You Only Die Once

Three months before the 1988 Presidential election, the Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis was leading incumbent George H.W. Bush by 17 points. Then with a blistering campaign accusing Dukakis as being “soft on crime” Bush began to gain ground. In politics, instilling fear is the number one ground game for those candidates who have little else to run on.

However, in an early October 1988 debate, it was Michael Dukakis who drove the last and fatal spike into his presidential ambition.  

Throughout his political career Dukakis had been an opponent of capital punishment. In 1984 his administration as governor struck down capital punishment in Massachusetts. His action was used as validation for the accusation his being sympathetic with criminals and unsympathetic with victims.

Sympathy and retribution for victims of crime is at the top of our politician’s playbook when it comes to the issue of crime. Dukakis, a consummate technocrat, somehow missed that fact in politics 101.

In the debate he was ask the first question of the debate: “If (your wife) Kitty was raped and murdered would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for her killer”. He calmly answered “No I wouldn’t…” then went on to outline his position on capital punishment. The debate might as well have been ended after the first two minutes. Dukakis’ poll numbers plummeted straight through to the election.

This month California governor Gavin Newsom ordered a moratorium on capital punishment, the best a Governor can do to stop the practice without legislation.  This action made National news and opened again a topic that, along with other issues regarding incarceration, had gone dark under the shadow of Donald Trump. It saw the light of day for at least a week.

Newsom received mixed reviews on this action even in a progressive state like California. It is a shame, because capital punishment is the tip of a troubled segment of our Nation’s Judiciary, namely criminal justice and the application of incarceration. Its origins have pitiful historic roots and are steeped in politics.

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State (currently a candidate for President) took on the issue in 2014 beginning with a moratorium. However, he along with his Attorney General spearheaded an effort to pass legislation and successfully defend the abolition of Capital Punishment to the State Supreme Court. If he makes it to the Democratic nomination (which I’d like to see), I hope he learns from Dukakis.

Michael Dukakis’ answer back in 1988 should have been something like; “…if I was certain of the killer, given the chance I would possibly strangle him with my bare hands, but if I were that person, I in no way could rationally answer a question regarding Capital Punishment for the Nation”.

Had he given such an answer he would be expressing the reality that victims are the last people to act as advisors on a topic which envelops their emotions. Punishment is not dealt out by the victims in criminal court. The existence of criminal justice is to objective ethics as determined (in a democracy) by the people.

What do we know?

We know that the criminal justice system is flawed. Almost by definition it cannot be perfect. We know it has been manipulated for political ends. Such was flagrant during the Nixon Administration, but we saw it Clinton Administration as well, and at different times under every modern presidency. Manufacturing crime by targeted legislation and executive order has result in rates of incarceration in the US, notably of African-Americans and other minorities, that is nearly as appalling a stain on the US as 19^th century slavery.

Capital Punishment crystallizes this entire blot on our history. The emotional arguments about life and death pervade both sides of the issue. Religious participants contradict themselves constantly.  Capital punishment as a deterrent has never come close to supporting a position one way or another. Cruel and unusual considerations are a joke. The more antiseptic we make the process of killing a human being, the crueler it becomes. Want to do it quick and painless…shoot them in the back of the head.

No, the only compelling argument is that the system is flawed. The evidence is ample and convincing that innocent individuals have been executed, likely many. There is no crime ever done by anyone greater than “the People” of this Nation putting to death an innocent human being. Why?

The insanity and ethical depravity of crime that exists on the fringes of human behavior will always be a struggle to combat. Performing a collective crime to satisfy a bloodlust and call it justice needs no struggle to end. And you cannot selectively end it. To be absolutely sure such collective crime doesn’t occur and is free from bias we need to end it completely.

That is not to say that the incarceration of innocent people isn’t a crime as well. It surely is. However, our criminal justice system has the potential for correction, but not after death. You only die once.

I would hope that Jay Inslee includes his laudable work on our criminal justice system in his campaign. It’s risky political business in a nation where polling says the desire for executions is high. However there is so much more regarding our criminal justice system that needs to be done. I am certainly glad to see someone with a track record that might get us there.

Beating a Dead Horse...Again

On this blog I rode this pony into the ground so long ago it may seem to some that the poor beast needs to be interred.  I can’t. It can’t.

Donald Trump is a sick man, mentally. He has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). It is not particularly common, it is not particularly difficult to diagnose, and it explains nearly everything about this President of the United States.

Aside from egoistic behavior, it causes a distortion of reality (i.e. truth) and it creates disabling paranoia.  Further, it is almost impossible to treat since an individual with NPD will not submit to treatment because they cannot accept that the disorder exists. Psychologists usually end up treating the people who live with a NPD individual, for this disorder can be crushing for those forced to do so.

For our Country to have bumbled into placing a NPD individual into the White House it would be far less devastating if normal checks and balances were in place. Sadly, the Republican Party has chosen to closed ranks with the singular goal of supporting Trump. They have pushed their pendulum of support far askew from common sense in order to offset his bizarre behavior. 

They collectively believe this policy is necessary to avoid losing support from Trump’s “base”. What they’re really doing is contributing to an irrevocable schism of the American people that makes something as absurd as a “Trump base” possible. 

To someone with a NPD there is no objective truth. Trump has publically stated untruths literally thousands of times in his short term as President. He is likely the only person in the Nation who doesn’t know that fact. Yet he has not been called out on it by Republican lawmakers…at all. It is no wonder why Conservatives and Conservative media (Fox News e.g.) have embraced ambiguity as the new foundation of communication.

In the steam room at our gym I ran into a retired attorney I know casually. We were alone and got onto a friendly political conversation which found us with opposing judgments regarding Trump. I shared my opinion about Trump’s Narcissistic Personality Disorder as an explanation for his behavior.

I had not shared at that point the research I had done on NPDs going back years before Trump ran for President and why. His response to me was to totally discount what I suggested because I was not a “medical doctor”.  Presumably, had I been a pediatrician it would have made all the difference. The conversation went no further.

He did not inquire why I believe as I did, nor was he interested in the condition or how I came to be aware of it. His focus was simply to shoot the messenger. This is the Trump legacy.

During the Cohen hearing of the House Oversight Committee I was more overwhelmed by the Republican questioning than the testimony and evidence of Michael Cohen (which was overwhelming on its own). They uniformly attacked Cohen’s testimony by simply attacking his credibility, never once (during the hours I watched) did they question the substance of his testimony.

For example, they repeatedly pointed out that his lying to Congress regarding the Trump-Moscow project was (apparently) proof of Trump’s innocence, conveniently omitting that Trump knew Cohen had lied but never revealed that fact. Truth, moreover reality is no longer an element in the Republitrump Party. 

Political pragmatism, fake news, convenient emergencies, love affairs with dictators, big beautiful brains, the largest crowds, and all the best words are but a few examples of what bounces around in a NPD head. In your obnoxious uncle it only makes for an unpleasant Thanksgiving dinner. In a President it devastates social norms, impedes anything we can proudly call progress, and creates great international risk.

There are 250 Congressional Republicans (House & Senate). They are currently lemmings blindly following their deranged leader directly toward the edge of a precipice. They live in a world of fear and I’m pessimistic that they will change course.

Perhaps if the rest of us spoke up regarding the underlying cause for Trump’s unorthodox, anti-social, and often peculiar behavior, then the confused majority of Americans might recover, and I could finally bury this pony.

Ism It True

Upon overhearing in our gym locker room rather tame observations regarding an inept comment or tweet by Donald Trump, an unassuming member stormed off to the showers muttering angrily “I don’t want to live in a socialistic country”. The segue-way of his thinking matters.  How does he get from inane comments by our National leader to the fear of being disenfranchised from his national identity?

We are now already vividly experiencing the Republican campaign we never got to see in 2016. What started slowly at the end of last year is virtually an everyday warning expressed in comments, interviews, and (of course) Tweets. If Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination this recent onslaught is exactly what we would have experienced.

I have not kept record, but it is my impression that not an audience in recent months has passed before Trump without hearing about the specter of Socialism.  Conservative radio and television talk show personalities have always defined anyone not a blue-blooded Conservative as a Socialist, but now like sharks smelling blood they are circling in a frenzy.  It is why a minor, freshman Congresswoman (Alexandra Ocasio-cortez) has become such a gigantic hunk of floating red meat.

With such an inept party leader in Trump, Republicans generally are jumping on this term to define a fear they feel their constituents can sink their teeth into. “Vote Republican” they might say, “you may get Trump but at least you won’t get Socialism”. They will ramp up this rhetoric hoping that enough Americans will view anything out of the mouth of a Democrat as a sirens’ song luring patriots to their demise. It might work.

Once again the Republicans define the language and thus the debate. Democrats just don’t get it. If they are unsuccessful in defining the terms used to show where they want this country to go, they end up spending their philosophical capital just defending themselves.  Trump just walks away from blatant and repulsive anti-social behavior (Access Hollywood e.g.) while Elizabeth Warren wallows in self-incrimination for extraordinarily minor assertions.

Conservatives generally and Republicans specifically have defined such terms as welfare, healthcare, taxation, freedom, faith, and patriot (to name a few) and assigns to each an interpretation to exploit.  The phrase “the base” now has a meaning of stalwart conservatism while everyone else is essentially wishy-washy. Democrats use this definition as freely as Republicans.

Our friend from the locker room actually thinks Socialism is a thing, like a light switch. He probably also believes Capitalism is the same switch which, thanks to God, has kept his world lit throughout his life. Switch off Capitalism and what do you get…you guessed it.

Those who want to profit from his fears obviously don’t want him to understand the truth; Socialism and Capitalism are inherently components of a whole, not the whole itself.  Red blood cells and white blood cells are quite different, but they are hardly independent of the fluid that keeps us alive.

Yet Conservatives have defined Socialism as bad and Capitalism good…black and white. Liberals who think they can simply push the pendulum the other way by displaying equal exclusivity are missing the boat. Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio-cortez labeling themselves as Socialists doesn’t help.

A model called Social-Capitalism (Google it) would probably work better as a definition of where most Americans land.  Democrats could embrace that; however Democrats need to get off defense and start calling the plays.

Liberals need to label Conservatives as anti-social and anti-capitalist, things that they are clearly not although they unwittingly contribute to those ends. If Republicans want to demonize Socialism, so let them demonize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disease control, disaster relief, universal healthcare, a clean & sustainable environment, education (K-12), air traffic control, roads & bridges, crime prevention, recycling, affordable housing, agricultural subsidies, and on and on. That understanding might mitigate Conservative fears.

Republicans successfully attack all these social efforts and more by undermining Capitalism and allowing for huge unproductive accumulations of Capital that are not churned back into the economy. Instead they rely on accumulated debt to keep the lights on.  Democrats have barely done better.

When Trumps states (as he recently did) “show me a country where Socialism has ever worked”, the answer to that is “show me an authoritarian country that has ever worked for its general population, regardless whether it is labeled Socialist or Capitalist”. There is no point in choosing an “ism”. They’re both in your garden, my locker room friend.  Either they both grow, or the weeds take over.

Getting Drunk on Kavanaugh Beer

In the infamous hearing of Brett Kavanaugh regarding his encounter with C.B Ford, the most important question asked of him was the very last one. Asked by (now) Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she entertained no follow up.

Harris: “Judge Kavanaugh, did you watch the testimony of Dr. Ford earlier today?”

Kavanaugh: “No”.

Perhaps if that had been the first question Democrats directed at Kavanaugh the line of inquiry might have veered away from FBI investigations, and he said-she said-they said. It seems in today’s public analysis of morality there is a sink hole of attempting to reconstruct history and a black hole of awareness about what is happening before our very eyes.

Kavanaugh did not watch Ford’s testimony because he didn’t need to. He had a sense of his life as a youth and it didn’t include attempted rape.  For Kavanaugh he obviously felt his time was better spent preparing to attack his “accusers” and play himself as the victim.  Regardless of the absolutely convincing testimony by Ford, his strategy prevailed.

Should Dr. Ford’s account of what happened disqualified Kavanaugh from confirmation?  I don’t think so. What should have certainly disqualified Kavanaugh was his irrational, self-centered, injudiciously emotional, and politically bias testimony.  I think it’s safe to say we hired an egotistical nut-case to the Supreme Court. What he turns into over the next 40 years is anybody’s guess.

I believe that Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford were both telling the truth, as best they could recall it. The giveaway was Ford’s testimony that Kavanaugh left the scene laughing and bouncing off the walls.  In my opinion, the reality was that the event in question had as casual a meaning to the 17 year old Kavanaugh as it had a traumatic meaning to the 15 year old Ford. That certainly says something about who those individuals were at that time.

However, does that define who we are looking at standing before us? It certainly defines what we socially had considered less than criminal behavior in times past and perhaps shamefully so.

Today in Virginia, Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax’s possible rise to becoming Governor has uncovered behavior on his part that has put his current position, and career generally, in jeopardy.  Those who are, for either ethical or political reasons, calling for his immediate resignation or impeachment are feeding into a new narrative that, like Kavanaugh’s, is more divisive than healing.

Fairfax’s response to his behavior has been as poor as his accusers have been lacking in explanation, just as Kavanaugh’s had been. Fairfax has definitively claimed each encounter was purely consensual when that was clearly not the case. However, it’s entirely possible that from his perspective it was.

It may be that his actions were criminal. If so, there will be others coming forward who demonstrate encounters with him that contains the threats we associate with criminal assault. If that is the case, let him face his crimes.

I am troubled, however, with this new recounting of history that applies current ethics to the past without the understanding of where we came from.  The French in 1789 so hated their monarchical society that they sought to change its obvious abuses. Their moral conviction however did not justify the Reign of Terror that ensued or predict the reactionary result of that terror.

I thought Al Franken had the potential to being one of the great Senators of our time. He is brilliant, a humanist, and a consummate communicator.  His humor both simultaneously satirical and self-deprecating showed him to be less egotistical than your average politician. Yet a picture of him holding his hands above the breasts of a sleeping woman years earlier during his life as a comedian was enough to lead him to the political guillotine. This is not moving us forward.

We need to recognize the importance of how our liberal values evolve, not devolve into moral camps of opposition.

The Last Arrow?

As I was entertained by the film series Lord of the Rings, I would occasionally wonder what the Elf Legolas (played by Orlando Bloom) would do if he ran out of arrows. In at least most of his combat scenes he never did. Just as with the 20 shot 6 shooters of Westerns past, fiction allows the action to continue unabated, with plenty of hope for a positive outcome.

The real world is far less forgiving. As we face continued adversity against progressive ethics, ethics held by a clear majority of Americans, I wonder if the next attempt to solve our problems is our last arrow, or perhaps worse…that the quiver is already empty.

Although Howard Schultz had been floating (at least publicly) the idea of running for President for the past 6 years, given the charged political climate his recent “float” made the kind of news he hadn’t previously received.  Here was a man with a modest sales background who at age 32 got backing to start a coffee shop, then 2 years later rallied those backers to help him buy a Seattle retail business called Starbucks for $3.6 million.

Schultz took a risk, as did his backers, and turned himself and others into billionaires. Good fortune certainly smiled upon him, but arguably his best reasons for success was his positive treatment of employees, mostly low wage and unskilled, and the millions of Generation X’ers and Millennials who were eager to spend their money on high-priced caffeinated foam.

So I’m watching one of his recent interviews where he chuckles, unsolicited, on what a “stupid” proposal Elizabeth Warren made with her pitch to tax the assets of the mega-rich, as opposed to their income. That one response encapsulated for me the dire situation this nation is in. Here was a supposed center-Left multi-billionaire egotist, who touts himself as a fiscal Conservative, wanting to be President so everyone can have the chance to be just like him. Sound familiar?

Since I started this blog 10 years ago I have several time tried to point out the fallacy of dealing with the inequity of wealth in the United States in terms of income. Anyone who has worked in the field of Taxation, as I did, knows that taxation of income is mired with special interests. The tax laws that govern the simple wage earner are not the laws that impact the mega-rich.

Schultz may be a multi-billionaire, but that wealth was not accumulated with after tax dollars. If Mitch McConnell and Republicans have their way with eliminating Transfer taxes (Death taxes as they call them) Schultz’s earnings may never be taxed.

Warren’s proposal, the first I’ve heard elevated to a National level, merely calls for an annual 2% tax on assets over $50 million and 3% on assets over $1 billion.  Sounds simple, right? It would impact less than 3 tenths of 1% (.03%) of the population. It would generate enough revenue to underwrite health care, expand economic growth with needed infrastructure, and retire most of the National Debt in one generation. The assets of the super rich would grow at a measly 3% to 5% instead of the 5% to 7% percent they currently enjoy. Poor babies.

Could this happen? Not likely in today’s America and certainly not in the Republitrump Party.  Money continues to drive our political system and because of an ultra-Conservative Judiciary (thanks to the Republitrump Party) it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to make it reality. But does it deserve the sarcastic ridicule of a self-proclaimed Progressive (and self-righteous) billionaire?? It certainly does not!

There are tax laws on the books that have already passed Constitutional muster. They are the existing Transfer Taxes (Estate and Gift taxes). Currently they capture tax revenues like a colander collects water, but revamped and strengthened they could turn around wealth inequity in the Country significantly.  Can that happen? It will not without a revolutionary change in the American view of how Government works.

The wealthy generally and Conservatives specifically have successfully turned the term Taxation into a noun found only in hell.  The world we are currently in with its massive populations and enveloping, lightning-fast communications is like no other period in human history. Yet a majority of Americans have been programmed to view collective revenue in Biblical terms. The fact is that Taxation may be the last arrow in the quiver of a free democratic society, if there is an arrow left at all.

When a proposal such as Warren’s is met with disdain by legions of Americans who would never be adversely affected by it, all because it contains the T-word, we are running out of options. They are somehow more comfortable with the Nation’s wealth, held by a select few, simply compounding on itself.

The idea that taxing such wealth would inhibit the “job creators” turns foolish into tragic. You see, the great engine of economic prosperity happens when wealth (assets and income) are primarily in the hands of those willing to take risks, large and small, just as Howard Schultz did, even if that risk is simply to look for a better job, buy a car, or seek an education. Those who have tens of millions or billions of wealth have moved over to the protection/accumulation phase and are primarily interested in reducing their risk.

The great irony is that the mega-wealthy will suffer under the weight of inequity, just as they would be the greatest beneficiaries of a bottom up economy. When 99.97% of Americans hear a proposal like Warren’s they should at the very least ask: why not?

The Case for Reparations

There has been a tussle between Liberals and Conservatives for decades on the question of reparations for slavery in the United States. It has never managed much traction because it has always been relegated to an intellectual debate.

It has been over 15 decades since the ratification of the 13^th Amendment ending slavery, so it is difficult to see how specific losses can be quantified to apply to currently living individuals. At the end of the American Civil War there were approximately 4 million freed slaves. The current estimate of African-Americans in the US is 46 million.  How do you do the math?

In fact, it is too simplistic to look at the great American stain of slavery and assume that there is some means by which the Nation as a whole could compensate its way out of that shame. Further, there are virtual armies of Conservatives who view individuality as having no historical foundation. They believe that any given person has the potential wherewithal and opportunity to lift themselves to social and fiscal success.  No social help necessary and certainly not with their tax dollars.

Liberals who see reparations as only fair are stymied by how to distribute such largess and are muted by questions on how such reparations would be used. No wonder. The problem is that the injury cost is viewed, and often attempted to be calculated, based on what was essentially stolen (i.e. freedom) prior to 1865. The big mistake is believing that something could get repaired today by simply throwing money at it.

Yet here we are, still a segregated society. Too many Black Americans continue to occupy a sub-culture which includes a disproportionally large segment of the lower middle class and poverty portions of our Nation. Black Americans populate a highly disproportionate segment of an incarceration “system” that is nearly as shameful today, by worldwide standards, as slavery was 155 years ago.

One can travel nearly anywhere in this Country (and everywhere in the South) where poor, undesirable, or simply “bad” neighborhoods are vocalized synonyms for Black neighborhoods. This fact overflows into schools, perceived crime, and use of public services.  It is the mother’s milk of social Conservatism whether it’s the simple vilifying of the term “welfare” or marching for White Supremacy.

That Liberals want a quick fix is as useless in solving this national conundrum as Conservative’s focus on self-interest.

Where we are today is less a problem of former Slavery than it is about how the Nation (and especially the Southern states) reacted to the end of Slavery. The horrors of hate, terror, incarceration, Jim Crow, Ku-Klux-Klan, and general discrimination notwithstanding, the underlying issue which today creates this great racial divide is primarily economic…and cumulative.

The hostile application of prejudice since the mid-19^th century compromised the economic evolution of Black Americans in two important ways; education and the accumulation of real property (real estate or land).  Today’s white American stands atop a history of education and real property transfers that span literally hundreds of years.  It can be argued that Black Americans can count any equivalent success in a few decades at most. Combine that with our National penchant toward economic inequality across all sectors and there is nothing I see that signals a real change in direction.

Reparations for Slavery? You bet! But even more so for Post-Slavery. However we need to solve the problem, not just pay damages. It will take a generation or even two to bring the Slavery chapter to a close. It would also require politicians not to act in their own pragmatic self- interest, something our Government is ill-equipped to accomplish.

Two “reparations” could be as follows: 1) for the next 50 years (two generations) every Black student would receive tuition-free education to any (non-profit) college, university, or training school simply because they have a Black biological mother or father, and 2) for the next 50 years every adult who had a biological Black parent would have access to a one-time, Government guaranteed mortgage (at the same rate as VA mortgages – no equity needed) and where the only criteria for acceptance is the ability to make monthly payments and that the sales price doesn't exceed appraisals.

The elimination of prejudice is probably impossible.  Human beings will always gravitate toward those for which they feel a common bond.  However, discrimination should be, if not eliminated, fought against as the struggle for our better selves. There is no reason to think that simply adopting preacher elevated ethics will get the job done. When mistakes are made you need to correct them with dollars and sense.