, it will take some time to alleviate this catastrophe.  Even if the Trump Administration came to their senses, and allowed the migrants parole to humanitarian agencies or relatives, it would take a while to process the requests.  But it would be a start, and an eventual end, to the atrocity that the Trump Administration is committing now.

In the meantime, there are still quick and effective solutions to the detainment problems.  Call up the Texas National Guard.  Use their armories as temporary shelters.  There’s one in Corpus Christi, one in Laredo, and two in El Paso.  There are showers, and gyms were cots can be put in, and ready food available.  Use the guardsmen to help supervise, not just guard.  We do it all the time in hurricanes and other natural disasters.  We should be even faster to act when it’s a manmade one.

The Fourth of July

Today is the Fourth of July, Independence Day.  We celebrate the “immigrants” coming to America who, to quote Hamilton “…get the job done.”  We talk about patriotism and pride in what our nation has accomplished.  But it’s hard to take pride when it’s our nation, in our name, under our flag, doing this today.  Independence Day is a day to highlight with fireworks.  What is happening on the border is so shameful that they tried to hide it from us all.  They should, because it’s wrong.

The Facts

$140:  that was the cost for the Nike “Betsy Ross Flag” trainers. So before we go too far into the arguments about the shoes, they were $140 shoes.  When I was running significant distances (a few years ago) I bought running shoes at $100, now that I’m a slow jogger, I stick with my old faithful Asics at $75.  So there’s that.

Betsy Ross:  while legend has it that she sewed the flag for George Washington, it probably didn’t happen.  Washington didn’t cut down the “cherry tree” either, and he probably told a lie or two.  So there’s that as well.

The Story

The flag, thirteen red and white stripes, a blue field in the corner with thirteen stars in the field; was the original flag authorized by the Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1777.  There were lots of flag makers in Philadelphia, and any of them could have made it.  Whoever did, it became the first “official” flag of the United States.

Today’s story:  Nike produced shoes to honor the Fourth of July with the original thirteen star flag on them.  Colin Kaepernick, NFL quarterback who began the “kneel during the National Anthem” movement, now on contract as a Nike spokesman; claims that the flag is symbolic of the racism of the founding fathers, and shouldn’t be honored.  He also stated that some white nationalists groups used the flag for “their” symbol. Nike withdrew the shoes from sales (though you could buy a pair on the “gray” market, now for over $2000.) 

The History

Many of the founding fathers were slave owners, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, among them.  Many weren’t, such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton (though his wife’s family did) and Roger Sherman.  Slavery was a part of the thirteen colonies, as much as it was a part of the United States through the Civil War.  The impact of slavery, seen in racism and discrimination, still echoes in our nation today.

Kaepernick kneeled rather than stand for the flag during the National Anthem as an opportunity to highlight the injustice and brutality many black people face.  His message was that this country wasn’t perfect; this was his way to use the spotlight of the NFL, where 70% of the players are black, to highlight the issue. A vast majority of the fans are white. 

Kaepernick specifically stated:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.  To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”  (NFL)

That was his right, his freedom of speech, and I back him.  I also agree with him about what happens “in the street.”

Today’s Standards or Yesterday’s

However, I do not think we can simply paint our entire past over with the “red paint” of racism.  Yes many of our founding fathers were racist; they were men of their time. The real brilliance of the founding fathers, was that despite their own flaws and actions, they were able to see beyond to a nation that could be better than all of them.  You see it in Jefferson’s “…all men are created equal…” and in Madison’s “…more perfect union,” and in the First Amendment right that Kaepernick is exercising.  The founding fathers made their ugly deal with slavery and pushed it onto future generations to fix.  They had too many problems to solve to do them all at once.

None of that makes slavery acceptable, or right, but it does provide perspective into our past.  They were aware, (“woke?”) of the total injustice of slavery, but could not find a way to get rid of it without destroying the nation they were building.  

So the “Betsy Ross flag” does represent men who allowed slavery, or made their “deal with the devil of slavery” to get their nation.  But it also represents the nine thousand black men who fought for the Revolution under that flag, some as freedmen, and some as slaves that would never see freedom.  And more importantly, it represents the vision that those Americans, white and black, had for the future.  The vision has yet to be fulfilled, but without their effort, it would never even started.

Get Your Own Flag

Some say that white nationalists have co-opted the Continental Flag, just as they long ago overtook the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag (the “rebel” flag .)  But in researching the topic, there are very few references to white nationalism and the thirteen star flag, and when it was used, it was paired with other racist symbols.

And, unlike the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Continental Flag started out as the flag representing ALL of our United States. It was our first national flag. We should not easily give it up to the extremes, it represents all of our history. Those extremists wave one flag more than any other, it is the current 50 Star Flag. We’re not giving up on that one either.

The flag of the Continental Marines, the “Don’t Tread on Me” snake flag, for two centuries was a symbol of revolutionary fervor.  It was only ten years ago that the “Tea Party” movement co-opted it into a politically conservative and anti-federalism flag. Since, “citizen-militia” and “sovereign nation” groups have joined in and the “rattlesnake” has become an extremist favorite.

And then there is the “inside baseball” white nationalist, parked in a local nature reserve, who put the “true” Confederate flag on his truck bumper. The sticker says: “for those who know.” He’s not wrong, their are few who do.

Nike is a private company, and can market, not market, or change their mind without permission.  But the “Betsy Ross flag” represents much more than the narrow views of a few current extremists. It also means more than the 18th century racism of our founding fathers. It represents the hopes and dreams that are the foundation of our nation, the dreams of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and the rest.  While their dreams were not fulfilled, they remain our own.  It is for that reason, that we should not allow the Continental Flag to be “co-opted.” It should be honored.

It’s fascinating listening to Republicans today.  Horrified by Donald Trump, the President their Party chose, these “never-Trumpers” are now telling the Democrats what candidate to nominate.  

The Devil’s Bargain

I can’t blame them for turning away from Trump. Skipping the entire litany of terrible things he is responsible for, everyone should be repelled by at least two actions.  First, his embrace of dictators from Kim to Putin to MBS.  Trump has excoriated the leaders of, as Putin would say, “liberal democracies,” but it’s all hugs and smiles for tyrants that murder.

Second are the intentional atrocities at the Southern Border.  We know that Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions set in place a program to “send a message” to Central America. The message was simple:  we don’t want you to come to the United States, and we will treat you inhumanely if you do.

The result of this policy was child separation, and now, the unacceptable conditions of both child and adult detention centers.  We, the United States, have “crimes against humanity” occurring on our border, by our government agents, in our name.

Republicans were asked to swallow so much in return for Supreme Court Justices and tax cuts.  It is no wonder that many are gagging now, and want out of the “devil’s bargain” they made to avoid Hillary Clinton.

Not Your Call, Not My Business

But don’t tell us Democrats who to chose for our Presidential candidate in 2020.   We see a vote against Trump as a moral imperative and would welcome yours. But, we aren’t going to nominate a “Republican-lite” in order to get it.  If you want that, Bill Weld is running, John Kasich would if he could:  go find a way to fix your own Party.

But of course, you can’t. The Republican Party has been totally infected with Trumpism: it will take the destruction of the Party to rebuild.  Just as Democrats don’t want your advice on who to nominate, we shouldn’t presume to tell you how to rebuild your Party.  But it does seem that “good” Republicans have voluntarily muzzled themselves, and it’s hard to believe that’s just because they are afraid of Presidential “tweets.” 

It must be something more than just fear of losing votes.  A little unsolicited advice:  check how much Russian money has gotten into the campaign coffers of the “good” Republicans. 

What’s Right for Democrats

The Democratic Party is going through a process.  Sure, right now some candidates are answering questions about bussing for school desegregation, eliminating the Electoral College, reparations for slavery, and American bilingualism.  These are issues that are important to segments of the Democratic electorate, and that’s what the primary process is all about.

But Democrats recognize the big problems of our time:  health care costs, climate change, income disparity, women’s health rights, institutional racism, and the failure of the world order the United States has led since World War II.  We have more than twenty candidates offering diverse solutions to these problems. Some of those solutions seem extreme, some are sound; we have eight months until the first caucus and primaries.  We will sort through all of the choices, and find the candidate that has the best chance to forward our solutions.

A Coalition

The formula for a Democratic coalition to win the Presidency is sound.  It’s not just about winning a majority; Democrats proved in 2000 and 2016 they could do that and still lose the Presidency.  Even with the same 2016 vote:  Wisconsin and Michigan now have Democratic Governors, and there were big Democratic gains in the House of Representatives in 2018.  The “generic” situation has changed.  There’s no “sure thing” in politics, but that definitely includes the re-election of Donald J. Trump.

It’s Our Party

Democrats are going to represent Democrats.  We are a party of women’s and minority rights, we are a party of the working class. In the face of Trumpism, the Democratic Party is going to be true to it’s own base, and it’s own values.  It’s OUR Party.  But you’re welcome to join in.  My God, if you could swallow Trump last time, you should be able to stomach health care for all and choice.  And if you can’t, we will do without your vote. 

Paying for Health Care

Small Business

A friend of mine runs a small business, with about twenty employees.  He shared with me the costs of providing health insurance for his staff. 

 One employee, in their early thirties with a spouse and two children, costs $17400 per year for coverage, even with a $10000 deductible.  The cost is divided between the employer and employee, and has continued to rise at ten percent per year.

While my friend didn’t share the salaries of his employees, it’s a small business, and no one is making a huge salary.  This insurance cost is $1450 a month, shared by the employee and the employer.  It’s a big chunk, either out of the employee’s pocket, or in money not available to my friend to use for pay-raises.  And the cost just keeps growing.

For the past three decades, the United States has been debating the costs of health care.  As the nation has argued, the price we pay continues to escalate.  Today, the US has the most expensive health care in the world.  For those with good insurance, it is some of the best care in the world, but for those who don’t have insurance, the cost of care makes it inaccessible.  

The Problem

We know all of this.  13.7% of Americans DO NOT have health insurance (VOX.) We know that some of those Americans choose not to purchase insurance, “rolling the dice” and banking on their good health and luck.  But many do not choose, they simply cannot afford insurance, and aren’t “poor enough” to qualify for government paid insurance, Medicaid.  

And what about the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare”?  If filled in some of the gaps, helping many of those caught in between having enough money for necessities, but not enough for insurance.  But it wasn’t perfect in the first place, and the present White House is slowly cutting away the supports of the ACA.  The prime funding for it, “the individual mandate” requiring everyone to either have insurance or pay a fine, is gone. And while the ACA is cheaper than competitive private insurance, it certainly isn’t cheap.

Medicare for All

Last week, twenty Democrats running for President debated health care.  All twenty agreed that changes should be made in how our nation provides it.  But that’s where the agreement ended.

The most “radical” plan calls for the end of private insurance.  Everyone would be enrolled in a government plan, “Medicare for All.” This is not the “free” medical care Republicans decry.  Medicare for All costs, and would be paid for by increased taxes.  The difference for most Americans would be that instead of paying for private insurance, they will pay Medicare taxes, presumably less than the private costs.

It has the benefit of “economy of scale.”  Everyone will be on some variation of the “same plan.”  Pharmaceutical companies can only negotiate with one entity, the government.  And private health insurance profits are gone.

“Everyone loves Medicare” is the battle cry of the Medicare for all folks, and that’s generally true. But there is a, perhaps fatal, flaw in the plan.  It would require that over two-thirds of the country (Census) give up their private insurance, and switch over.  Many, perhaps most Americans, are pretty happy with their health plans, even if they complain about the rising costs.  To ask almost 218,000,000 to give up their insurance for an “unknown” plan would seem to be more than difficult, and definitely bad politics.

Hybrid Plans

So there are multiple “hybrid” plans, including a “public option” allowing government sponsored insurance to compete with private insurance plans.  It’s difficult to see how this could be cost effective for the government, and has the drawback of folks paying for private insurance also paying taxes for government insurance (sort of like the parents who send their children to private schools, but still pay public school taxes.) 

Then there is the option of “re-booting” the Affordable Care Act. That allows the government to subsidize private plans. It also creates the incentive of requiring everyone to either have insurance or pay a fine, as the ACA was originally constituted.  The ACA’s biggest problem was getting insurance companies to participate in areas where there was little competition.  That created areas (particularly rural) where ACA costs were extremely high.

Republican Alternatives

While all of these ideas have their flaws, there is one thing for certain.  The President and the Republican political leaders haven’t offered any alternatives.  Their choice seems to be to go back to the insurance era of twenty years ago, when insurance companies could refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, and simply not cover those with higher risks. That leaves many Americans “bare” of coverage, pushing the cost of their limited care onto hospitals and government.

There doesn’t seem to be a “great” option, but doing nothing isn’t an option either.  My friend’s business is struggling with the cost of insurance, and his experience is typical.  Insurance is absorbing more and more of the income available for both the business, and the employee:  ultimately it is unsustainable.

One way or another, change will have to come.

Through Putin’s Eyes

“The liberal idea… has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population” – Russian President Vladimir Putin

Liberal and Undemocratic

“The liberal idea is obsolete:” that’s what Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said in the Financial Times of London. In the interview, he was commenting specifically about immigration, a worldwide issue of contention.  Putin claims that the “liberal” view of helping immigrants, from the war-torn Middle East in Europe, and from Central America in the United States; is “undemocratic.”

His use of the word “liberal” shouldn’t be confused with the American usage contrasted to “conservative.”  Liberal to Putin are the governments that freely elect representatives and recognize the value in all citizens, regardless of race or nation of origin. Liberal in his sense would be better contrasted with authoritarian.  But he cloaks his view in the language of democracy, claiming a majority is being ignored.

His argument:  the “liberal governments” are undemocratic because “vast majorities” of Europe and the United States are against immigration, and “liberal” governments are forcing them to accept migrants. According to the Russian, those migrants “…can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants have to be protected.”

It sounds a lot like President Trump’s 2015 speech announcing his candidacy for President: “When Mexico sends it’s people…They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

It’s supposed to.

It’s the Economy

The Russian Government has a vested interest in the failure of “liberal” ideas in Europe and the United States.  Putin needs to convince his own Russian people that the nationalistic autocracy he represents is “better for the people” than the “liberal” democracies they see in Europe.  His ideas are catching on: Hungary, Poland, and Austria have elected governments with similar beliefs.

Nationalism, the political ideology that brought disaster in World War II, is burning again throughout the “western world.”  Putin is providing the fuel for that fire.  He is financing political parties in many nations, and Russian intelligence continues their successful internet attack efforts. The US election of 2016, with the ascendancy of Donald Trump, is the most successful example of their influence.

It’s not that Putin necessarily controls Trump, though that possibility remains.  It’s that the actions of Trump in weakening traditional American alliances, supporting nationalism, and encouraging racism in the United States; have played into the Russian strategy.  It doesn’t hurt Putin that today was the day that Trump crossed over into North Korea to embrace another dictator, Kim, without gaining any concessions from him.

Putin wants a weak Russian economy to be able to compete in Europe. But the European Union dominates the region, and since Russia doesn’t have the ability to compete, his goal is to bring the EU down, by supporting nationalist parties throughout.  The vote in the United Kingdom to break out of the EU, Brexit, was a great victory for him.

To What End

“Liberal” philosophy:  that more developed nations have a responsibility to help those less developed, is under attack.  “Liberal” ideals:  freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and a responsibility to help everyone in a society; are being questioned.  The foundations of the United States written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are now being challenged, both from outside and from within.

Putin offers the same choice that former Trump advisor Steve Bannon advocated:  a white, Northern European world alliance.  Bannon is working inside Europe promoting the idea, Trump is pushing the United States in that direction, and Putin is poised to be “the winner.”   In their view, the losers would be the rest of the non-white world.

But the real losers would be the peoples of the “liberal” nations who would lose their right to free speech and the rest, in order to stifle dissent to the autocrats.  We see it happening:  Putin has murdered reporters, he and Trump joke about the press and “fake news,” and Trump shakes hands with the Mohammad bin Salman, the murderer of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.  

The statement by Putin should be no surprise.  What should be a surprise, but isn’t:  the President of the United States has nothing but smiles and handshakes for the Russian, joking about Russian meddling in American elections. It should provide Americans with another good reason to see Mr. Trump out of office in 2020.

Democratic Debates

Night One

So if there’s one thing for sure about the first ten Democrats on the stage Wednesday night, it is that, with one exception, they agree on most things.  They all want a public option for medical care, some want a mix of private and public insurance, and some just want public.  

Climate change is a concern for all of the candidates.  Jay Inslee, Washington Governor, has made it the focus of his campaign, and builds all of his other issues through an environmental lense, but they ALL recognize the environment as a priority.

While Senator Warren and several others had less to say about it, clearly immigration is a major issue for everyone.  Julian Castro, former Mayor of San Antonio and Housing Secretary, made an impassioned case for his immigration plan, then demanded that the other candidates pledge to support it.  Others seemed to agree, with New Jersey Senator Cory Booker expanding on the need to end underlying racism in our country.

Minnesota’s Senator Amy Klobuchar made strong points, but didn’t seem to have the “stage presence.” Her argument, that she is an effective Senator who can win in red counties, didn’t seem to catch on.  She also took a more moderate path.

On one end of the stage, New York’s Mayor DeBlasio emphasized the need for the Democrats to get back to the “Party” of workers, and Ohio’s Congressman Tim Ryan called for the Party to regain the confidence of the “forgotten worker.”  On the other end, former Maryland Congressman John Delaney was the exception, calling for bipartisanship and limited goals and clearly taking the most moderate stand on that stage.

While there were a few mentions of President Trump, with Governor Inslee and Secretary Castro stating the need to say “adios” to him; oddly he wasn’t the bête noire of the night. That honor fell to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  One problem the candidates couldn’t solve, was what to do if they became President and McConnell remained in control of the Senate.  Senator Warren would lead popular movement against him, Congressman Delaney find a way to make a deal, and the rest depend on a Democratic wave to bring a Senate majority.

Overall, Warren started “on fire” but seemed to fade as the night went on.  However, with her frontrunner status on the stage, she didn’t hurt herself either.  Booker acquitted himself well, getting the most speaking time on the night.  The surprise of the night was Castro; he showed himself as intense, articulate, and well prepared.  His status went up.  

Klobuchar was solid but understated.  Beto O’Rourke started slowly (and looked exhausted) but improved as the night went on. Jay Inslee got the chance to push his environmental focus, but seemed to get left out of much of the rest of the debate. Congressman Tulsi Gabbard seemed over-rehearsed and unwilling to jump into the debate.  She did push Tim Ryan into supporting the war in Afghanistan, a stand the rest of the Party is unlikely to support.  

DeBlasio came off as “New York” tough, not willing to sit back and wait his turn.  That toughness may appeal to Democrats afraid of a candidate who can’t stand up to Trump.  Ryan made his points, but didn’t seem as prepared to talk about issues other than jobs. And John Delaney seems out of step with the center of the Democratic Party, trying to take the moderate view. We’ll see if Joe Biden will have the same problem tonight.

Night Two

Senator Kamala Harris: this was the night she broke out of the pack.  She was the same intelligent, concise and compassionate speaker we heard in the Judiciary Committee hearings.  She was solid, and placed herself in the “top tier” of candidates.  And, of all of the candidates for President, she was the one that highlighted the great flaws in Joe Biden.

Biden, still articulate, looked “dapper;” but has so much to defend.  A career in public service stretching back to the late 1970’s; his history gives opponents the opportunity to litigate every controversial issue of the past fifty years.  Harris questioned Biden’s stand on school busing for desegregation back in the early 80’s.  She was able to underline Democrat’s biggest concern:  she was a child on a bus, he was a US Senator already at the peak of power, almost a half century ago, in short, he is too old.

Biden tried to defend his stand, but the language of school desegregation busing:  de jure and de facto, court ordered versus agency ordered; is ancient.  The key words to explain no longer have meaning, you have to define the definition, and in the end he sounded like he was dissembling, not explaining.

Pete Buttigieg was articulate, and stood firm under the questioning about the police shooting in South Bend.  He took a chance, clearly admitting that he failed to diversify his police force, but was still able to expand the conversation from South Bend to the national issue of institutional racism.

Senator Bernie Sanders: it’s difficult for me to take a dispassionate view of him.  His answers haven’t changed in the past decade, but his solutions all depend on the “Bernie” revolution.  There is no room for incrementalism in his plan; it is all or nothing.  And since I don’t believe we will ever reach it all, I find a lot of what he says empty.  

Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado tried to find room in the “center lane” of the Party, but is no master of the forty-five second answer.  He has a nuanced view, one that requires explanation, and takes a while to “wind up” to his answer.  Meanwhile, the debate moved on.

Senator Gillibrand made a strong case as for women.  She demanded a place for women in “the room where it happens,” and wants to be the one. She also highlighted her plan, echoed by Buttigieg, to clean up politics.   Her view:  if we don’t fix politics, nothing else happens.  

Governor Hickenlooper staked out his place as a problem solver and a centrist, even expressing willingness to work with the petroleum companies in climate change.  And Mr. Yang emphasized his solution:  give everyone a base pay, and the issues created by poverty fade.

Congressman Swalwell of California seemed to be left out of much of the conversation, but stood out on the pivotal issue of gun violence.  Like Inslee on climate the night before, the Congressman lead on his willingness to remove assault rifles from American life, going farther than any other candidate.

And Ms. Williamson has the “Beatles” answer to defeating Trump:  “All you need is Love (da, da-da, da-da.)”

Harris was the clear winner on the debate stage.  Biden defended himself as a man who gets things done, but spent much of the night on the defensive.  Buttigieg, on a night some predicted as the end of his campaign, found a way to continue to reach more voters.  Sanders was Sanders; like him and he sounds great, but he did little to convert others. The others chimed in, but those three stood out.

It’s over a year from the Convention

The Democratic Convention starts on July 13, 2020 in Milwaukee.  It’s still a political lifetime away.  Here’s the one-word takeaway from the first of many debates in the Democratic Party.

            Biden – vulnerable

            Warren – got a plan

            Sanders – same plan as before

            Harris – I can take on Trump

            Buttigieg – don’t count me out

            Booker – still needs to connect

            Castro – I’m here.

The rest have a way to go to prove their impact.  But we have a way to go, and politics can change overnight; stay tuned.

A Plan for the Border

The United States has created a crisis on the Southern Border.  Intentionally or not, the Trump Administration policies have failed to deal with the root causes. Because of that thousands are “fleeing the nightmare” (Pete Buttigieg’s words) of Central America.  What’s the plan now, and how can we “fix” this?

The Faucet

So what is the Trump Administration trying to do?  First, they are discontinuing programs in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala that were trying to improve conditions.  By doing this, they are guaranteeing that the root cause of the migration; escaping the poverty and violence for a better life in America, will continue (sounds pretty American, doesn’t it – from the Pilgrims to An American Tail.)   

So the concept of “closing the hose at the faucet” isn’t going to happen.  The migrants will continue to come; whatever they face on the journey or at the border, it’s better than what they face at home. Parents will continue to send children, hoping that at least they will have a chance.  Mexico has neither the resources nor the will to prevent them from entering, and cannot absorb them into their economy.

The Law

There are two opportunities for a migrant to claim the legal status of asylum.  The “rules” are laid out in the United Nations’ Refugee Treaty of 1951.  The first opportunity is to claim asylum in the “first” safe country the refugee gets to.  President Trump would like Mexico to be that “first” nation, making all of the migrants their problem.  

The second is that refugees can claim a third nation as their place to claim asylum, and transit other states to get there.  That is what is occurring today, Central American migrants are claiming the “right” to transit Mexico to reach the United States.  Mexico, also a signer of the treaty, is fulfilling their obligation by allowing migrants to cross.

So here they come.  As a treaty signer, the United States has to recognize their right to claim asylum.  We are required to allow them access to the Courts to prove their claim, and we have to accept them into the United States if their claim is found valid.

The Trump Administration denies these immigrants access to Court, by not letting them enter at the “Legal Points of Entry.”  Thousands wait, while only a few are allowed “in” each day.  By doing this, the Administration is generating all of the other problems.

Forcing the Choice

If an immigrant cannot legally cross the border, their only other option to claim asylum is to cross the border illegally, get into US custody, and make their claim in court. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that they are crossing wherever they can, through wilderness and desert, and across the river.  Two died yesterday, drowned in the Rio Grande.  Four died last weekend, dead of dehydration in the desert, toddlers among them.

Because the border crossings are choked to near closed, migrants are forced to try to enter illegally and “THE WALL” becomes the symbol.  The argument goes:  if migrants are crossing river, desert and mountains to get into the US, we can wall them out by building a physical barrier.  Then they won’t try.

Of course, that’s not true; migrants will continue to try to cross, whatever the barrier.  What “THE WALL” would do is make crossing a more expensive effort, requiring more expertise.  “THE WALL” will make the “coyotes,” paid to help in the crossing, indispensible.   They will know where WALL weaknesses are, whether it is tunnels, or gaps, or ladders, or bribed officials. And they will take advantage of the migrants even more.

The Camps

The migrants get here: one way or another they reach US soil and say the “magic words” of asylum.  In the past both individuals and families were processed. They were  checked for criminal backgrounds, then released on “probation” until a legal asylum hearing could be held.  Contrary to what the current Administration claims, 85 to 90% returned for the hearings.  When there were surges of migrants in the past, the reaction was to send more lawyers and judges so that hearings could be expedited.

The Trump administration determined that crossing the border outside of the legal “points of entry” is a crime so serious, that all of the crossers must be held in custody. Since the US cannot hold children in “prison,” they are separated from their parents and given to a different Federal department to be cared for.

With the surge of migration, the need to “detain” all of the illegal crossers meant the need for more and more detention centers.  The requirement to not imprison children meant the need for “kiddie centers.” Overcrowding was inevitable, as were abuses.  

There was no increase in judges or attorneys, and now the asylum case backlog is stretching over two years.  This means those in detention are there for a very long time. Kids are literally growing up apart from the parents and families.  It is the worst of all possibilities:  more migrants are coming. They can’t legally get in so they come in illegally, and the US ends up with thousands in custody.

Solution

The obvious long-term solution is to go back to the root cause of migration:  the poverty and crime in the “Northern Triangle” of Central America.  The billions of dollars of WALL would be better spent on trying to change the home environment of those folks, who live in countries with some of the highest murder rates in the world.  Long-term, turn off the faucet, and the water will stop running.

But that is long-term, a solution that will take years.  Meanwhile, the migrants are coming.

The short-term answer is to stop trying to block the border, and send lawyers and judges.  Allow migrants their legal right to claim asylum, and adjudicate their claim as quickly as fairly as possible.  Let families and non-criminal migrants to live in the United States, cared for by relatives and non-profit agencies, until their court date is reached.  

The United States doesn’t need camps: detention, relocation, or concentration. We don’t need WALL.  What America needs is to follow our legal obligations under the treaty, and our moral obligations as human beings.  It not only is the right thing to do, it is the best choice for America. 

Comfortably Numb

There used to be things that would outrage us.  We heard it on the news, and all of us, as a society, would be shocked.  It created conversations at the office and on the bus; media commentators spoke eloquently about how we needed to change. And sometimes things changed, and THAT event, whatever THAT event was, wouldn’t happen again.

But now there are actions and accusations that we just accept.  The modern phrase is, “…it’s baked in the cake;” nothing that can be done.  This week: a twelve year old is shot and killed in Newark, Ohio, the President accused of sexual assault, children abused by the Border Patrol; it’s all “just part of the news.”  It’s not shocking, or disturbing to most.  And to many, it’s called “Fake News,” the all-purpose excuse for ignoring anything that might be uncomfortable.

Unacceptable

What happened to us? How did we get so calloused to this awful reality?  

President Donald Trump was accused of sexual assault this weekend.  If it had been Barack Obama, or George W Bush, or when Bill Clinton was actually accused; the headlines in the papers, and the commentators on television made it the number one story.  Here’s a challenge:  without looking it up, who accused Trump?

Sure, we can Google it, but we have to.  We didn’t have to Google Monica Lewinsky.   Jean Carroll’s story hardly made a dent in the coverage.  We accept a President who may have committed multiple sexual assaults. If you don’t believe he did, that it’s “fake news,” then at best you are accepting a President who answers the sexual assault charges with, “…she’s not my type.” So, Mr. President, if she was your type it would be OK.

A man shoots a child in Newark, Ohio, and the twelve year old dies.  She was standing on the front porch on a summer evening.  We know the eighteen-year old assailant has “blackouts” when he commits violent acts, but we don’t know how he got the gun.

There have been eight shootings at US schools this year (NYT), three killed and fifteen wounded.  Sounds like casualties from a war zone.  This is just part of the constant “hum” of news, it hardly makes more than a two-day dent.  Nothing changes; no one is able to do more than “…thoughts and prayers,” or maybe suggest we need to arm students to shoot other students.

Too Much?

So what is it, what has completely numbed us to these horrific events?  

First, there is the sheer volume of information that we access, everyday.  It used to be thirty minutes between six and seven in the evening, delivered by Huntley-Brinkley, or Cronkite, or Jennings, or what we chose to read in the papers.  We trusted their voices and their judgments on what was important, and they filtered what we cared about, and what we never knew.  

Now we access everything. It’s not just twenty-four hour news:  Fox, MSNBC, CNN and the rest.  We are leashed to the Internet; to the alerts coming across the IPhone screen, and instant accessiblility to “search.”  To use a well-worn analogy, we used to drink from a water fountain, now we are exposed to the open end of a fire hose.  If we open our mouths a little, we are drowned with information.  So we keep our mouths closed. 

That’s an excuse, by the way, not a reason.  We can be our own editors, what we trusted others to do for us in the “old days.” We can choose our sources, decide our concerns, and find out the stories.  The sheer volume of information is a problem, but covering our faces and crying “fake news” isn’t the answer.

We Must Be Better

Yesterday I wrote about children being held by the US Government, without proper care.  Some people commented on it, others ignored it (they edited me out.)  This should be a moment of national outrage:  Trumper or Democrat, news consumer or avoider.  Instead, it too has been rolled into the volume of noise.  The Border Patrol moved the children away; it’s over. Now, some are back.

Shouldn’t we be worried even more about where those children went?  Supposedly, they are now in a tent city, in Texas, in the middle of summer. Are they being cared for, do they have air conditioning, showers, food?  Don’t we have the right to know as Americans about what America is doing to the defenseless?

Surprisingly, I’m not a Pink Floyd fan.  But they have the words to America today, from Comfortably Numb: 

            “the child is grown, the dream is gone

             and I have become, comfortably numb”

America – this cannot be us. We cannot be so wrapped up in ourselves that we let all of this go on without comment, and without action.  Americans cannot be drugged by “fake news” and go comfortably numb.  We are better than that.

Not in America

“There is a Stench” No Soap and Overcrowding in a Detention Center for Migrant Children – 6/21/19, New York Times

Families on the Border

America was justifiably outraged a year ago with the US policy of taking children from their parents at the border.  Despite what the President repeatedly said and continues to say, it was new. The Trump Administration ordered the Border Patrol to re-interpret the law.  Before, parents and children were kept together, and parents were released into the community, often with some kind of security device (ankle band.)  Over ninety percent came back for their asylum hearings, determining whether they could stay in the United States or not.

The Trump Administration determined that the misdemeanor violation of crossing the border outside of the legal points of entry was now considered criminal (kind of like saying that speeding tickets get a prison term) and took children away from their “criminal” parents. The parents were then held in detention, prisons of one kind or another.  The children were turned over to another agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. They were sent all over the country.

When the extent of the child separation program was revealed, it outraged US citizens. There were nationwide protests, and the President called the program off.  But records weren’t kept properly, and it was difficult, if not impossible, to return all the children to their parents.  The horror is, hundreds have not been reunited even today.

The New Reality

Now there is a new children’s crisis at the border.  Parents in the Northern Triangle of Central America, faced with poverty and violence in their own countries, are paying to send their children to America for a chance at a better life.  Most travel with older siblings, or aunts, uncles, and friends; some come with strangers.  When they cross the border and are picked up, the Border Patrol, legitimately worried about child trafficking, separates the children from the non-custodial adults.

The system then is supposed to process the child, and place them with relatives here in the United States, or in foster care until their legal status can be worked out.  The Border Patrol is not designed or prepared to care for kids, and is only supposed to hold the children for seventy-two hours:  three days.

Kids in Detention

But the process is overwhelmed.  Kids aren’t being held for three days, but for weeks.  

They don’t have clean clothes, or soap, or toothbrushes.  They are sleeping on cement floors, covered in aluminum foil blankets.  Toddlers – Toddlers don’t have diapers, and the older children are trying to care for them.  Meals, three of them a day, consist of instant oatmeal for breakfast, instant noodles for lunch, a frozen burrito for dinner, and a cookie and a juice box: every day.

The guards, and they are guards, not caretakers; are wearing full uniform, weapons, and face masks to cut down on the stench of unwashed bodies and soiled pants.  The children are locked down, given little time, if any, to go outside.  But even when they are let out, there is no “play,” it’s all about survival.

This is not a foreign country, some far away place where we can shake our heads at the inhumanity of it all.  No, this is Clint, Texas, on the outskirts of El Paso, just down the road on I-10. There, and in several other Border “facilities” – all in the United States, WE are abusing children.  It is WE – because these actions are taken by the United States Government in our name, supposedly for us.  

Place Blame Later, Act NOW

If this were happening in another country, WE, the United States, would be screaming, sending aid, supplies, and caretakers.  This is in Texas; why aren’t these children being taken to  San Elizario High School nearby, for showers and care.  Why aren’t they getting the free lunches being offered NOW at the school, much better than the instant noodles; why are they being held imprisoned like toddler convicts?

Is this some part of the “dis-incentive,” to deter families in Central America from sending their children to the United States?  Is this Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller’s new brainchild, deterrence using kids?  Or is this just an administrative nightmare, the result of a system overwhelmed by the changing demands of politicians, and the growing humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle that is spilling up to the US Border.  

It doesn’t Matter

Call up Dr. Jeannie Meza-Chavez, the Superintendent of the San Elizario Independent School District.  Get the districts buses, and get the kids out of “detention” and over to the high school. Have her ask her teaching staff for volunteers to help the kids get cleaned up, and changed.  They are teachers, they will come.  Call the Goodwill and Salvation Army Stores – there are several in the El Paso area.  Get towels and clothes for the kids. Use the school’s free lunch program to get them some healthy food.  Need some other stuff:  there are twenty-two Walgreen’s in El Paso.  That’s where to find toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, and diapers.

Then pull out the gym and wrestling mats and let those kids get some sleep.

Sure this will cost a few thousand dollars.  But this is how WE respond to kids in trouble.  WE don’t use kids as examples, or hostages to try to get something from Democrats in Congress, or deterrence.  It takes the will to make one phone call, to Dr. Meza-Chavez.  She will help – because wherever they came from, these are kids.

This is what Americans do. We don’t let kids suffer, whatever the reason. 

 Not here, not in America.

Post Script

Monday evening the updates said the kids in Clint were moved. Where, how, and what the new conditions are like we don’t know. While it now may not require the intervention of the local schools in Clint, it has simply shifted the problem to somewhere else, a Border Patrol “shell game.”

Here’s Sir Elton himself from 1971 – Madman Across the Water

Madman across the water

Almost two years ago, President Trump invoked Elton John songs by calling North Korea’s leader Kim “Rocket Man.”  At the time, I wrote an essay on Trump World about the events around the North Korean crisis, titled Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.  To give Mr. Trump some credit, North Korea hasn’t tested nuclear weapons since his “fire and fury” threat.  However, after two summits there isn’t a hint of an agreement, and threats to the contrary, the United States is maintaining the policy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The US continues actions to keep North Korea in check by using China’s influence and US led economic sanctions, and pushes off any solution to the next Presidency.  It’s worked so far.

captain fantastic or the brown dirt cowboy

To expand our Elton John analogy, President Trump is governing with the Madman Across the Water theory.  In just the past few weeks, he threatened to:

• Launch an attack on Iran, bombs almost on the way, then stopped it;
• Roundup millions of undocumented aliens in the US and deport them, postponed the raids;
• Levy a tariff on Mexico unless they stopped migrants, then dropped it;
• accept campaign aid from foreign nations, including Russia, and then said he might call the FBI if it happened.

President Trump threatens, blusters, and scares Americans and the rest of  the world.  Foreign leaders don’t know what to think, even after the State Department quietly tells them to ignore the noise.  Americans hear the same advice from Republican politicians, “don’t worry about what the President says; watch what he does.”  

The United Kingdom and other allies are afraid to share intelligence information with the US because they don’t trust Trump. Seemingly, neither do the American intelligence agencies. They’ve prepared attacks on Russian network infrastructure without briefing the President, afraid that he would cancel the preparations, or tell the Russians.    

The United States did respond to Iran’s attack on a drone.  While there are few details available, US Cyber Command launched a serious attack on the Iranian network infrastructure, certainly a more proportional response than a bombing raid on the Iranian mainland.  Attack US unmanned aircraft, and the response is to disrupt your computer networks; an “eye for an eye.”

When Trump backs off, John Bolton, the President’s National Security Advisor, continues as the “Madman”proxy. Bolton continues to rattle his “saber,” threatening military action.  It’s a madman battle to the maddest.  

I’m still standing

Threaten bombing and killing, then disrupt computer networks.  Allies worry about Presidential security, then a US operation against Russia is leaked in the New York Times. Threaten Mexican and American citizens with a debilitating tariff, then claim victory for a deal already made before the threats.  Keep everyone, friend and foe, off-balance and worried.

There are serious problems with Madman diplomacy, ones that the United States is just now experiencing.  If Trump is going to be the Madman, sooner of later someone is going to call the bluff:  is he really mad, or just a noisy and arrogant bully, something that fits Donald Trump’s entire life?  And the question for all Americans is:  if all of the bluff and bluster turns out to be hot air, what forces will be necessary to achieve American goals?  

funeral for a friend

Unlike the past ninety years of American Presidents, Mr. Trump shows no interest in developing coalitions.  The Allies of World War II; Truman’s grand plan of treaties with NATO, CENTO, and SEATO;  Bush 41’s coalition to fight the Persian Gulf War; Bush 43’s coalition in Afghanistan; Obama’s signatories for the Iran Nuclear Deal:  every President has determined that we need friends in the world to achieve our goals.  Every President that is, except Donald Trump.  His decision is that we are better in “one on one” situations, when our military and economic power “wins” every time.  

It’s the Trump Doctrine; multi-lateral treaties and actions are out, bi-lateral interactions are in. The problem is, when the bluff is called, it will it be only American soldiers sent to fight, and only Americans bearing the burdens.  In the current confrontation with Iran, our transactional partners, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are happy that the United States is rebalancing the Middle East in their favor.  While they will likely allow their bases to be used as staging grounds, and the Saudis will kick-in a few billion petro dollars, it will be Americans who fight and die in an armed conflict with Iran.

I guess that’s why they call it the blues

The United States President has insulted our allies and complimented our enemies.  We have bullied Mexico and Canada, and taken sides in the internal actions of the European Union.  Under the current administration, to be a friend of the United States is to be threatened and harassed, under the guise, as Mr. Trump would say, of being “honest with our friends.”  

Oh, but to be an enemy. North Korea’s Kim, treated with the upmost respect despite being a murderous dictator.  Vladimir Putin is believed over our own intelligence agencies. President Xi of China is wined and dined; no word spoken of the anniversary of Tiananmen Square.  The only “bad guys:”  Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and of course, Angela Merckel and John McCain.

Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word

The Madman Theory is a short-term, transactional kind of solution. It doesn’t build an architecture of world interaction, it instead responds to each crisis as “stand alone.”  Just because a nation is “our friend” today, doesn’t mean anything for tomorrow.  We all know those kinds of folks, at work or in society.  We know there is no loyalty, no trust to be found; only what benefits them.  And when everything falls apart, they find themselves alone. 

Let’s hope that’s not America’s fate.

Failing the Test

Education – Part 3 – In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book,” outlining the issues the candidate will face, and the arguments and positions the candidate takes.  It is so everyone on the campaign is literally on “the same page” when it comes to that issue.  I’m not running for office, but over the next several weeks, I will be presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

Failing the test

When I was the Dean of Students at our local high school, one of the worst parts of my job was attending parent/teacher meetings where staff talked about the behavior problems of kids.  It wasn’t because of the kids actions; the hard part was listening to my colleagues use “educationese” to the parents.  They talked about “behavioral norms” and “learning objectives” and “peer interactions.”  Many parents didn’t get it:  I considered it my job to translate those terms into “regular English” for them, and their kids. The “educators,” intentionally or not, were talking over their heads, and parents and kids rightfully resented it.

Standardized testing – giving students multiple commercially produced tests – creates an entire world of “educationese” for parents and students.  It sounds complicated, important, and seems to be of enormous value. Kids, parents, and teachers are threatened by the impact of results, and are left mystified about what they really mean.  

American educational leaders and politicians have made standardized testing more important than grades,  individual teacher evaluation, and student potential and progress.  We have turned over those decisions to commercial test creators, with a vested interest in making “their tests” important.  With all of that power, the tests better be meaningful. The problem:   they aren’t.

the Cost

In 2012, the estimated cost for standardized testing in US public schools was $1.7 Billion (Education Week.) Seven years later that cost is likely to have grown, but, frankly, it is still a very small percentage of the overall costs in public education.

More significantly, standardized tests cost time.  Many school districts spend twelve days or more on tests a year, that’s over two weeks of time in a thirty-six week school year.  When the costs of teachers administrating the tests and building operational costs are added in, the price goes up.

But it’s not about the money.  The question is:  does the “theory” of standardized testing actually work?  It goes like this:  take a vast number of students, and give them identical tests to try to develop a “scientific metric” (meaning numbers) evaluating what they know, where they rate among their peers, and their ranking against “historic” scores from the past.  It’s a statistician’s dream:  percentiles, rankings, base numbers, fractional growth coefficients, and the “dreaded” annual yearly progress.

figures lie

There is nothing more convincing than numbers on paper.  “The Results” carry a weight of truth that’s difficult to argue.  “It’s right here in the scores,” an administrator can say, “you don’t have any ‘facts’ to argue against them.”

My first principal, a powerful old-school educator from Alabama, had a favorite phrase:  “figures lie, and liars figure.”  

A good friend of mine, a successful businessman, responding to one of my essays on education by saying:

“The problem was never a need for quantitatively more education. It was misguided education.”  He added: “They (students) need to learn how to work as part of a team. They need to learn how to solve complex problems involving customers. Today’s curriculums teach too much unneeded stuff. ‘Facts’ that can be conjured up on Google need not be taught.” 

Both of these men are right, and have put their finger directly on the problem of basing “success or failure” in education on standardized tests. Standardized tests require “objectifying” all problems into multiple-choice answers.  What my business friend demands is that students learn how to work together on complex problems, involving interactions with others. That’s not a problem that can be broken down into an “objectified” single answer, an “A,B, C or D” choice.  It demonstrates how this kind of testing misses the target.  Instead of learning skills for real world outcomes, students are tested for objective and usually rote, knowledge.

the gospel of numbers

Once those results are “certified,” they become gospel.  They are used to promote students, evaluate teachers, and determine how funding for schools is apportioned.  In addition, they can even determine the physical control of the school district.  In Ohio, a District that fails to meet the “standards” on a long-term basis can have their leadership removed, their governance taken from the community and given to the the state, and their teacher contracts voided.

The “figures aren’t lying.” It’s worse than that.  The figures tell us information that isn’t relevant to what schools should be doing.  Look, I was a track coach for forty years.  If I had a runner who practiced really hard, but was unable to improve on their competitive performance, I failed.  It didn’t matter if the practices were “successful;” in track it’s about the race.  I needed to change the workout plan; to find a way for that athlete to succeed in the one place that mattered, competition.

Schools are working incredibly hard at testing; they are producing great test takers, and encouraging great teachers of tests.  What they are failing to do is produce the workers my business friend needs.  We are “successful” in practice, but losing the race. 

changing the focus

It’s time to end the focus on standardized test, and give students the learning and cooperative skills they need in the “real world.”  It doesn’t mean the end of tests (though ending most standardized testing would be great), but it should mean ending US education’s focus on this irrelevant outcome.   Do that, and let great teachers do what they do best: leading, encouraging, problem solving, and finding ways for kids to succeed.  We should stop worrying about the “numbers” and look at the broader success of student achievement.  We need to give them what they really need to win their race.  Success on a test isn’t it.

In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book,” outlining the issues the candidate will face, and the arguments and positions the candidate takes.  It is so everyone on the campaign is literally on “the same page” when it comes to that issue. I’m not running for office, but over the next several weeks, I will be presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

Education – part two-The Cost and the debt

Our society has become more complex.  There are fewer and fewer jobs like those of our fathers and grandfathers: jobs learned “on the job.” Once there were  good factory jobs, bolting things together or taping refrigerator doors shut before shipment. Unions made sure those jobs paid a living wage. Now those factories are gone, the unions disappearing, and a robot tapes the doors shut anyway.

It takes two more years

As the world’s complexity increases, the need for education increases as well.  It is clear today, that the thirteen years of free public education offered  (K-12) is not enough for meaningful employment.  Most jobs with living wages require post-high school training, and many more require advanced degrees.

Right now, we demand that our children, or their parents, pay for that advanced education. It’s a high cost. Even two years of technical college (Central Ohio Technical College) costs almost $5,000/year in tuition.  The local community college (Ohio State – Newark) is $10,000/year.

In our era where many are living paycheck-to-paycheck, there is little alternative but to borrow for advanced education.  Technical College: the student puts in two years and gains $10,000 in debt. Community College: students spend four years and have $40,000 of debt.  

We are saddling our young with this tremendous debt burden as they enter the workforce, preventing them from taking full advantage of mobility and the economy. They are stuck, “…another day older, and deeper in debt” (from Tennessee Ernie Ford’s song to the coal miner, Sixteen Tons.)  They live at home, they take whatever job they can, and they pay, and pay, and pay.  But they have little choice; the jobs available with a high school diploma seldom offer a living wage.

the cost

The United States is already spending over $91 Billion for the costs of student loans and grants each year.   To add a year of public education would cost around $100 Billion, less the $91 Billion that is already spent.  That means for $9 Billion, spread across the fifty states, we could provide an additional year of FREE public education. That’s $18 Billion for two years; enough to finish a technical degree to prepare for employment, or half of a four-year degree.

“FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION” is, of course, not free. It is paid for by the taxpayers, all of them, in order to “do the right thing” for our children, and our future. This is what society and government are supposed to do; instead of making those who need the education and are least able to pay for it bear the burden, often for decades. The banks gain profit, while society loses out.

This would not be a mandatory requirement, like K-12 education.  High School graduates could make other choices, including the military. In fact, there would be a tremendous growth benefit if graduated youth in the United States were offered a year or two of public service, allowing them to earn even more educational benefits. But the first two years of training should be made available, for free, to finalize their education.

the benefit

We are responsible for preparing our youth for the future.  It’s not “socialism,” it’s as American as the Northwest Ordinance of 1784, when public land was set aside for education.  The founding fathers recognized that only an educated people could maintain a democracy.  We later determined that our nation needed a better-educated workforce, first up to eighth grade, then through high school.  We made a national commitment towards math and sciences in the 1950’s to improve our military defense.

This modest proposal is simply a further extension of those ideals.  The infrastructure is already in place (though it may require expansion.)  The cost is minimal. The benefit: we improve our economy, we get a better-trained workforce, and we relieve the newest workers in our society of a crushing financial burden at the start of their work life.   And, it’s the right thing to do.

The Briefing Book – Education (Part One)

In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book,” outlining the issues the candidate will face, and the arguments and positions the candidate takes.  It is so everyone on the campaign is literally on “the same page” when it comes to that issue. I’m not running for office, but over the next several weeks, I will be presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

Public education is a topic where I have some expertise.  I was a public school teacher for twenty-seven years, ranging from sixth to twelfth grades.  After that, I was the Dean of Students of a 1200 student high school for the last nine years of my career.  As as teacher I was the President of my local union, and I did a lot of curriculum and policy development. I also was on the forefront of our schools response to the “testing” phenomenon of the late 1980’s, an era that dramatically changed public schools.  I’ve seen a lot of public education.

I also have a Masters degree in the subject, as well as a “liberal arts” under-graduate education from Denison University here in Ohio.  With only a single semester hiatus, I spent my entire student and working life in the education system.

There are three areas of education that need to be “fixed:” public schools, curriculum and testing, and post-high school education and debt.  That’s a lot to talk about, so let’s start with the public school.  

Class Size

Like it or not, there is a strong correlation between smaller class sizes and better educational outcomes, or to put it in “English,” fewer kids in a class usually means those kids learn more.  It makes common sense, a good teacher can spend more time with each student, dealing with their individual learning issues, and kids do better.

There are two problems with this.  First, it is the most expensive solution in education; teacher salaries (and benefits) are 75 to 80% of the costs to a public school district.  More teachers cost more money.  But there is no substitute: no computer, no television, no packaged program from an educational corporation; can replace a good teacher with a reasonable number of students.

We all recognize this in college.  Basic classes are usually bigger, with lectures the primary educational tool used. More advanced classes are smaller, with each student directly accountable for learning and teaching, with greater direct interaction with the professor.  In more advanced classes we are expected to learn more, and are given the individual attention to do so.

It is just as true in public schools.  A teacher in a first grade classroom is responsible for the learning of twenty-four or more kids.  The success those kids have in first grade may well determine their educational success throughout their lives.  To give them the best shot at success, the solution is:  a great teacher with fewer kids.  

Great Teachers

Several times in this essay I have already used the phrase “good” or “great” teacher.  There needs to be recognition that teaching is not a “science” where a single solution can apply to all cases.  Teaching requires a combination of subject knowledge, technical (teaching) knowledge, empathy and dedication.  There is an “art” to teaching as well as a science.  Just as every student learns differently, each teacher needs to find a process that works both for the student and the teacher. The greatest learning tool for a teacher is to teach – all of the “education” classes in the world cannot teach what experience can.  Teacher training should be an apprenticeship; beginning under a “master” teacher, learning from them, and continuing until “journeyman” and “master” status are achieved.

But you get what you pay for.  The average pay for teachers is $58,353 per year (Money.)  This is the AVERAGE, including all of those teachers who have been in the profession for many years.  The average college graduate last year started their first year of employment at around $50,000, and improved from there (CNBC.)   The average starting salary for teachers is from $30,000 to $40,000 (MaGoosh.)  From a pure money standpoint, it’s difficult for teaching to compete with other professional fields for “the best.”

Of course the argument often heard is that teachers only work 38 weeks a year.  The reality is that teachers are required to work 38 to 40 hours a week at school, and still need to put in 10 to 20 more hours “homework.” This puts most teachers at around 2000 hours a year, the same as a “normal” 40-hour per week, 50-week per year job.  

May the force be with them

This all means that while teaching is a “calling,” the “call” doesn’t include even a competitive salary compared to non-teaching peers.  The “call” is strong in some (like the “force” to use a Star Wars analogy) but many great teachers simply can’t afford to go or stay in the classroom.  It’s America:  you get what you pay for.  A discount education, with poorly paid teachers and crowded classrooms, will get exactly what you’d expect; sub-par educational outcomes.

The new burden

In addition, public education is now burdened with providing many of the social services that were not a part of the 1960’s public schools.  From nutrition, breakfast to lunch to snacks; to health screenings, to emotional support and family counseling; public schools aren’t what they used to be.  The finite resources that schools receive are stretched even thinner, and the kids lose out.

Are there wastes in public education?  Sure, though I would argue that one of the biggest wastes is the dozen or so days lost to testing each year.  Are there administrations that are top heavy, bureaucratic and expensive?  Absolutely, and current administrative models concentrating power in the bureaucracy of a “central office” fail to serve their kids (or, in the “business” model of education, their “stakeholders.”) Instead, schools should solve the kids’ problems on site, with the expert staff (that’s the teachers) and hands-on administrators.  

Today’s reality

But the reality of public education is that it is underfunded, and evaluated on a “grading system” that has little to do with student learning or outcomes.  State legislatures have applied “business model” solutions to public education, despite that fact that education is not manufacturing “widgets” (but we can teach you what widgets are!!)  So we are told that schools are failing, given “grades” on “metrics” that have little bearing on real world outcomes.  

Those “grades” become the rationale for NOT supporting funding for schools, and put education into a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.  Common sense would say to put our money where our needs are, and make students succeed.  The best way to make students succeed:  smaller classes with great teachers. It will cost more – and be worth every dime. That should be our public educational goal.