Miracles and Hucksters

There is an old joke that has a man sitting on his roof as flood waters rise around his house. A boat pulls up and the people on the boat invite the man aboard. "No thanks" he says, "I prayed and God will rescue me." The boat leaves. Not long after a helicopter hovers overhead; the pilot calls down over his PA system and tells him he will lower a hoist. The man waves the helicopter away, because he is waiting for his miraculous rescue. Shortly after that, the flood waters engulf the house and the man drowns. 

He shows up in front of God and asks him why God didn't answer his prayers and why he let him drown. God answers, "Dude, I sent you a boat and a chopper. What were you thinking?"

Yesterday, Donald Trump predicted a miracle and Corona Virus will disappear. 

God sent us scientists, virologists, epidemiologists, public health communications experts, people who have handled epidemics and pandemics and have saved millions of lives. Trump has defunded their organization, demeaned their expertise and made loyalty more important than saving lives. 

But, yeah, wait for that miracle.

Billionaires! OMG? Really?

For me, the jury is out on Mike Bloomberg. But I have a problem with the attack line that reduces him to "a billionaire... trying to buy the presidency." Bloomberg is self-financing his campaign because it's the best way he can make up for his late entry. He has also made it clear that he will continue to pour money into the campaign of whomever wins the nomination. For what it's worth, the other billionaire in the Democratic race, Tom Steyer, has made the same commitment. Their goal is primarily getting rid of Trump. 

Being a billionaire isn't, in and of itself, a moral failing. People like Bloomberg and Steyer worked their asses off and made a lot of people wealthier in the process. They took advantage of tax breaks that Congress and state legislatures have them, but there is no indication that their fortunes incorporate the sort of tax fraud that the alleged billionaire occupying the oval office employed. 

There is a lot of room to question the rentier economy that Bloomberg and Steyer thrived in and embody. I believe the loosely regulated  financial industry has turned parasitic and needs tight regulation and rigorous accountability. Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley were okay starts, but hardly the corrective we need. It's worth noting that Bloomberg's tax proposals are aggressive and more likely to pass a SCOTUS challenge than Warren's and Sanders' wealth tax proposals. Steyer has proposed significant reforms to the financial industry. 

I'm not arguing that being a billionaire is a qualifier, or that it disqualifies, in its own right. But be clear, Steyer and Bloomberg are not the Koch's, or even close. And they certainly are not the faux billionaire currently squatting in the White House.

Perceptions of Impropriety

On June 27th, 2016 former President Bill Clinton met briefly with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Phoenix Airport, while Lynch's Justice Dept was investigating Hillary Clinton. The dawn came up like thunder.

Clinton and Lynch insisted their conversation was innocuous and had nothing to do with the investigation concerning Hillary Clinton. But the die was cast, GOP politicians insisted the meeting constituted, at best, a serious perception of impropriety and that Attorney General Lynch should recuse herself from any further involvement in the Hillary Clinton investigation. FBI Director James Comey wrote later that the meeting precipitated his decision to co-opt the Dept of Justice and Attorney General when he announced the results of investigation. 

In short, that innocuous, inadvertent meeting had immense ramifications, not because something nefarious happened but because something nefarious might have happened and Americans needed assurance that things were on the up and up. 

Yesterday, Dept of Justice prosecutors recommended Roger Stone be sentenced to seven to nine year in prison. His long-time friend, Donald Trump blew a gasket and ranted on Twitter that it was unfair, "a miscarriage of Justice!" Within hours, the Justice Dept announced their own line prosecutors had it wrong, that the recommended sentence -- which was in line with federal sentencing guidelines -- was too harsh. 

It was no less a perception (if not outright manifestation) of impropriety. Where is the GOP's outrage?

The (Now) Irrelevant Whistleblower

There is a name floating around social media of an individual that some folks think is "the whistleblower." Some irresponsible members of the House of Representatives and Senate have shared it widely, likely hoping it results in retribution and discourages others who are considering doing their duty and reporting this administration's corruption. Many of Trump's supporters have forwarded those posts and tweets. Trump himself has winked at his supporters' actions. 

As to this whistleblower, it doesn't matter if the alleged individual is the whistleblower and who his or her friends or political leanings may be.

What matters is that the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG), who was appointed by Donald Trump, evaluated the whistleblower complaint and found it "credible and urgent." Those are the criteria for passing it forward to the Congressional intelligence committees, in a law written and championed by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), one of Trump's allies in the Senate.

People who traffic in the supposed whistleblower's name may be violating the whistleblower law. They certainly are endangering the whistleblower's career and/or life for doing something that is not only legal but required under the law. And lest you missed it, I repeat: the whistleblower's complaint was investigated by the Trump appointed IC IG and deemed credible and urgent. That's what matters!

Self-fulfilling Fear-mongering

There is a refrain coming from various pundits and opinioneers that if the Senate doesn't allow witnesses and doesn't convict Trump, that we will be on our way to a dictatorship. While their alarm may be understandable, their conclusion is immediately wrong and potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

The folks who have been telling you for years that your vote doesn't matter, that both major parties are the same, that all politicians are corrupt (so why bother voting) would love it if Americans threw up their hands in despair and frustration and walked away from the polls. 

You see, some politicians are corrupt. Sometimes, the parties do act alike if they are not held to account by voters. But we -- voters -- don't need to accept that as our reality. We can do something about it, by informed voting. We can give as much thought to who we elect as our political leaders as we give to the cars we buy, or the smartphones we buy.

But if we surrender to frustration and despair; if we just decide, "Screw it, my vote doesn't matter," then our apathy may well lead to the dictatorship we're told to anticipate.

About epidemics; it's not 1918, or 1348. Don't relax, and don't panic.

The Corona virus outbreak, centered in Wuhan, justifiably has epidemiologists and health experts alarmed. It's also been a shot in the arm (groans are appropriate here) for the cottage industry that peddles over the top comparisons to the Black Death and Spanish flu. 

Because Corona viruses spread through respiratory transmission, comparisons to the 1918 Spanish flu are appropriate, to a point. The doomsayers routinely miss a big detail however, namely that it's not 1918 (or the middle of the 14th century if we want to reach back to the Black Death). 

In 1918, there were no antibiotics that might have saved patients who succumbed to secondary bacterial infections. There were certainly no antivirals that might have blunted the primary infection. Nursing care was nowhere near its current state in ability to support patients. Ventilators didn't exist. Most importantly, national and international public health systems were just getting started. Communication may have taken weeks to cross oceans and continents. Trans-oceanic cables existed for those who could afford to use them, which didn't always apply to health authorities. 

In short, a 1918 style epidemic needs a 1918 world to happen in. In 2020, we have capabilities to contain even a highly infectious, rapidly spreading disease. A bad Corona virus can kill a lot of people, and those deaths will be tragedies. But keep perspective, panic is also deadly.

Misdemeanor (The 1787 version)

Word of the day: Misdemean (Verb, archaic): To behave badly; with a reflexive pronoun, i.e. to misdemean oneself.

A person who misdemeans himself, or herself, is a misdemeanant. What they do is a misdemeanor. 

"Misdemeanor," in 1787, did not refer to a lesser crime. It referred to bad behavior more generally. One example of a misdemeanor -- of persons misdemeaning themselves -- would be violating an oath, such as that a president takes upon inauguration, or the oath senators took as impeachment  procedures commenced in their chamber. 

To the men who met in Philadelphia in 1787, their honor and their oaths were all important. Challenging someone's honor was grounds for a duel. In an age lacking in elaborate legal sructures and catalogues of federal statutes and codes, being a misdemeanant, committing a misdemeanor, was serious stuff and as bad or worse, maybe, than committing "high crimes." Honor was at stake, for the person, for the institution, and the country.

Those who revere the Constitution and its framers need to focus on the word, misdemeanor, and what it meant then; what the framers' "original intent" was. And, they -- we -- need to consider what it means when the person sitting in the oval office lies the way most of us grow fingernails. We need to consider what the framers' would think of Senators and Congressional Representatives who put party ahead of patriotism, or worse, put one man's ego and ill-temper ahead of the Republic. 

No, Virginia is not going to take your Guns. But home-grown, Putin-inspired terrorists may take your country.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/virginia-lee-carter-school-strike-bill-guns

I hope a lot of people will read the article at link. 

Some key points: 

1. Virginia Delegate Lee Carter's life has been threatened because some conspiracy-minded folks completely misinterpreted a bill he wrote to protect teachers' right to strike. 

2. It doesn't matter if Lee Carter is a Socialist (or Democrat, Republican, etc); he was duly elected to his office in the Virginia legislature. When we start threatening legislators' lives because of positions they take (or--in this case--we mistakenly think they take), how different are we from ISIS, or brownshirts, or the Red Brigades, etc. 

3. Lee Carter *opposed* legislation that would restrict sales of military-style semi-automatic weapons in the Commonwealth; a point apparently missed by folks who jumped on the bandwagon and are  threatening his life. 

Some additional thoughts: 

Virginia Governor Northam has temporarily prohibited carrying weapons, including firearms, within the state's capitol complex. This is a protective measure in response to social media activity calling for violence against Commonwealth lawmakers. Most states have similar laws and they aren't temporary measures. The federal government has even stronger prohibitions on carrying weapons into government buildings. 

You know who else prohibits firearms on their premises? The NRA and CPAC. Think about that. 

Any legislation passed by the Virginia legislature and Senate to restrict sales and possession of firearms in the Commonwealth must conform to existing US Supreme Court decisions. While the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute, they have set a pretty high bar that any state or local government most clear in order to restrict firearms ownership. 

So, anyone telling you that the State of Virginia is going to swoop down and seize your handgun or AR-15 or shotgun is lying to you. 

And that brings me to my final point. A lot of the memes showing up on Facebook calling for "patriots" to rally -- with their guns -- at the state capitol, or suggesting that legislators should be hung as traitors to the 2nd Amendment bear the same hallmarks as Russian-produced lies that flooded Facebook and Instagram during the 2016 election cycle. 

Please don't let our country's main enemy tear us apart any more. All these memes are lies. Whether they work or not is up to us.

How Trump Was Able to Respond to Baghdad

There have been a number of social media posts lauding the administration's response to the attack on our Baghdad embassy, comparing it to the response to the 2012 attack on our Benghazi consulate. These posts invariably show Donald Trump in a complimentary light, versus Hillary Clinton as an indecisive, feckless leader who abandoned her people. 

So, for the record (and these are facts, not spin):

Multiple Congressional investigations -- all headed by the GOP majority -- found that the State Dept and the US Government's inability to rapidly respond to the event in Benghazi was not the fault of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They identified long standing problems and shortfalls that dated back decades. 

Adequately protecting diplomatic facilities has been a concern since the 1970s at least. In 1979 our Islamabad embassy was destroyed by a mob. In 1983, our embassy in Beirut was attacked by a car bomb. In 1998, our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were leveled by truck bombs. And so on. 

After each attack, the State Dept requested additional funds to improve embassy security. Congress repeatedly failed to fund those requests. 

The Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force (or MAGTF) that was dispatched to Baghdad last week -- that the administration is doing victory laps over -- was commissioned in 2013 by the Obama administration Defense Department to provide a coherent rapid response capability for embassy security *because of Benghazi* and because they were frustrated by Congress's preference to point fingers and cast blame rather than fund an actual response capability.

So, yes, the Trump administration did respond quickly to the Baghdad embassy attack, for which they deserve credit. But they did so using a capability the Obama administration ensured they possessed.

Greenwood and the Memory Hole.

On May 30th, 1921, a young black man stepped into an elevator in the Drexel Building in downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nineteen year-old Dick Rowland was on his way to the top floor to use the "Coloreds Only" bathroom. It's believed--as he got on the elevator--he stumbled and fell against the operator, a 17 year old white woman named Sarah Page. The young woman screamed and a clerk working in a first floor haberdashery claimed he saw Rowland running out of the building and that Page had been assaulted. 

Tulsa was a tinderbox. The economy was slumping, the Ku Klux Klan was on the rise, and recent oil discoveries on Osage lands were making the wrong people rich. The Osage were buying and building mansions and being chauffered by white men in large touring cars. In the Greenwood section of Tulsa, black folks were making money, opening businesses, building theaters and hospitals, and black professionals were pouring in. Greenwood became known as "The Black Wall Street."

Dick Rowland was arrested by the Tulsa police, who quickly determined he had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sarah Page refused to press charges. However, the police placed Rowland in protective custody because a lynch mob had formed and demanded he be turned over to them. Lynchings weren't uncommon in Oklahoma; since statehood in 1907, 26 black men had been lynched. 

In Greenwood, word of Rowland's plight spread and men gathered, determined Rowland would not be lynched. Many of the men were veterans of fighting in France, were armed and knew how to fight. Fifty to sixty men with rifles and shotguns drove to the Tulsa County Courthouse where Rowland was being held. When they arrived, they formed a skirmish line and declared they were there to assist the sheriff and his men defend the courthouse against the mob which had grown to more than 1,000.

The sight of armed black men enraged the white mob, many of whom armed themselves and set about attacking the blacks at the courthouse and marching toward Greenwood. By early morning of June 1st, 1921, Greenwood was in flames and the Greenwood massacre was fully underway. Before June 2nd dawned, Greenwood had been bombed from private aircraft and burned by rioters on foot. Initial estimates placed the dead at 36 blacks and 10 whites. Later estimates placed the number of blacks killed at 200. Today, it's accepted that the black death toll likely exceeded 300. By some estimates it was the worst race riot in American history. 

And then, it fell out of history. 

Hiding a Crime

Hiding the massacre was one of the most effective jobs of dropping something down the memory hole as happened in our history. 

My father was born in Tulsa 18 months after Greenwood was destroyed and its residents massacred. He grew up in Tulsa for his first 18 years, returning in 1952 with a young family and lived there another eight years. If he knew about the massacre, it was very incomplete and sketchy knowledge. And, he never mentioned it.

I grew up in Tulsa for my first eight years, attended early elementary grades and listened to my grandmother and great-aunts recount tales of their early years in Tulsa from 1919 on; they never hinted at the massacre 

It was likely a combination of things. The  mood in the country wasn't favorable to reporting the massacre. As a whole the United States, coming out of WWI, the Big Red Scare and the Palmer Raids, was famously seeking a "return to Normalcy." The leading Tulsa newspaper of the time deliberately  suppressed reporting, to the extent of destroying issues that addressed the event. And, for white Tulsa, since the massacre happened to black people it  wasn't worth much mention anyway. Moreover, the Klan had grown powerful in Tulsa and Oklahoma politics. Lifting the curtain on something like the Greenwood massacre was a dangerous proposition through the rest of the decade. 

As well, the full import of the massacre may have been lost in the clutter of other horrific acts of the time. There was a concerted effort to rob wealthy Osage families of their oil wealth that included  pre-meditated murder of possibly hundreds of innocents, with state, local, and federal authorities turning their backs on the crimes.

Indeed, it's hard to escape the idea that 1920's Tulsa was run as a criminal enterprise. Greenwood was one of the wealthier neighborhoods in the state (if not the country). It was full of professionals and business people and Tulsa as a whole was flush with oil money. Real estate values were high and there must have been a lot of Greenwood cash in local banks. What happened to it all? The money stolen from Osage tribal members through murder and various scams ran to millions. Of course, one of the first rules of a criminal enterprise is you don't talk about it. With a compliant newspaper and courts and an absence of anything like social media, it's easy for a story or stories like this to disappear. 

The Greenwood massacre was kept alive in the memories of surviving victims and their families. Tulsa lawyer and Greenwood resident, Buck Franklin, wrote a searing account of the events. His son who was six at the time, John Hope Franklin, became one of the leading African-American historians of our time and kept the memory alive. Over the last twenty years the city of Tulsa has begun dealing with the legacy and is now supporting efforts to locate and exhume mass graves of victims. Books and documentaries have been developed since 2000. With added attention from a recent episode of HBO's Watchmen series, the massacre is entering the country's consciousness and Greenwood's ghosts may yet get their acknowledgement.

.

For the Record

One is left having to choose whether Vice President Mike Pence is a liar or just stupid. 

For the record; when an administration plans something like the Soleimani killing (or bin Laden's), no one expects "every member of Congress" to be briefed. There is an expectation that the "gang of eight" will be briefed (Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, House Intelligence Committee Chair and Ranking Member, and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair and Vice Chair). Trump saw fit to inform Vladimir Putin, friends and club members at Mar a Lago,  and some Congressional Republicans.  NO Democrats. He also suggested that Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were security risks. 

For the record, Pelosi and Schiff have been in Congress since 1987 and 2001, respectively. For most of that time they have held the highest clearances you can hold in this country. While they have often been in opposition to the various administration they've served alongside, there has never been any indication either have been "loose-lipped" with classified material, unlike Trump who threw that canard into the mix. 

For the record, Donald Trump invited Russia's ambassador and foreign secretary into the oval office and divulged top secret code-word intelligence provided by a foreign governmentvto them, after refusing U. S. media access to the meeting (we know what happened because the Russian photographer who was allowed in worked for TASS).

For the record, Trump claimed he has authority to declassify anything he wants. He doesn't. He doesn't have the authority to declassify intelligence provided by a foreign government. Its their intelligence and they retain the perogative to classify or declassify. A U. S. President may have impunity when declassifying foreign government intelligence, but that doesn't translate to authority and it doesn't mean such irresponsibility doesn't have consequences.

But, back to Pence. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't lying. Let's just say he's a loyal foot soldier who doesn't know any better.

It's Not Over Until It's Over

So, Mueller...  Some thoughts:

Many folks opposed to Trump had  unrealistic hopes for Mueller's findings, and may now react to the report with anger and apathy; not unlike the "General Betray-us" outrage that followed the Petraeus report on the Iraq war. It would be a mistake. Mueller and his team did an exhaustive and penetrating examination of the Trump campaign and its relationship with the Russian government and individuals. The report does not exonerate Donald Trump or his campaign organization but does find (as far as has been reported) that neither the candidate or campaign crossed a criminal line when it came to accepting foreign assistance. That is, admittedly, a low bar but one that ought to give some comfort to Americans who care more about our democracy than party.

The investigation needed to be done and it wasn't a witch hunt. It was precipitated by incredibly stupid -- and in one case, drunken -- behavior by Trump campaign staff and advisors and by the candidate himself; all of whom seem to lack any awareness that appearance of impropriety matters.

Trump has been his own worst enemy. His servility and fan-boyish behavior to Putin, Kislyak, and Lavrov reinforced the worst suspicions that he was "gotten to," or is an active supporter of Russian aims. Trump's declaration to Lester Holt that he fired Comey "because of the Russia thing" amounts to obstruction in plain sight, but still obstruction. Trump's legal team of John Doud and Ty Cobb pursued the right strategy of transparency but Trump's nearly hysterical response to being investigated -- something he should have welcomed as essential in clearing him and his campaign -- leaves reasonable folks thinking he has something to hide or is too emotionally fragile to hold office. Neither scenario helps him.

This isn't over, in spite of the Trump Team's end zone celebration. Mueller's investigation spun off further lines of investigation that are now closing in. I am reminded of the Nixon team, in January 1973, congratulating themselves over containing the Watergate inquiry with a few guilty pleas, just before James McCord sent a letter to Judge John Sirica and the dam broke.

Great Walls, Then and Now

This, as you likely know, is part of the Great Wall of China. I emphasize part because most of the wall looks nothing like this section, which was built about 800 years ago, was the last section built, and was intended to protect the environs of Beijing from raiders from the north.



Most of the Great Wall has long since crumbled and was never much to look at in the first place. In many locations, it wasn't much more than berms, designed to give defenders a better position from which to fire at approaching enemies or to slow attackers.

In many areas, the original wall was undermined by water or seismic activity.

My point is that, even in a medieval or earlier setting, wall-builders knew the limits of the structures. They knew that "WALL," as our dear leader now calls them, are only as effective as topography and military needs allow. Donald Trump likes the image of one section of the Great Wall, but has no idea how China's emperor's and military commanders actually used it over the centuries.

Taxpayers--through their Congressional appropriators--should not permit such blatant ignorance to dictate how billions of their dollars are spent (or wasted). Do we need border security? Yes. But we need border security that works. It will and does include barriers where they make sense. It also includes technological solutions where barriers are problematic.

Border security also--importantly--includes trying to mitigate the causes of refugee flight from violent, strife-prone regions to our southern border. Finally, as far as drugs and trafficking, border security requires improving our ability to interdict at airports and seaports.

But, as far as relics of the past that were at best partially effective, let's just leave them in the 1300s.

Happy Fathers Day

It's Fathers day and I'm trying to imagine my feelings as a father if I had fled my homeland to escape pervasive gang-violence and rampant corruption, bringing my daughter hundreds of miles across grueling and sometimes dangerous country-side, so I could apply for asylum and safety in a country that I knew had a policy of welcoming people in my, our, situation.

I'm trying to imagine how I would  feel if, when we arrived  at the border station, we were treated as criminals and my daughter was forcibly taken from me and I had no idea where she was and with whom.

Happy Fathers day.

Our Country's Shame

About this business of separating children from their parents at our southern border:

1. Stop talking about the law. Separating families is not prescribed by law; it's based on a policy the Trump administration put into effect to discourage families from illegally entering the country (pay attention to "illegally," it's important).

2. The policy is not just being applied to  families trying to sneak across the southern border, it's being applied to families who are openly approaching border stations and requesting asylum.

3. Families and children who request asylum are within their legal rights to do so, based on a law proposed by the George W. Bush administration and passed overwhelmingly by Congress and based on principles of international law the US has subscribed to for decades.

4. By separating families in the absence of laws passed by congress, the administration is placing itself in opposition to laws Congress has passed. Congress can stop this now if they will stand up to Trump and Sessions. Americans of conscience should insist that Congress and the courts move, immediately, to end this shame Trump brings on our country.

Lies and Liars

In the Spring of 1995, I was driving home from work listening to news on my car radio. The main story was the very recent bombing in Oklahoma City, followed by a revelations about the terrorist cult Aum Shinrykio and its leader, which had  conducted a Sarin attack in the Tokyo Subway a month earlier. I had one of those moments when I couldn't listen to it any longer (Oklahoma City was a raw wound and I'd been following the Tokyo  subway story in my job). I switched the station to a legacy rock station just in time to catch the beginning of Sympathy for the Devil by the Rolling Stones. My first thought was "well, that's creepy," but then--really for the first time I think--I listened to the lyrics.

Mick Jagger's and Keith Richards' Devil is in keeping with Milton's Lucifer and C.S. Lewis's Screwtape. He is vain and prideful, announcing repeatedly he is "a man of wealth and taste." The vanity is oppressive as is his demand that his "achievements" and "wealth and taste" be recognized, honored actually:

"So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste"

And, remember the Prince of Lies?

"Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint"

Truth means nothing to those who traffic in lies. As M. Scott Peck put it in his book, People of the Lie,  those who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures, they cause havoc in the lives of those around them. Most recently, I posted a comment about Michael Hayden's and James Clapper's books, in which they contend the goal of Russia in interfering in our political process is to shred our sense of truth as something that rests on facts and is knowable. Once that is successful, the loudest, most audacious lie will win.

About those verses from Romans...

Since Jeff Sessions and Sarah Sanders are touting Romans 13 to justify ripping families apart (although no law requires such action), it might be interesting to read  the entire letter from St Paul; and consider what it would mean for the rest of the Trump example and administration:

Romans 13:1–14
Submission to Governing Authorities

The first section (1 - 5) is the part Sessions and others are referring to and it has been cited, often, to justify compliance with authority, any authority. Jesus makes the same case in his reply to the Pharisees "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. The passages are not a writ to trample on peoples' rights, dignity and personhood. The point is that even flawed government that maintains order and allows people to thrive is better than anarchy. Paul takes the same point but also applies it to the growing communities of Christians scattered about the Eastern Mediterranean and tells them to quit squabbling and work with their communities' leaders.

"1. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

"2. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

"3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

"4. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

"5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Now this part gets interesting.The "good" of maintaining order in a community costs money. So governments  collect money to pay for themselves. Something else to consider, please; those who benefit most from an orderly society ate those whose lives (private and commercial) are most complex. The merchant in Jerusalem, who prospered because Rome built highways and swept the sea clean of pirates, gained far more than the fisherman in Galilee. Shouldn't the merchant pay more than the fisherman? Should a corporation or CEO today be able to avoid or minimize their taxes through loopholes purchased from legislators? What would Paul, or Jesus think of tax legislation that lends weight of law to the wealthy avoiding taxes (think about the rich man, Dives, and God's judgement on him)?

Verse 8 is a doozy if you're a real estate magnate who has made stiffing your contractors and ripping off charities part of your business plan.

"8. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law."

In verse 9, Paul references the the commandments about adultery, murder, coveting, and theft. Adultery speaks for itself. But what they all have in common is the admonition against placing yourself and your gratification above all else and everyone else. Seriously, isn't that the pattern of Trump's life and the example he and his family set for the nation?

"9. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

For the remainder of the verses (10-14), ask yourselves if tearing families apart, not as enforcing the law, but as acting on an Executive whim, is acting in love of fellow human beings. And ask yourself what would Jesus--who said "what you do to the least of these, you do to me" and of those who would harm children, "better a millstone be tied around their neck and they be cast into the sea" --do?

"10. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

"11. And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber,  because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

"12. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armorg of light.

"13. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.

"14. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh."

It's easy to snatch a phrase here and there. Sessions and Sanders would like to speak, I'm sure, with the voices of angels, but their lack of love (i.e. their hatred) ensures they are but clanging cymbals.

Lyin' in Coal Country

So, this article showed up...  " Logan Officials Message to Clinton Campaign: After the Clinton campaign staff attempted to use the City of Logan Fire Department facilities for the Clinton upcoming visitations to the area, fire department officials contacted the Mayor of  L... " yada, yada. Hillary and the horrible Obama are "killing" coal.

Whether you like or agree with or dislike and disagree with Hillary Clinton, a little truth-telling is in order. Yes, Ms. Clinton did say "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." But, context matters; the context in this case matters a lot. Ms. Clinton wasn't saying that she or her administration would put the companies out of business but that economics, chemistry and physics would put them out of business.

Something else is killing coal jobs and it isn't the EPA, it's the coal operators themselves. The number of coal jobs in West Virginia and Appalachia was cratering long before any imagined war on coal was declared in the halls of the EPA. Whether from greed or hard-edged business decisions, coal operators decided that employing people as they had in Coal's golden years, is not a good investment. Why should they employ shifts when a couple of men with a humongous Caterpillar can produce as much coal by slicing off the top of a mountain and scooping out the contents?

And if you are betting on "clean coal" to bring back to good old days, bet again. The cost of "cleaning" coal in order to reduce harmful emissions will have to be paid for somehow. It will either happen by raising the price of coal, which makes coal more expensive and less attractive than alternatives like natural gas. Or, savings will be achieved by cutting labor costs, which means that workers will increasingly be replaced by equipment, pay will be cut further and conditions will worsen (these last two due to the neutering of the UMW).

Companies like Peabody and Massey have been screwing West Virginia miners for decades and when the miners pushed back the companies sent in the head-breakers, whether they were Baldwin-Felts "detectives," Pinkertons, or the West Virginia National Guard and the Army Air Corps. Today they send squadrons of lawyers but the effect is the same.

What no one seems to have a stomach for is telling the truth. Those jobs are going and there isn't a thing we can do about it. Coal isn't as efficient a source of power as gas or nuclear or -- increasingly -- renewables. So the pressure is on to phase it out. Coal is no longer West Virginia's number one industry, having been replaced by tourism decades ago. But in an effort to wring the last quarter's worth of profit out of coal, the operators have switched to mountain-top removal, which is directly impacting tourism and further killing the goose that is trying to lay a golden egg.

Companies like Peabody could act like good citizens and explore opportunities to build new industries here in West Virginia, whose people have made their owners, managers and stockholders unbelievably wealthy. Instead they spun off a a subsidiary called Patriot Coal, sold it the pensions that miners had invested their futures in and then declared Patriot bankrupt.

Politicians in places like Logan County and in the State Capitol have done the bidding of Peabody, Massey and others for too many years. Their cozy world is collapsing as coal fizzles and now it's Hillary's, or Obama's or the EPA's fault. Look in the mirror boys, and look behind you because justice will -- eventually -- catch up.

Kasich and his GOP Rivals

Over on Facebook, I've been ruminating on the presidential candidates. The GOP race is fascinating as only a multi-vehicle accident can be.  I think it bears repeating that Democrats who celebrate Trump's seeming emergence as the Republican front-runner are misguided. Yes it is likely that Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton and possibly to Bernie Sanders. But -- two points should be considered: The first and obvious one is that shit happens in election cycles and it's a long time from July to November. Trump could win. The second point is that the political climate and alignment of cynicism that produces Donald Trump (and Ted Cruz, for that matter) debases our democracy. If we give a damn about the political beliefs and philosophy underlying the system we profess to value we should be in the streets, on the phones, on email and --most importantly--in the voting booth, demanding this insult to our republican legacy stop.

I've read a number of posts and articles insisting the John Kasich is no moderate and is therefore as bad as Trump or Cruz (yes, they mostly come from the left) and it's BS. There is a huge difference between Kasich and his GOP rivals and it is illustrated in how he governs, which BTW his rivals have not done at all. John Kasich believes in governing; Cruz believes in drowning government in the bathtub and God knows what Trump believes in. When Kasich was elected Ohio Governor he initiated legislation that would end public sector unions. It was somewhat more severe that what Scott Walker tried in Wisconsin. Kasich was defeated in the legislature and has respected the democratic process and will of the voters, learning to work with the unions. Kasich opposed the Affordable Care Act; when it passed Congress, he took full advantage of the opportunities it offered Ohio citizens, unlike many other GOP governors who decided to let their citizens pick up the tab for their (the governors') commitment to "principle." He took a lot of heat for his decision and gave a pithy response that Republicans could (and once would) take pride in.

Kasich is a conservative and makes no pretense otherwise. In today's field being sane and responsible is often equated with being moderate, I suppose. The GOP establishment, which seems convinced that the only alternative to Trump is letting Cruz incinerate their chances has failed to get behind Kasich. That fact should be what really gets Democratic hopes up, because he is the candidate they don't want to run against.

I defend John Kasich, not because I agree with his politics (I mostly don't) but because he is--I think--a good man who believes in democracy, and because he is running for the nomination in a GOP field that has run out of good men.

Apples and Tennis Balls?

There has been a meme floating around for a few weeks, courtesy of the Tea Party News Network (TPNN). It tells a story about Laylah Peterson, a five year old white girl who was shot by "two black males" while she sat on her grandfather's lap. The meme then asks where Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were in that case, and asserts that they don't care "unless the victim was a person of color and there are television cameras pointed at them."

The meme does not disclose where it happened, only that the neighborhood is 77% black and 14% white. A quick Google search on the girl's name reveals that it occurred in Menomenee Falls, Wisconsin and that police throughout the Milwaukee region pulled out the stops to find the killers and that the local community's response to the family was overwhelmingly helpful and sympathetic.

So, is Laylah Peterson's death comparable to Michael Brown's or Eric Garner's or Trayvon Martin's, or John Crawford's or Amadou Diallo's or Oscar Grant's? Or is the meme comparing apples and tennis balls?

Let's stipulate a few things up front:

* Laylah Peterson's death is a national tragedy. A man should be able to bounce his granddaughter on his knee in any town or village in this country without fear that someone who has no business possessing a gun will kill the child with it.

* Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are headline hustlers and I am often  offended by the haste, with which they insert themselves before cameras in the middle of tragedies. Similarly, I am offended when people use tragedies such as the the Petersons' to perpetuate a logical (and racist) fallacy that tries to diminish the deaths of black men at the hands of policemen who are not later held accountable for their actions.

* Last, let's stipulate that Laylah's murder has this in common with the other killings: one party was white, one party was black, one party died, and one party perpetuated the death. There is not much else in common.

In the Peterson case, the police and community responded immediately. It was an all too common tragedy in our country; an innocent killed by feral creatures equipped with weapons that are all too available to them. TPNN's meme implies that, because Laylah was white in a majority black community that no one really gave a damn. The facts, as reported by a Milwaukee Fox network affiliate tell a different story of massive community grief and rapid police response.

The other cases tell a frightening tale of police misconduct and/or reckless disregard that is papered over by jurisdictions who are reluctant to give grieving families grounds for litigation, prosecutors afraid to confront police partners, and policemen and their fraternal organizations who confuse solidarity with abetting conduct that ultimately condemns them in the eyes of the communities they are entrusted to serve.

But here's the real difference in these cases. We--as a society--give police power of life and death over us. We trust them to exercise those powers with prudence and discrimination in circumstances of extreme tension, in which they must make snap judgements. We rely on their training, professionalism and integrity at a personal and institutional level to keep us safe. If police departments and their jurisdictions are unwilling to act responsibly and accountably in the Brown, Garner, Crawford, Rice, Diallo, Grant, etc cases can we really trust them to protect and serve all us middle class white folks? Ask Chey Calvo, mayor of Berwyn Heights MD. Or read Rodney Balko on the perils of militarized police departments and mindsets. Or ask journalists in Ferguson, MO who were assaulted for drinking coffee in a McDonalds near the riot zone last August.

The other day President Obama remarked, in the context of Eric Garner's death and the Grand Jury's finding that the NYPD officers committed no crime, that this was an American problem. He's right. African Americans have been referred to as canaries in our national coal mine. They are most sensitive to our nation's toxins of hate, discrimination by class or race or whatever, and the exercise of power without accountability or restraint. But the toxins will kill us all eventually. Be warned.