A Sad Stumble by a Strong Local Institution

Imagine you're a young, idealistic, religious college grad who's traveled cross-country to the Borderlands to work as a fellow with Border Servant Corps.

You'll work with and learn from a local nonprofit, live in a house with others like yourself, and make enough to cover expenses. For 21 years, BSC has been a great program. You're excited. 

One night, when you and the others planned to discuss your spiritual paths, BSC's board chair and Pastor Jared Carson from Peace Lutheran show up at the house. They announce they're canceling the program. Your year of service won't happen, and you have to be out in a week. You'll receive $500 toward travel expenses... if you sign something right now. No time to consult anyone.

It's painful to write this. BSC does good things here, notably the Refugee Hospitality Ministry.

But fellows and local nonprofits are asking, what happened?

Financial reasons were hinted at. One fellow asked how money could become an issue so suddenly. More likely, it was a response – maybe overreaction – to a respectful proposal by BSC alumni for sensitivity training and better protection of fellows. (I have no basis to judge the proposal's merits. Carson concedes the substance was acceptable.)

The proposal apparently ruffled feathers in BSC/Peace Lutheran. Alumni were questioning the board's wisdom. The board told the alumni they were “badgering” the board (as perhaps they were), so the alums sent an email promising not to initiate further contact (to avoid “badgering”), but hoping they'd hear from the board. They didn't. The board says it created a subcommittee to address the proposal, but never told the alums – claiming the alums ended the conversation. (Carson opines that someone on the board misconstrued the alums last email, which is unfortunate.)

Carson was forthcoming and cooperative when we talked. He acknowledged that BSC/Peace Lutheran may not have handled the matter perfectly, but says the alums had been somewhat demanding, and the board needed to protect staff from taking time responding that'd be better spent on other BSC work. He also says the alums had so infected the new fellows with discontent (or, “unhealth”), that the new fellows' year could not have been a good one, so the program needed to be terminated. 

He said all the fellows already knew of the conflict. (My sources say some did, some didn't.)

Certainly the action was abrupt. It surprised and disconcerted local nonprofits to which fellows had been assigned. (Some worked out a new deal with their fellows. Some couldn't.)

Everyone is sad. “I'm grieving as much as anyone,” Pastor Jared told me. 

I'm sad too. I like and respect Pastor Jared Carson. What the BSC board did to these folks and the nonprofits was harsh. While I can't conclude the alums hadn't unnecessarily provoked the board, I don't see evidence for that in the email strings. More likely someone at BSC couldn't or wouldn't deal thoughtfully with a challenging situation. Couldn't BSC have discussed the issues with the fellows first? Asked questions – not come in with guns blazing?

I'm writing this because it's troubling on many levels. Not only has this negatively affected some fellows' feelings for their church, and angered parishioners, but a local institution known for promoting justice, kindness, and humility has arguably fallen short in this case. These kids were victims. If BSC can make these kinds of mistakes, so can we all.

                                            - 30- 

[This column appeared this morning, Sunday, 30 October 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well and should soon be on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[This isn't my favorite column.  Again, I wouldn't want the abrupt termination of the fellowship program to undermine the positive values of BSC's and Peace Lutheran's other important programs; but neither did I think this incident should go unnoticed.  If I were a Lutheran I'd be asking further questions internally.  From what I've learned so far [and although Pastor Jared responded to my request to talk with him about this, the BSC Board Chair did not get back to me], the Board's conduct on this doesn't look mature, wise, or particularly Christian.]

Ford and Kavanaugh -- and All of Us

Christine Blasey Ford's possible testimony reminds me of Anita Hill, although the allegations and the times are very different. 

When Hill testified that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her, our law firm felt like two worlds. The other lawyers, mostly male, thought Hill's complaints insignificant or invented. The secretaries (mostly female) believed Ms. Hill (as did I), and understood why her testimony mattered. 

Ford says that Brett Kavanaugh (then 17, to her 15) tried to rape her, but was too drunk. His failure doesn't erase his mind-set. Or her trauma.

Her account of being strongly affected for years rings true. I've known many women who were permanently traumatized by bad conduct the man responsible might easily have forgotten. (My blog discusses examples.)

Her story is a credible mix of vividly recalled details (of what frightened her) and lost circumstances (whose house this happened at). She told it, identifying Kavanaugh, long before Trump nominated Kavanaugh, and she passed a polygraph test.

We haven't yet heard them testify under oath. 

The third person in the room, Mark Judge, alternately denies the incident and denies recalling it, and has already fatally undermined his credibility. He said such behavior would be wildly out of character for the nice Catholic boys who attended Georgetown Prep then. However, Judge's two memoirs portray the school as a hotbed of debauchery where boys “lusted after girls” from nearby schools and drank themselves into stupors at parties. Further, he's written of “the wonderful beauty of uncontrollable male passion.” Jeez but it'd be fun to cross-examine that fool. (In Judge's 1997 memoir, he references a “Bart O'Kavanaugh” who passes out drunk and throws up in a car. He's also complained of “social justice warriors” who confuse rape with innocent demonstrations of masculinity.)

I recognize Judge's “ambiguous middle ground” where a woman feels tempted but hesitates, and a man's energetic encouragement “helps” her decide. Sometimes what a man considers seduction feels like force to a woman. But that has nothing to do with Kavanaugh and Ford. Ford was 15 and had shown no interest in lovemaking. She says she was clearly fighting him. He was allegedly too drunk to care about her wishes – or enjoyed her fear. 

It's unfortunate that politics delayed bringing her claim to public attention, and to the FBI's attention. It's tragic that her allegation has evoked threats on her life so serious that she and her family have had to move out of their home. But she should speak, and should be heard. Whether or not his youthful conduct should be decisive here, this is an important public discussion.

If Ford testifies, the Senate Judiciary Committee will have powerful evidence against Kavanaugh: the sworn testimony of a sane and careful woman who has passed a polygraph. Judge's writings implicitly support her, by describing an atmosphere in which such conduct wouldn't have seemed unusual. Kavanaugh will say either that he never did such a thing (and never was so drunk he doesn't recall his conduct), or that he recalls no such thing and can't imagine that he'd have done it. Unless something in her words or manner strongly undermines her credibility, Ford's testimony will be the stronger evidence. 

The FBI might then investigate. Someone might invite Kavanaugh to take a polygraph test. 

Meanwhile, a fair observer might conclude that if his conduct at 17 didn't disqualify him from the Court, committing perjury at 53 should.

                                                  -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 23 September 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL 101.5 FM, streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org]  

[I do not want to seem overly judgmental.  I'm not.  I probably drank even more than Kavanaugh did for a while in my youth, and am lucky not to have killed someone with my driving on Friday and Saturday nights.  I recognize that although what he allegedly did -- or tried to do -- was very wrong, I suspect there are moments from my life I wouldn't want to be judged on.  And I try not to judge others anyway.  I'm also well-acquainted with the legal principle that a defendant accused of a crime, who could lose his or her liberty if judged guilty, must be and should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty; further, s/he has to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt"; but I'm more familiar with other legal standards.  For example, in a civil lawsuit -- an accident case or allegations of unfair termination of employment -- is judged by the preponderance of the evidence.  Plaintiffs' lawyers often point out that "if the evidence, on the scales of justice, seems absolutely even in weight, and a feather falls on one-side, then you must decide for that side."  (In between is the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.)  

Kavanaugh is not being threatened with jail or execution, or even a fine.  He is a highly-privileged man holding a high position for his lifetime, unless impeached -- and fewer than a dozen of the 19 federal impeachments in the past 200+ years have resulted in conviction.  He is asking us to appoint us to an even higher position.  So let's not misapply the "innocent until proven guilty" rule.  If it's hard to tell, after they both testify, and you kind of lean toward the idea she's telling the truth (and you think his conduct matters, which is another question), what's wrong with leaving him in his current privileged position?]

[Haven't seen any press on anyone suggesting Kavanaugh volunteer for a lie-detector test.
But it makes sense to me.  It's inappropriate in a criminal case.  It'd be unconstitutional to insist on one there.  However, it's required in a lot of employment situations.  If you want the privilege of working in my bank, why shouldn't you  prove your honesty and thaat you're not addicted to gambling or to expensive drugs like heroin and cocaine?  
Here, Kavanaugh is seeking a lifetime appointment to one of the top jobs in the country.  I'm not saying polygraphs should be required of all such nominees; but where we have such a "He said, she said" situation, and the accuser (assuming she does, on Thursday) presents well and sounds persuasive (and has taken a polygraph herself) why wouldn't a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee invite the nominee to take such a test?  For that matter, why wouldn't Mr. Kavanaugh, if in fact he knows she's fabricating her story, jump at the chance?  The only answer I can think of, if he's confident in the truth of his testimony, would be that taking a lie-detector test doesn't befit the dignity of a federal judge; but how does he suppose leaving this credible allegation out there would impact his dignity as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?  If she's full of shit, then show us, Brett. 
If he declined, although that's not something a prosecutor could use as evidence against a criminal defendant, it might seem significant to an honest Senator who doesn't quite know whom to believe.]

[That she didn't publicize her story long ago, or make a criminal complaint against Kavanaugh, does not undermine her credibility.  We should all know by now that women often don't -- particularly 15 year old girls afraid they won't be believed, or afraid their parents will punish them for being there in the first place, or afraid she'll be socially destroyed as uncool, or afraid a complaint will just anger the boy enough that he tries again when he's not too drunk, or just mortified and embarrassed and unsophisticated. 

Ironically, as I was writing this column I interviewed a lady named Cari Jackson.  The Rev. Cari Jackson.  Who, before becoming a minister, went through law school.  She'd told me that although raised Pentecostal, she' begun to disbelieve, but that something traumatic had caused her suddenly to pray again, when she was 14.  What was the trauma?  She was raped.  Probably earlier in time than the Kavanaugh-Ford incident.  She did report it.  She adds that the white cops "violated me again," by insisting on their preconceived notion that she was making up the rape story because she'd wanted what happened but needed a defense against parental punishment.  

Girls are afraid.  Page down to a poem posted here on Friday, about one such girl, who I think was 14 when raped. 

I know another girl was 13 when an uncle tried to kiss her and feel her up in a car with another couple.  Didn't try to rape her, but scared the hell out of her.  Breached trust, too.  Decades later, that event, perhaps forgotten by him, was still affecting her. The poem is based on the story of a woman who'd been raped by an older sister's friend, in a VW. In her 30's she still couldn't have satisfactory sexual relations with a lover, because of it. It is not only the extreme horribles – a gang rape, say – that screw someone up for a long time. 

So Ms. Ford's story revives a lot of sleeping ghosts, of people I cared about scarred emotionally by incidents the boys or men probably forgot. 

And perhaps the best explanation of why people don't report a sexual attack against them when they're young comes from Charles Blow, an op-ed columnist in the New York Times.  The link is to a five-minute discussion on television, and I urge anyone who doesn't fully understand to listen to him.  He points out, for example, that it was 17 years before he mentioned the attack to anyone (a stranger, as it happened), didn't mention it again for two years, and didn't tell a third person for another eight years.  His television testimony is powerful.]

[Times have changed.  But not completely.   Although a recent USA Today story  reports that a poll shows that Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee whose confirmation is opposed by more people than support it (40 to 31 %), there's still a significant gender gap.   While women mostly believe Ford (35%, against 21% who disbelieve), men tend to believe Kavanaugh's denial (37% to 28%).  Not surprisingly, women oppose his confirmation by 20 points, 43 percent-23 percent, while men support him by four points, 40 percent-36 percent.  (For me, it's too early to say I believe her, since I haven't heard and watched her (or him) testify; but obviously I do lean that way.)]

[Note: after writing all this, Charlotte sent around excerpts from a Washington Post op-ed by a conservative  taking a stronger position on the point that if we can't tell, after Thursday, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, partly for the sake of the dented credibility of our highest court.  He makes some good points.]

[The other question one hears is, "does it matter?" or "if it was just one youthful indiscretion, should it screw up his life?"  Reasonable-sounding question.  I think it does.  I want to see them both testify.  I tend to think the attempt displays an attitude that like remains inside him.  ("The child is father to the man.")  On the other hand, attitude's change.  I'd not like anyone to assume that mine haven't changed since a childhood in the 1950's and high school graduation in 1964.)  But even assuming a deep change in attitude in Mr. Kavanaugh, I also feel a little as if I lack standing to say, as do all the men on the Judiciary Committee.  If it appears that he did this, how do women -- particularly the many who've been raped or sexually assaulted -- feel about safety when one (or two, depending on your view of Clarence Thomas) of the nine Supreme Court justices have credible though unproven sexual misconduct on their records?  If Kavanaugh had grown up in Nazi Germany, and been in Hitler Youth, would we ask Jews to consider that an insignificant youthful indiscretion because everyone was doing it and thinking that way?  If he'd been in the Ku Klux Klan, would a black Congressperson shrug and remark that lots of southern boys had been, so no matter?  
Again, voting not to confirm him is a far cry from putting him in jail for an alleged incident from his youth.  We should go on our best and fairest reading of whatever the evidence is.]

[Jeez, sorry this is so long!]

THE BARMAID RECALLS . . .

THE BARMAID RECALLS HER FIRST


for twenty years she's wondered how he felt.
She felt confused and hurt and guilty, scared
of pregnancy, afraid that he'd come back again,
afraid he'd never want to see her face again.
It took ten years to know the word was "rape."
And still she cries at night, without quite knowing why. 
And still she keeps the light on when she loves, or tries.
Sometimes she cries to think how proud she felt
to seem grown up, to ride beside a boy -- her sister's friend --
already old enough to drive; to let his dancing eyes
draw laughter from her timid heart. 

Perhaps he felt as mortified as her kid brother did,
at seven, when his arrow killed a bird.  He'd aimed
at it; but then he held its lifeless body in his hands
and cried.  She doesn't think that Larry cried
-- or even knew he'd killed anything.  He didn't feel
the pain between her legs or how her head still throbbed
from banging on car door and seat.  He didn't see
her cry -- she steeled herself -- but must have seen
she sat all huddled up and couldn't speak.  Was he scared
of her father or the cops?  She never told
-- how could she tell, and have them look at her that way?
What would her parents do? She showered silently. 
She sees him swaggering among his friends, she hears
the jokes he must have made.  By now he's long forgotten her.

He goes to work each day somewhere, and sleeps
at night beside his wife.  He disciplines
his children, tries to raise them right.





Current events made me pull out this poem.  I'd written it years ago, and made only minor revisions, then took it to poetry workshop Thursday evening.

I was working on a column and thinking about how often I've seen "minor" episodes a man might reasonably have forgotten can wreak havoc with the victim's life and psyche for the rest of her life, despite therapy.  Of course, the episode described in the poem was not in the least minor.  "Larry" succeeded in doing what Brett fumbled around trying to do.  That doesn't make Brett any more virtuous or considerate than Larry.

The barmaid was a real person I knew pretty well.  She'd been raped when she was 14.  Boy just came to the house to see her sister, and when the sister was out he invited the younger girl to go for a ride -- and raped her.  I was pretty moved by what she told me, and how I knew it had affected her, and wrote the poem, using many details from her story but omitting some and adding some.  (For example, the kid brother shooting an arrow at the bird was something I did, over at a friend's house, at some young age.)  It doesn't quite feel like my poem; and reading it saddens me.

Around then, she decided to do a performance piece or an art installation about the event, which (amazingly, perhaps) had occurred in a Volkswagen beetle.  I had a VW,  She borrowed the back seat from mine to put in the gallery as part of the piece.

Anyway, she was still strongly feeling the impact of the moment after twenty years, while he had probably pushed it far to the back of his mind.  That dissonance helped move me to write the poem, and I recalled it when reading about Mr. Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford.

Someone suggested I delete "Her First" from the title.  Although I meant it as "first sexual experience," it could be read as "first rape," which I hadn't intended, or as "first lover" which the rapist was obviously not.  I'm still thinking about that, but she's probably right. It was not a sexual experience but an act of violence.

U.S. Created Much of its "Refugee Problem"

We should keep in mind our role in creating the conditions refugees are fleeing. 

For example, U.S. actions in 1954 had lasting impacts on Iran and Guatemala.

Mohammad Mossadegh became Iran's Prime Minister in 1951. A genuine national leader, popular and competent – and intent on land reform and nationalizing the oil industry controlled by Britain. The U.S. (C.I.A.) and Britain engineered a coup in 1954. The Shah of Iran agreed only when the U.S. told him it would go ahead without him. Many Iranian leaders were executed. U.S. and U.K. support for Shah Reza Pahlavi was a major factor in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Any surprise that (after overthrowing Pahlavi) Iranians held Americans hostage in our embassy for 444 days? And still distrust us? They remember a past we've forgotten.

Guatemala elected Jacobo Arbenz. He planned to distribute land more fairly. U.S. companies, huge landowners in Guatemala, didn't approve. The U.S. government orchestrated his 1954 overthrow. United Fruit Company board member Allen Dulles and the U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles were brothers. (Allen became head of the C.I.A.) The U.S.-backed coup caused a three-decade civil war featuring genocide against the country’s Mayans. During that period, the U.S. denied more than 98% of Guatemalan asylum requests. 

Mexicans have always sneaked across our border to work. But two dominant forces affecting Mexico in recent decades are (1) the powerful and vicious drug cartels and (2) farmers displaced by NAFTA. Well, who buys the bulk of those drugs, creating the market? And which country's policies, including the idiotic “War on Drugs” have helped increase illegal drug use here? And whether or not Mexican or U.S. leaders intended it, NAFTA has made a lot of Mexican farmers landless and homeless. 

Many current refugees come from El Salvador. Trump blames the MS-13 gang. Did that start in El Salvador? Nope. Try southern California's streets and prisons – which held many Salvadoreans in the 1990's. Why were so many Salvadoreans here? Fleeing a vicious civil war in which the U.S. heavily backed right-wing governments and paramilitary groups. MS-13's chief rival, Calle 18, also began life on the streets of L.A. 

The Salvadorean community that developed here in the late 20^th Century was primarily people fleeing a nightmarish civil war, complete with unspeakably violent death squads, in which the U.S. armed and assisted right-wing paramilitary forces, as we did in Honduras.

Our support of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista yielded Fidel Castro – and our overreaction to Castro strengthened his anti-U. S. position and helped impoverish the people, without weakening their support for him.

We're currently supporting Saudi Arabian proxies in a devastating war in Yemen – and we've imposed a travel ban that prevents folks from fleeing to join family here. UNICEF says 11 million children there need humanitarian assistance. That's nearly every Yemeni child.

We're not responsible for the world's vast and growing refugee crisis; but we've sure contributed to it.

Some argue that in penance for our national sins we should let everyone in. I don't agree; but our thoughts about the problem should include a good, long look in the mirror – and face our role in creating it.

[Note: after drafting this column, I learned that the film Harvest of Empire, which argues that much immigration results directly from U.S. maneuvering in Latin America, will show at the Fountain Theater at 3:45 this coming Saturday, September 22. I'll be watching.]

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 16 September in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG Radio and KTAL 101.5 FM (stream at www.lccommunityradio.com) during the week.]

[Do consider seeing Harvest of Empire -- or reading the book, by veteran journalist Juan Gonzalez.  Again, the film is showing at 3:45 at the Fountain Theater.  (If you go to Russ Bradburd's talk at Branigan Library at 1:30, you'll have time for an ice cream or coffee at Cafe de Mesilla on your way to the Fountain.)  By the way, you can learn more about the award-winning documentary here. ]

Bicycling to the Gratitude Cafe

It's Sunday afternoon. Labor Day Weekend. Quiet. I am sitting in this small cafe realizing again that my life is far better than I deserved. And relishing that.

It helps to be sitting beside my beloved wife. We have bicycled over here. It helps also to be eating what seems the finest blueberry muffin ever created, drinking cool orange juice from a jar. Gratitude is a quality that rarely crossed my mind in youth, except in wilderness or crossing the country on a motorcycle. Increasingly it is my dominant mood. 

The owners reappear with their daughter, Quinn – and she is standing! Almost a year old, she can take steps, but only with a parent's hand touching one of hers, just to be sure. With a huge cat-ate-the-canary grin, she pushes forward. Her face registers what I have felt dirt-biking a little faster than I should have on rough ground, or skiing. A nameless, thrilling stew of excitement, uncertainty, 

concern, pride, and curiosity. Three or four steps and there's a chair to hold onto. A way station. She is just learning that these thin-metal chairs with colorful seat covers her grandmother made are helpful – but unreliable, because grabbing one when she's too unbalanced could pull it over on her. One of life's first delicate decisions? We applaud her, sparking another huge grin.

“She's testing everything,” her father tells me.

“Part of the job-description,” I reply.

“It's been an exciting time, keeping up with her lately. A lot's been happening.”

It is one of life's huge joys, this learning to walk. I feel privileged to witness a bit of it. Like briefly sharing the warmth of someone's campfire on a cold night in the forest.

I cover my face with my bicycle helmet, clowning. All I can see is her huge eyes, full of wonder. 

I do feel grateful often. I have been as selfish and thoughtless as the next guy, sometimes worse. My life seems good: I have enough to eat, a pleasant environment, love, and friends, etc. But this gratitude is not a product merely of my personal good fortune.

Sitting here, I want to remind everyone that simply contemplating our good fortune helps strengthen it. At least so long as we don't claim credit for it, let alone get all proud. I could look differently at my life: I am older than I ever thought I would be, and there are few grains of sand left in the top of the hourglass; I have not accomplished a serious fraction of what I aspired to, and perhaps could have done; I have never raised a child; I have had health problems; friends I loved have died; and there are zillions of wonderful places I will die without visiting. 

Please look up from the newspaper for a moment. Reflect on life. Start with the easy stuff: you can read a newspaper; we do not live in a war zone; and you probably are not uncertain where your next meal will come from. Then try the personal stuff: people who love you or make you laugh, especially children; the play you saw last night, the sweat you worked up gardening, or how you made everyone laugh during your weekly poker or bridge game. The hurdles you've cleared. The scent of rain in the air. 

That's all. Sorry if it sounds sappy. Sure don't mean to preach. But thanks for reading.

                                                            -30-

[This column appeared this morning, Sunday, 9 September 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  During the week a spoken version will air on KRWG Radio and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (stream at www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[The cafe is actually Nessa's, at Picacho and 2nd.  But as I sat there and started to feel what I wanted to write, "Bicycling to the Gratitude Cafe" seemed the right title.  (There actually was a Gratitude Cafe in the San Francisco Bay Area.  They had two or three of them -- with organic and maybe vegetarian food.  Dael introduced me to them. Might all be gone now.)  
As we unlocked our bicycles to leave, I reflected on the fact that we know two small, delightful cafes -- Nessa's and Beck's -- at each of which the couple owning and running the place has a young kid.  Here in Cruces we are fortunate in our coffee places: Nessa's and Beck's are small and pleasant; Milagro has the greatest coffee -- and Dael and I wrote our wedding vows there, before we'd even quite moved back here; lunch at Spirit Winds is a regular delight; and we have the Co+op and International Delights, and Boba's, as well as (more upscale) the Shed, Rendezbous, and Salud; plus the Cafe de Mesilla and the Bean in Mesilla.  Why would I ever go to some chain?!?!?]

[(added almost a week after the column above: I did have mixed feelings, though: using the title I had in mind meant the newspaper column didn't specifically mention "Nessa's."  But Dael, who was over there yesterday, saw a really neat sign, on which the part at the bottom was particularly fun for us.] 

[I do think that focusing on gratitude for what we have produces joy or contentment, and perhaps sharpens our ability to perceive good stuff; while focusing on disappointment or resentment produces disappointment or resentment, and magnifies all the bad stuff in view.   Stressing how the world is mistreating you can produce anger, and even a desire to lash out for revenge, while seeing more clearly how kind the world has been, despite everything, won't make you want to lash out, and might even engender a sudden impulse to give back.   
If you want to complain that I'm personally very fortunate, go ahead; I plead guilty, or at least nolo contendere; but once you've made that point, focus on your own life and choices.  Whether the glass is half-full or half-empty may be a trite issue; but it's usually one YOU CAN DECIDE for yourself.]  

[But I didn't mean to get preachy.  I just enjoyed a moment last Sunday and wanted to share it, is all.  And if anyone reading this is in the midst of some horrible suffering -- death of a child, diagnosis of a fatal illness -- I do not mean at all to make light of your suffering.]

Assessing the "Anonymous Senior Administration Official's" NY Times Op-Ed

        Every time something about the Trump Administration astonishes us, look for something the next day that beats it all hollow.  This week's one-two punch was (1) a book by highly-respected journalist Bob Woodward portraying the Administration as a bickering entity shattered into factions insulting each other, with many of Trump's own officials trying to save us from the worst of Trump, then -- not 24 hours after Trump threatens Woodward and calls for stricter libel laws -- (2) an unprecedented anonymous column in the NY Times from "a senior administration official."
[My previous post touches on some of the silliness in Trump's reaction to the Woordward book, while an earlier one this week ("Trump Warns Very Clearly He'll Abandon Rule of Law" ) covers his public effort to obstruct justice for two Republican Congressmen.]
        The anonymous op-ed is astonishing.  The Times knows the person's identity; and no one who read the piece could disagree that the person's job would be in danger if Mr. Trump could indentify  him or her.

        The piece points out early that:

"President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.  . . . The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

        The writer adds:

"I would know. I am one of them.

"We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.  . . .

"But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

        That is, of course, an unprecedented statement.  In the last days of the Nixon Administration, officials might be talking like that amongst themselves; but they weren't saying anything publicly.  

        The next passage in the column is almost word-for-word what many, including this columnist, have often said, something that seemed so obvious from his words, conduct, and past record that hearing Trump loyalists dispute it has always startled me: that there's no there there, in the sense that Trump has no ideological or ethical center or base, but just -- like a dinosaur -- does what seems necessary or convenient: "The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making."

        The entire essay makes clear, as does the following passage, that the writer is probably not someone I would agree with about most of what government should or shouldn't be doing, but someone who does see that Trumpian _________ is dangerous to all of us:

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

"In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

"Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

"But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

        I am obviously not a fan of deregulation that endangers consumers, nature, and the environment to help big corporations.  Nor is the "tax reform" anything more than a prescription for economic disaster.  But I sure see what the writer calls Trump's "erratic behavior."

        "From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

"Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier."

        He adds, "It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.."  The phrase "cold comfort" seems exactly right.  Yeah, it's nice to know they haven't all drunk the kool aid and that someone's at least trying to protect us from the worst of Trump; but this "erratic" and "amoral" fellow remains with his finger on the proverbial button.  Further, while they are trying to civilize Trump a little, they remain in his administration -- dedicated to doing, more effectively than Trump could do, some things I consider dangerous to the republic.   I'm glad this fellow -- and there's some indication the writer is male, although the Times has mostly tried not to say -- spoke up, because maybe some folks that wouldn't believe me will believe a fellow conservative with a marvelous view of the dumpster fire; but one of the few things Trump might be right about is the writer's "gutlessness" and "disloyalty."

Of course, as usual, Trump overstates everything and confuses the nation's interest with his own.  In a one-word tweet, he commented, "Treason?"   No, Donald, not treason.  Yes, disloyalty to you; but in the service of what the writer believes is best for the nation; and at some cost, so that perhaps "gutless" is unfair.

        The writer goes on to point out some things that have become obvious, adding only the fact that some of Trump's dangerous proclivities are not just for show:

"Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

"Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

"On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."

        Interestingly, the writer confirms what many had hinted, that the "adults in the room", including some in Trump's cabinet, gave some thought to invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the mentally and emotionally disabled president.  "But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over."

        I could hardly agree more strongly with this observation: "The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility."  I am no deeply committed partisan of the Democratic Party.  I'm in it; but I have my doubts that either party currently represents the average U.S. citizen.  However, the Democrats are often at least in the same zip code with sane and humanitarian policies.  I also understand some of the Republicans' ideological or theoretical arguments, and take them seriously, and respect the belief in them that some Republicans demonstrate.  But watching Republicans fawn over this clown because he has power and is useful to them has been so appalling I wonder how decent people can remain in the party without speaking up.   They are the true "gutless" ones, not the anonymous administration official.

        He urges everyone to head John McCain's farewell words and "break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation."   Of McCain, this member of the Trump administration says, "Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them."

        He closes: "There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans."

         That means us.  We are U.S. citizens.  We can and must vote to change the composition of Congress to counterbalance Trump's madness and disrespect for law, traditions, and Constitution.   But we must also extend a hand to others with whom we may disagree.  And as Trump partisans, if some do, begin to see the truth about their hero more clearly, we should take no pride or joy in that, but welcome them back to the world.

 Wednesday evening, Trump tried a new tack: demanding that the Times turn over the writer to authorities "for national security reasons."

 “Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?” he tweeted. “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

However, even Trump's closest pals in the Senate weren't buying it.

Donald Trump on Bob Woodward - Another Day, Another Howler

Another day, another howler.

Bob Woodward's book on the Trump Administration has Trump wondering "why the Washington politicians don't change libel laws."

Two points are significant: that again Trump's response is to lash out; and that he not only has no respect for freedom of expression but has no clue that the libel laws are state statutes.   (He also purports not to have noticed that he's a "Washington politician.")  Yeah, part of libel law is based on U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.

Trump also has no blue that the law DOES prevent what he'd complaining of:

"Isn't it a shame that someone can write [something], totally make up stories, and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost," he complained.  But libel laws do prohibit exactly that.  You can't make up false stories out of thin air and write them, harming someone else.  If Woodward had done so, Mr. Trump could -- and probably would -- be suing Woodward and the publisher, specifically alleging the false statements Woodward had written which Woodward knew or should reasonably have known were false.  Trump could sue, asking the court to exact retribution in the form of actual damages.  If Woodward couldn't show his reasonable belief in the truth of what he'd written, Trump could win.

So Trump's complaint isn't real.  If it were, there's a remedy.

But it's another hint of what Trump would do if he could: return us to the law of centuries ago, in which saying bad things about a powerful public figure could get someone tried for criminal libel. 


Woodward's book contains numerous criticisms of Trump by administration officials -- some of whom spent the day "walking back" those criticisms.

In one tweet, Trump denied having used a fake southern accent to insult Attorney-General Jeff Sessions; but it sounds so like Trump.  He insults everyone, even mimics a reporter with a disability.  Why not Sessions?  Portraying Trump as calling Sessions mentally "retarded" and "a dumb southerner" sounds little worse than what Trump has tweeted or said about Sessions in public.  Just less acceptable.  "Dumb southerner" might even irritate members of his "base."

Of course, Trump's reaction is little different from his threat to "take a look" at the libel laws in response to Michael Wolff's book, Fire and Fury, in January. That "look" at the libel laws apparently convinced Trump he had no case.  Could it be because under our current laws truth is a complete defense to a libel action?

On balance, Trump's blathering about libel laws is, like a lot of what he says, distracting and obstreperous nonsense.  But it's a warning.  He sounds absurd.  But so did Mussolini and Hitler.  I don't think he'll emulate them.  He lacks Hitler's deep (if misguided) passion.  Where Hitler had a demented anti-Semitism and a theory of the betrayal of the German people, something he could articulate and which adherents shared, Trump has no such guiding beacon, but rather a shifting instinct to protect himself from whatever seems threatening.  And since a lot does seem threatening, he lashes out at others a lot. 

Trump Warns Very Clearly He'll Abandon Rule of Law

Is this what it feels like to lose a democracy?

It seems as if each week – sometimes each day, or each page of the newspaper – brings a new statement or action that makes it abundantly clear that Mr. Trump has no regard for our laws, our traditions, our sense of justice, or our Constitution – and that if he can, he will rule as a dictator, as whim-driven as any we've seen in history.

How much clearer can he make it than his current attacks on Jeff Sessions? Sessions was a far-right senator whom many consider a racist. He was one of Trump's early supporters. However, he's also a lawyer, and has some concern that if we abandon the rule of law, we abandon what is beat in our country. (Or perhaps Trump's personal attacks have awakened him – either to the danger or to an impulse to defend himself.)

As Trump notes, “Two long running . . . investigations of two . . . Republican Congressmen were brought to a well-publicized charge . . . by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. The two are U.S. Reps Chris Collins of New York and Duncan Hunter of California. They are under indictment for offenses (insider trading / securities fraud for Collins; misusing campaign funds and falsifying federal records for Mr. and Mrs. Hunter, who allegedly used people's campaign contributions for travel for releatives, children's tuition, golf outings, and other personal purposes) that are based in personal greed, not in politics. 

Both, like Sessions, were early Republican supporters of Trump. Sessions has no reason to be prejudiced against them, nor does the Justice Department. There is no evidence of anything unfair in the investigations, nor does Trump allege any. (He contents with snidely referring to them as “Obama era” investigations, as if Obama had some involvement.)

We laugh or shudder when we read about such matters in Stalin's Russia or some banana republic, where the dictator's friends and family happily loot the country without fear of arrest while the dictator also points at opposition figures and “disappears” them at will. Trump is publicly angry that Sessions did his job, or allowed others to do theirs, and indicted two men based on very thorough investigations. How much clearer can he make it that if he had his way – as he promises he soon will, by firing Sessions – the Justice Department will drop indictments against his friends and supporters; and his frequent shouts of “Lock her up” suggest that the next step could be arresting Hillary and other political opponents on trumped-up charges.

What's amazing is, this ain't me making wild charges against Donald Trump. This ain't some far-left publication publishing half-truths – or even the mainstream newspapers, which are also under attack for their independence from Mr. Trump. 

This is Donald Trump, in his own words, telling you frankly what he'll do if he can. Telling you frankly that if he can free himself and his friends from the rule of law, he'll do so. Unambiguously.

Don't say you weren't warned. 

There is a little push-back from Republicans. 

Mr. Trump leaves no doubt of his intentions for the Justice Department: he wants these indictments dropped because the indicted men had good chances of winning re-election, and is meanwhile demanding that Sessions push to prosecute Democrats.

Sessions says he will “not be improperly influenced by political pressure. Arizona U.S. Senator Jeff Flake condemned Trump's effort to use the Justice Department to “settle political scores.” He added that Trump shouldn't criticize Sessions for not letting political considerations sway him from warranted indictments, adding, “This is not the conduct of a President committed to defending and upholding the constitution.

Meanwhile, Brit Hume from Fox News, more or less a house organ for the Republican Party, asked, “Will DJT never learn that an attorney-general's job is not to play goalie for a president or his party, or any party for that matter?”

But Sessions will be gone after November. Flake will be gone in January. Hume will do what he's told, most likely.

So here's one more clear warning. Of course, I thought watching Trump in Helsinki would wake up a whole lot more people than it did.

Watching Trump was like the time we watched Barack Obama meet publicly with the leader of ISIS and announce that he believed the Caliph, not the FBI, CIA and fifteen other U.S. intelligence agencies. Oops. Wait a moment. That didn't happen, except maybe in some pretty loony imaginations. In fact, sane people would have a hard time imagining such a scene with Obama.

need to get laid or his perjury or some of his political decisions. But I don't remember him trying to fire Kenneth Starr. Or demanding his attorney-general stop criminal investigations of Democrats in Congress because indicting them would be politically inconvenient.

Trump has warned us, yet again, loudly and clearly – with conduct and statements that would have shocked us in any previous president. 

One problem with cheering him on, or saying nothing, merely because he's on your team is that if you ever disagree with him, you could get the same unjust treatment he wants to free the DOJ to mete out to Democrats. But maybe you'll never disagree.

Will we lose our democracy? I don't know. I know it's in danger. I know Trump doesn't understand or respect it, and that now that he's finding the rule of law inconvenient, he's resolving to knock it out of the way as soon as he can. What I don't know is how far he can go. But I sure don't see Republicans stopping him; and it ain't gonna get any easier for them as he consolidates power. 

                              -30-

Note: the day after I posted this, an article on theHill.com stressed the silence of Congressional Republicans and noted, "Trump's Labor Day tweet may represeent the most egregious example to date of the president enterfering with ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations and engagin in what many are calling blatant obstruction of justice.
The piece quoted legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin as something that i wondered about too: "This tweet alone may be an impeachable offense." 
Former U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder termed the tweet "so dangerous and stupid it's mind-boggling.  This is a fundamental threat to the rule of law." 
Ian Prior, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Trump Administration, commented, "That's just not how the Department of Justice works."  He added that the kind of selective prosecution based on people's political offenses that Trump was recommending results in cases that get thrown out of court.
Of course, as more Tumpian judges try cases, that could change.

Civil Political Discourse - an Endangered Concept

J Paul w Cynthia Garrett

J. Paul Taylor's 98^th birthday and U.S. Senator John McCain's death at 81 spark reflections on civility in political discourse.

For twenty years, J. Paul was “the conscience of the Legislature.” Everyone liked and respected him, although his progressive politics weren't to everyone's liking. At 98, he gets out less and less; but at the annual celebration at Farm and Ranch, he still remembered everyone and greeted well wishers with that marvelous smile. He can still hold an audience.

J Paul w Terry Miller

J Paul w Win Jacobs

He was frank and funny discussing uncertainty whether he'd be gone next August or live to 110. He acknowledged that it wasn't up to him. His face expressed joy in the moment – not fear of the next.

McCain invited two men who'd beaten him for the Presidency, George Bush and Barack Obama, to eulogize him. That was meant as symbolic advocacy of less partisanship. 

I often disagreed with McCain's views and votes. But how can you not respect him: as a prisoner-of-war, offered the chance for an early release because of his father's high position, McCain declined, because his comrades would remain imprisoned. It's telling that Mr. Trump, despite heavy pressure from his associates, couldn't even bring himself to express respect for McCain initially. 

Is civility in public discourse dying? It seemed so in the decades before the civil war; during FDR's New Deal; and during the turbulent 1960's. But civil political discourse came back after the 1860-65 wildfire; and during the 1960's, senators and congressmen from different parties still dined together or carpooled to their home states for recess. So far, we've always recovered from rampant incivility, which is tiring at best.

How can we begin to recover now? By each pitching in, however we can.

A retired minister I interviewed recently said, “I've met very few evil people in my life.” I'm not sure I've met any. One key to civility is to recall that, despite what all the political memes suggest, people are not evil. Rather, we humans can (sometimes through contortions worthy of a circus performer ) see our acts and words, and those of our political heroes, as right, no matter what. 

Though you may reject someone's belief, rejecting the whole person is unproductive. Fighting the Hydra-headed wrongness of some re-post on Facebook can be diverting, if you like Wac-a-Mole. A better bet is trying to understand them, and the soil their misconceptions thrive in, and asking them reasonable questions, particularly if you can project that despite it all you like them. It helps to find common points, or a shared affection for basketball or babies or bon bons. 

Nowadays, having some haven from politics and constant consciousness of current events is critical. And harder to maintain, when every time you open the computer to write a poem or check a baseball score or gaze lovingly at your grandkids, that Facebook icon demands to be clicked – and gobbles up the next two hours if you let it. But we need breaks from our reasonable worrying about the world's fate. Sit in silence, read, listen to music (or make it), walk outdoors, write a poem. 

Insults or slights are poisons people offer you; but you need not drink! Fight only what needs fighting. Letting bitterness devour you helps no one.

Sure, you're angry at Trump – or at George Soros. But let JPT and McCain inspire us to recognize people as neighbors, and rebuild community.

                                                      -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 2 September 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  During the week a spoken version will air on KRWG Radio and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[I don't mean to make civility our paramount value.  The fact that our ruling/managing classes are often so civil may be related to the fact that they are having the best of it at our expense most of the time.  Quite politely, the Democrats and Republicans enact laws that help corporations and the wealthy, and the financial industry, with little regard for us (particularly the poorest among us) or our health or environment.  A little incivility in the cause of a fairer and more just world, or in favor of getting our heads out of the sand about climate change, or in favor of forests, wildlife, nature, healthy food, and cutting down on the dangerous chemicals that are all around us and inside us because avoiding them is inconvenient for big business operations -- such incivility might be a welcome note, even something we desperately needed.

However, that's a far cry from an administration where one man's ego and insecurities are primary, not our country, while he and his cohorts destroy what they can of our country.]

 

[Our political incivility is not just the product of one man. It was growing before 2016; and we should remember that. Yeah, Mr. Trump indulged in insults and played some racist cards; but he didn't invent either. He took advantage of our deep divisions, and deepened them.

Thus it's hard not to note reports from John McCain's funeral of a more graceful political moment in which Mr. Trump was not present, or perhaps even mentioned – though awareness of him was obvious. Two men who had defeated McCain in Presidential races, George Bush and Barack Obama, from two different political parties, both spoke – and at one point Mrs. Bush passed to Mr. Bush a candy or chocolate or something, which he passed on to Mrs. Obama. Trump, uninvited, and unmentioned, was a stark contrast to their remarks on the dead senator.

Bush mentioned that, “Above all, John detested the abuse of power. He could not abide bigots and swaggering despots." Obama praised McCain's ability to transcend partisan fights and alluded to the "bombast and insult and phony controversies" of the current political climate.

"So much of our politics, public life, public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast, and insult, and phony controversies, and manufactured outrage," Obama said. (Jeez, is there a prominent public figure who insults people and tweets bombstically about pettty disputes, picking all kinds of unnecessary fights?)

"It's the politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear," Obama said. "John called on us to be bigger than that. He called on us to be better than that."

Obama recalled McCain visiting him sometimes at the White House for private policy discussions. "Our disagreements didn't go away during these private conversations," Obama told attendees.  "Those were real and they were often deep. But we enjoyed the time we shared away from the bright lights, and we laughed with each other, and we learned from each other."

Perhaps significantly, Obama noted that, despite their political differences, he always knew he and McCain were acting out of a shared desire to do what was best for the country. (Do many truly believe the same of Mr. Trump?)

Meghan McCain called her father "a great man," adding, "We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege," she added.

"The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great," she said to applause.]