Stand, But Careful What You Deliver

 This past week an artist friend of mine was booted off a social media site. Her account was deactivated, she said, without warning, and even her side of our private conversations was removed. Apparently, this was a response to something she posted about the war in Gaza. I don’t know what it was, and can only hope that she is afforded due process for reinstatement by the site. My friend had thousands of followers, including customers for her art, and may now have to rebuild her network.

I have always believed in free speech, but have also felt that we are not protected from its consequences, especially now, when what we say or write can be an eternal albatross around our neck. Some celebrities have spoken out about Gaza, and at least in a few cases, have since felt the need to apologize after getting blowback.

Most of us can agree that the Israel-Hamas war is a tragedy of, yes, Biblical proportions, and many people in positions of authority are being asked to pick a side and make it public. Certainly, college presidents are responsible for public safety on their campuses, especially when abusive or threatening speech and behavior are going on.

Expression of unpopular views can be tolerated, but a clear line is crossed if a campus group should call for violence. At the very least, that is an act of incitement. Isn’t a former US President now being accused by many of inciting what happened on January 6th? These days, universities are hardly bastions of free speech anyway. Appearances by unpopular speakers have been disrupted or even canceled due to protest.

We expect people in certain positions, such as politicians, to speak out. But forcing every corporate CEO to comment on issues outside their spheres smacks a little of, “You’re either with us or against us.” Freedom of speech is precious, but so is the freedom NOT to speak, and for many  of us, the latter can often be the wiser choice.

That said, there is one time when we should all take a stand, especially an informed one, and that is during elections. The people we put into office shape much of what happens in our lives, and democracy enables us to choose the shapers.

But even then, the law allows our vote to be cast in secret. Whether we want to go public with it is our own business.

Whither Gaza?

 

I guess Hamas knew or should have known, as attorneys are fond of saying, that after its brutal attack on a country with a fully developed military, the response would be having a lot of things blown up. Even before Israeli troops started entering Gaza, there were days and days of air strikes, producing death, destruction, and displacement. I am not going to weigh in on whether this was militarily necessary or morally correct. But much of northern Gaza has been turned into rubble. Who’s going to clean it up, and how long will rebuilding take? (Questions that apply to Ukraine too, by the way.)

Maybe I’m raising this issue a little too late or much too early. But from what I’ve read and heard, Gaza wasn’t always the world’s largest open-air prison, as commentators often say. It was once talked about as the potential Singapore of the Middle East.

If you look at a map, there isn’t much to Gaza geographically, but it has miles of coastline in an area which has one of this planet’s most desirable climates. One would think that hotel developers would have been savoring the prospect of building resort properties near the beach.

Shifting gears: These days, we hear the term “anti-Semitic” to describe people who hate Jews. But who were the Semites, in the original meaning of that term? People who spoke any number of regional languages in the Middle East, including both Hebrew and Arabic. The Semites included Assyrians, who lived in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria, among other places. The country boundaries now generally recognized were not drawn up until after World War I by Western colonial powers. Ethnically speaking, maybe the folks who live in this region are a lot closer than they like to think.

The Bible tells us that the Jews, after escaping slavery in Egypt, advanced to the Promised Land by smiting a lot of tribes on the way, but they still faced domination at times in varying degrees by the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks, and even the British. They didn’t get a country of their own, called Israel, until 1948, and they had to fight to keep it. But ancestors of those now called Palestinians lived in this area too. Not all Israelis are Jewish, and not all Palestinians are Islamic, but all have legitimate reasons to be where they are. We can only hope that all sides will tire of the conflict, and to borrow phrasing from Rodney King, all just get along, if that’s now even possible.

 

Cliff Notes

 

Here we are, at the edge of another precipice. In a few days, we could have a partial government shutdown as Congress struggles to meet the annual budget deadline. Maybe it’s not quite as serious as a debt ceiling, but either way, looking over that edge, it seems like a long way down.

The interesting thing to me is, no matter how many news stories we hear about this, most of us in the audience are still sitting down and watching what’s happening. Suppose this were going on in, say, France? When will we finally get tired of it?

We are now in the middle of an economy that, statistically at least, looks pretty good. But economies are not judged by ups and downs as much as by stability. Does a government shutdown feel like stability to us? Is this how we keep a decent credit rating? And how is that the people deciding on a shutdown continue to collect their salaries while federal workers are cut off – and some of those required to work anyway? What’s that called?

It’s way too late to fix blame. Even if it seems obvious who’s at fault here, it doesn’t change the numbers. Math is a brutal thing. It doesn’t find fault for sins of the past nor permit magical thinking about the future. The problem is firmly fixed in the present.

Why must solutions only come at virtual gunpoint? Our leaders usually know months ahead of time that these deadlines are coming. Our federal legislators take multi-week summer vacations when they know full well that it leaves almost no time to reach  agreements. We could probably all agree that federal spending is too high, but is this the only way to deal with it? It seems far from what the late Senator John McCain would call “regular order.”

There are some in Washington who seem to really want to “burn it all down.” We likely know who they are. But these folks, let’s remember, are still in the minority. The only way the tail can wag the dog is if the dog allows it.

 

 

 

In Other News...

 

With the filing of the Georgia indictments against Trump et al, it seems all the shoes, at least the big ones, have now dropped. So where do we all go from here? By “we,” I include the media.

First off, we can stop with “historic” and “unprecedented.” Been there and said that.

Let’s face it: the next phase just isn’t going to be as exciting. It will be all about procedural twists and turns in the legal cases, which could mean more hours spent on cable news with the various legal experts. How much of that are we willing to watch?

Of course, Trump is way ahead of his potential Republican competition -- not surprising at this stage, and we saw only about half the candidates in the latest debate. Must we spend hours talking about whether Trump can run the country from jail if he’s convicted, then elected President? Come on, everybody. There have been no primaries yet. We are way ahead of ourselves, or in front of our skis, as it seems popular to say now.

But TV audiences can be fickle. Isn’t there a point where fatigue is going to set in, and we’re just going to want to consume something else? Even when court cases begin, they can take a long time and be boring.

Suppose Trump is not the Republican nominee next year. Will we be quite as  interested in following the trials, some of which could last well after the 2024 election? Talk about long national nightmares.

The man who came up with that phrase was the late President Gerald Ford, who pardoned Richard Nixon so that the country could move on. Ford is being blamed in some quarters now for setting the precedent by which future Presidents could escape justice. I believe that Mr. Ford was sincere in his action to bring the Watergate drama to an end. In Nixon’s case, he resigned. He was not a fan of journalists, and aside from granting an interview or two, did not seem interested in becoming a perennial media star after his departure.

These days, there are simply too many unknowns for there to be much profit in playing “what if” games in the Trump saga. I think we’d be much calmer if we simply see where the actual chain of events takes us.

 

 

Our Long National Nightmare - The Series

First off, I am not going to discuss the legal issues related to Donald Trump’s indictment – more agile minds than mine are doing just fine with that. I do want to talk about whether the trial, if it happens, should be televised. As a former journalist who is no fan of Trump, you might think I am one of those clamoring for the trial to be on TV or streamed live, but I’m actually not so sure.

I get that this is just about the most important story in our history, so that we feel entitled to have cameras in that courtroom. One cable pundit said this week, well, the OJ trial was on TV, why shouldn’t this be? I think there needs to be a better poster child for that argument.

In the interest of full disclosure, I lapped up the OJ drama along with many others, and watched the Geraldo evening coverage after every court proceeding. In the small city I worked in as a journalist, the city manager felt that there would be no useful work done at verdict time, so he invited every city employee to a large conference room to watch  it come down on TV.

It is said that the final yes or no on TV coverage for the Trump trial is up to US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The high court itself only recently allowed live audio coverage of its own proceedings. I don’t have a problem with that.

But there is just something about seeing court activity on a screen. That makes everything cross the line into entertainment. Can you imagine the viewership if Trump were to actually testify?

There is another thing that bothers me a little. Even now, every minute spent on all this special TV coverage is a fund-raising tool for the former guy. Hey, here’s an idea: I’m sure if they put the trial on pay-per-view, we could retire a big chunk of  the national debt.

Supporters of Trump suggest there would be riots in the streets if he’s convicted. Is anybody asking, what’s going to happen if he isn’t?

But back to the point: This is serious business; it shouldn’t be infotainment. Narration to enhance the courtroom audio would work for me. And hey, if your eyes aren’t glued to a screen, maybe you can get some other stuff done.   

 

We Aren't There Yet

 When I was admitted to a prestigious Northeastern college many years ago, it was almost too easy. First of all, I’m white, as was almost everyone else there, but that wasn’t the easiest part. Though my grades and SAT scores weren’t bad, I wasn’t president of my high school class nor especially athletic; I was not a classically trained musician, and as a teenager, I didn’t found a nonprofit to provide water to villagers in Africa. Why did this college want me? The admissions guy said that instead of creating a class of individually well-rounded students, the college wanted a well-rounded class made up of different kinds of students.

I was close to feeling I didn’t deserve to go there. But I have since come to believe that the D word has, more often than not, been a source of trouble. My mother always said, be grateful for your advantages, and make use of them when they appear. Just look at the news every day. How many people do you see getting exactly what they deserve?  if you get thrown a line, grab it – you may not get another later on.

All of this said, my college had the beginnings of a right idea: a diverse group of students, even mostly within a single gender and race.  A novel concept in those times.

I have never been a big fan of affirmative action; on its face, it doesn’t seem fair. But as  Supreme Court justices Sotomayor and Jackson said in so many words in their dissents to the court majority’s ruling, taking race out of the equation in college admission by fiat doesn’t take it out of real life.

I definitely don’t support blanket cash reparations to members of oppressed minorities. But affirmative action has been a real and meaningful reparation in itself for decades. The only way you will put a dent in racism is by gathering people of different colors together so they can get used to one another. Creating that well-rounded student body means ensuring that qualified members of minority groups are welcomed.

Minorities in general have faced challenges, but it seems like blacks in particular historically had the roughest deal: brought here against their will to serve as slaves. That counts for something.

The Supreme Court ruling means that universities, especially the elite ones that really want to diversify their student bodies, will have to be more careful about how they achieve that goal.  As for racism, it ain’t over till it’s over, to borrow Yogi Berra’s now-too familiar phrasing. We still have some innings to go.

Is It, or Isn't It, Just Another Ism?

This past week we were presented with the alarming image of President Biden tripping and falling after a speech. He is in his 80s now, and the usual suspects among the pundits started in about whether he can make it through another term as President.

He tripped on a sandbag left on stage where he had just spoken. And, with a little help, he got right up, with no visible injury. You or I could have easily tripped on such an obstacle ourselves.

This is the same man largely responsible for making the deal to avert a catastrophe: defaulting on our national debt. Whether you think it was a good deal or a bad one, it got done, and Mr. Biden, with his years of experience as a negotiator, was there when we needed him. But what happens going forward? Is it ageism, or realism, to consider what the next few years might bring?

I said some time back in this space that I would have preferred that he not run again. But it has nothing to do with tripping or occasional mental lapses, which can happen to humans at any age. I do think, however, that when we look at a President, many of us might prefer to see someone younger looking back at us.

It’s legitimate to ask why Mr. Biden’s poll numbers have been so low, despite all his accomplishments as President. I simply don’t believe that it’s all about his policies.

We can’t argue that a clock isn’t ticking with older people. Even Martha Stewart in a bathing suit can’t stop it. And in Mr. Biden’s case, if something happens to him in a new term, Vice President Kamala Harris, who doesn’t poll very well either, becomes President. I’m not questioning her ability to handle the job, but it’s fair to say she has a lot of convincing to do.

Many of the “isms,” such as racism and sexism, are prejudices that have no practical basis. But some “isms” do, in certain cases, like “ableism” – we don’t let blind people drive cars, for example. In the same way, ageism is not without some grounding.

All of this said, we would do very well if we could find candidates at any level of politics who express the qualities shown to us by Joe Biden: decency, empathy, and wisdom, to name a few.  I’m just saying I would like to see them in newer packages.

Regular Order

You may remember the late US Senator John McCain’s famous call for the Senate to return to “regular order” while it considered an unorthodox Republican plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act some years ago.

The debt ceiling increase vote is not the regular order for dealing with spending decisions. As has been stated many times, the need for an increase not about future spending, but about paying debts already incurred. But with what seemed to be a gun to its head, the Biden administration agreed to negotiate with the GOP House leadership over a series of Republican fiscal demands, and a tentative deal was reached. There were sacrifices – and benefits – for both sides, and we’re hearing some “attaboys” about bipartisanship, but the deal is far from done, and the wings of both parties have lots of unhappy campers.

There will be more attaboys (and girls) and sighs of relief if the crisis is averted at the last second, but why should it have been permitted to get this close in the first place? Did we really need this thrill ride? The doubt that has been planted in our minds, and the minds of others all over the world, about our full faith and credit has done plenty of damage already. As many of us learned in school, deadlines do force us to get something done, but simply beating a deadline doesn’t mean it was done well.

Meanwhile, we have a former President out there who hints that maybe default isn’t such a bad thing. So, we’re getting financial advice from someone who has suffered several business bankruptcies and who has a reputation for not paying HIS bills. Thanks very much.

This debate smacks of children playing with explosives. The fact is, the House already has the power of the purse, and there is a regular-order budgetary process to work out fiscal issues. True, a dispute even under the regular order process could force a government shutdown later on - a terrible thing, but not nearly as bad as welching on our debts.

What’s going on now may seem like an inside-the-beltway squabble among politicians, but those of us outside can’t be blamed for feeling left out of a critical discussion that affects us. This isn’t just their debt, it’s ours too. We have to do better than sit on the sidelines, shake our heads and say, “Ain’t it a shame?”

Fort Sumter Moments

In our school history classes, we were taught that the first shots of the US Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter in 1861. South Carolina had seceded from the Union the previous year and demanded that Union troops surrender the fort at the entrance to Charleston harbor.  The demand was refused, and in response, the secessionist forces began shelling the fort with cannon fire.

The firing of weapons is usually said to be the first phase of such conflicts, but in truth, the seeds had been planted and were germinating underground for a long time before these first sprouts appeared above it. The first Civil War, it could be argued, was well underway already. And for all intents and purposes, so is the second.

This one has already had its Fort Sumter moment, known as January 6. And we have had more than our share of smaller Fort Sumters, carried out at shopping malls, schools, and synagogues by those who were armed with what are considered weapons of war.

Some pundits have characterized Donald Trump’s appearance on the CNN “town hall” in New Hampshire as a wake-up call. I know that most are blaming CNN for the way it handled that event, but what came out of Trump’s mouth was not entertainment, even though the audience reacted that way. At least some of it could be in our future. We do need to stay awake. I believe we should be at least mentally on a war footing right now.

This doesn’t mean that everyone needs a gun. As voters, we all have a weapon at our disposal already. Each election is a battle, and the battlefield is the ballot box. The weapons issued to us have “bullets” in them, so to speak: our votes. This ammunition is way more powerful than anything in an AR-15.

It may be harder to fire that electoral weapon in some places than in others, but It is still capable of bringing about true change. If we want to employ heavier weapons, at least some of us have to run for office ourselves or support someone we believe in who is.

The current President and some historians are telling us that the upcoming state and national elections represent fights for the soul of America. If we were NOT cheering and laughing along with the town hall crowd in New Hampshire, what are we going to do about it? Answering that question can’t wait until November 2024. The work has to start now.

 

 

Secrets and Liars

 

 

Among our recent news stories has been the apparent theft of highly classified material by a 21-year-old Air National Guardsman in Massachusetts, who then allegedly shared it with his video-gaming buddies. The young man was arrested almost immediately.

He is said to be one of more than a MILLION with legal access to such information. Many of us have trouble keeping secrets among our co-workers or family members. How do we expect to trust a million people to do so?

There’s a scene from the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! about the events leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. If I’m recalling the story correctly, two military intelligence officers, one from the Army and another from the Navy, are staying alert for signs of an attack, as it will fall to them to put out the warning to a special group of top officials, including the President. The two go into a room where there is a locked cabinet on the wall, and one of them opens it with a key. This reveals a small blackboard containing the names of only a dozen or so authorized to receive the highest-level secret information. How quaint was that?

Breaches of secrecy are almost common now. Some folks think that people like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are heroes for revealing information they thought the public should know. I still haven’t made up my mind about that. But over-classification is indeed a problem.

Some information goes back such a long way in history that it’s hard to see how making it public would harm anyone. I saw a PBS American Experience episode recently about Elizabeth Friedman, an Illinois woman who basically created the US codebreaking program used during two World Wars. Her work saved many thousands of servicemembers’ lives, but the details of it were kept secret for decades, and in the meantime, no less a figure than J. Edgar Hoover took credit for much of what she had done.

Perhaps the most famous secrets revolve around the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, of which this year is the 60th anniversary. Most related classified materials have been released now, but not without redactions. The conspiracy theories on this event turned into a genuine industry, and for some, it all may never end.

We often hear it said that if you or I were found to have even one classified piece of paper or digital file in our possession illegally, we would be in jail the next day. Well, most of us, anyway.