When Rock Bottom Isn't.

Every time we think we have hit rock bottom in the current political situation, someone in President  Trump's orbit takes out a more powerful jackhammer.  This week we have the President and voices from the right attacking Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated war veteran and Ukraine expert for going to Congress to testify to the call that shows President Trump asked the Ukrainian President to investigate Vice-President Joe Biden and his son.  Vindman was listening to the call and reports say that when the so-called transcript was being created Vindman wanted to add words the President deleted. He was ignored.  Col Vindman showed real concerns that the President was working against the interests of the United States during this call.  So of course the President's allies attack him.

On Fox on the Laura Inghram show, John Yoo, the author of the famed torture memo and a person seen by many as an apologist for war crimes suggested the Vindman was acting as a spy for Russia?  Ukraine?   Sean Duffy, former reality star and Congress person and current Trump cultist who is inexplicably was hired by CNN as a political commentator, suggested that Vindman might be working for Ukrainian and not US interests.  Let me tell you about Vindman.

Vindman's family fled Ukraine, then part the former Soviet Union in the 80s.  His Jewish family was leaving persecution and the dictatorship that had little hope for a country of pure hope.  He lost his mother at an early age and was raised in Brighton Beach surrounded by other Ukrainian and Russian ex-pats.  He grew to love the United States and joined the military, along with his twin brother, after college.  He found himself in Iraq where he was wounded by an IED and earned a Purple Heart.  Often decorated he moved up the ranks and served on the National Security Council and in embassies in Russian and Ukraine.  His expertise on the region cannot be challenged and his patriotism should not.  Especially by people like President Trump, who paid for a doctor's note to stay out of Vietnam, joking about his youth paying for sex as his own Vietnam.  Nor the likes of John Yoo, a man banned from countries having been tried in-absentia for war crimes.  And certainly not Sean Duffy who is only relevant to anyone for being a nonsensical character on a reality program when Vindman was defending the country. 

We have seen the Trump administration set a tone that is both destructive and hurtful as people have attacked decorated military veterans, life-long members of state department and of course members of Congress.  But questioning Vindman's loyalty and patriotism to cover for a President who admitted out loud and in front of people in the act being investigated and Vindman is confirming it with facts is a such a disgusting strategy that all who continue to promote it must be shunned by polite society.  While I don't expect Fox to do anything, CNN should fire Sean Duffy and no show should book a member of Congress who repeats this nonsense.  Voters and reporters should ask everyone of Trump's supporters if they feel a decorated war veteran is a spy or traitor and if not they should stand up and call it for what it is, as Rep. Lynn Cheney did yesterday. 

We cannot allow true patriots to be denigrated by people who aren't worthy of carrying Vindman's bloody fatigues.  We are a better country.  

As A New Person Emerges, I Too Am Changed

Two years ago I posted this on my Facebook page and reminded of it today:

 So when I got to work in my box was a book of poetry written by Noah. It is called "Valedictorian of Detention" and it chronicles some of his inner-most thoughts from high school to college. There are some stunning lines my favorite from a poem "Musings of the Damned"

"Life is like a puzzle that forms no clear picture and half the pieces are missing."

This poem is a deep dive into his frustrations with anxiety and those that tried to help. A look from the other side backward. I am proud and amazed and a little ashamed that I didn't see deeper into this at the time. I am glad he found a voice. At times angry but the last poem entitled "Back from the brink" ends with

 "I am uranium, I am energy, Fire and knlife and heat and wonderous ecstasy. I AM ALIVE
And I wouldn't trade if for anything."

I am so proud of this man.....my son....(now saving money to help pay for what I hope will be an MFA).

When I read this I thought I had insight into my child.  What I missed was that my child was struggling with identity.  This summer the child known as Noah changed.  Well, not changed but found a true nature.  The child who was Noah told us that he was now N and gender non-binary.  His pronoun is THEY.  So they told me that it was the first time they felt complete and whole.

For decades I have spoken about the idea the gender is a social construct, I have always taught that our two-gender culture norm is simply opposed to reality.  Gender, different from biological sex, has always been something that is far more expansive than the masculine and feminine images that the Western World adopted in the last 1500 years or so.  In some places like among Native Americans and parts of the Indian Sub-Continent, non-binary people were seen as valued and in some classes closer to the divine.  Some times they were seen as negative, a violation of religious law, but even in those situation they were all recognized as existing and part of the world.  At times, even when confronting a religious law, people found that humanity in individuals who didn't fit into a simplified cultural definition of gender.  Now as religious traditions evolve and reform, gender differences are welcomed and more and more embraced by many in the mainstream faith and more and more by greater culture.  People are open about their own expression and as a culture we are learning to embrace the wide diversity that is human sexuality and gender in the human condition.

But here I am, thinking.  I am proud of N for finding an authentic identity.  I am proud of N for standing up for what they truly feel.  But I won't tell you it isn't hard.  There were reasons we chose the names he had carried.  Noah for their maternal grandfather and middle name Francis for my dad.  Giving those up feels weird to me.  I use to call N "the boy".  On occasion I would say Booooyyyyy like Flava Flav.  N couldn't match it and say Bweeeeeeeee  which led to my gmail address.  Bweesdad.  However I realize this is not about me.  N is an adult and as a parent of an adult my job is to love my child and to help N negotiate a world with advice but to not stand in the way of them growing into themselves.  I don't want to look at this intellectually, but that has always been my safe space when confronted with an issue that I face.  I can and have made the argument that gender is not static and cultural defined, that is not an issue.  However, as a parent, expectations of who your child will be are very emotional.  But I realize that my major goal was to have a child that knows who they are, is happy with who they are, and sees a future that they can build for themselves.  I thin what N is telling me is that he is getting there.  I will stand where N needs me to stand with him to help as much or as little as they need.  So know my own education begins on how to be that parent.  I will stumble, I will use the name Noah on occasion, I will refer to they as THE BOY in a moment of thoughtlessness, I will suggest things that are not helpful.  But I will never give up my love for the child I helped raise and for the adult N will be.  I am happy to celebrate with my child the newly discovered person N is.  Remind me when I stumble.

Abandoning Our Allies

The Kurds are a large ethnic group whose origins are in northwest Iran and whose historical region includes northern Iraq and Syria along with Iran.  Since the bronze age the Kurdish people have developed a distinct culture.  For centuries they have been living under the rule of others.  After World War I, when Winston Churchill and the British government carved up the old Ottoman Empire there was an attempt to develop a Kurdistan for the Kurds.  However the treaty would not be signed by some so the Kurds were left out of getting autonomy.  This had led to oppression and genocide in the course of their history in the countries that they were living.  I first learned about the Kurds in the 1990s when I ran into a Kurdish protest at the Turkish embassy in Amsterdam.  Until that time they were just another ethnic group in the tapestry of the southwest Asia.  Over the next decades the Kurds played an important role in the global war on terror and the changing face of the Middle East.  Most recently the Kurds have been US allies in Syria in the fight against ISIS.  More than 10,000 Kurds have lost their lives in efforts to contain ISIS terrorists in Syria and were on the vanguard in various battles that President Trump has over and over again taken credit for in the stories he tells the American people.  The Kurds were beginning to get a similar autonomous region in Syria much to the concern of Turkey.  The US forces in Syria have held back Turkey who wants to move into Syria and set up a security zone in northern Syria and move out the Kurds.  That was until this week.  President Trump, after what appears to be consultation with President Erdogan of Turkey has decided to move out US forces.  This morning we are seeing the results.  Turkey is bombing Kurdish areas in Syria and have amassed tanks at the border.  Russia is also on the move to help clear out the area.  This also plays into the hand of Putin in Russia. 

It appears the lack of intelligence and his fragile ego has led the President to make foreign policy decisions around the world.  We saw it in North Korea where he got played because Kim Jong Un flattered him.  We see it with Russia who appears to simply make fun of Trump there while pretending to be his friend.  We are seeing it with Turkey, who apparently has seduced Trump to allow a dictator to engage in genocide.  As Turkey begins to its attempt to eliminate the Kurds from the border every one of those deaths is on the head of President Trump.  A President who is abandoning our allies in favor of autocrats who play him like a fiddle.  It is disgusting at best and frightening at worst.  In the next few months we will see the result of Trump's lack of knowledge and concern for the United States standing in the world.  This while he is calling on foreign governments to gin up claims against his political opponent here.  He appears to want to be in the club of dictators around the world.  Is it possible that this is his hazing?  You may not think the Kurds are important.  You may not know anything about them.  But this morning they are under fire and our President is responsible, if we do nothing, so are we.  

You Added a Word. Narrator voice: No He Didn't.

In August a whistle blower in the American intelligence community sent a report to the Inspector General of his division about a phone call between the President of the United States and a foreign leader.  The IG followed procedure and along the way the White House blocked the information about the problematic issues from being sent to Congress, which is in violation of the law.  Good reporting made it known and after some attempts to keep it quiet the White House released not only the whistle blower's report to the IG but a summary of the phone call.  We now know what the troubling aspects of the call were and why looking at a bigger picture in US policy in relation to Ukraine might be troubling.  However, it appears that the Trump supporting pundit class and members of Congress must think that gaslighting will really help the petroleum industry because they are on television for the last few days constantly lying like they are getting paid to do it.  It is remarkable, this isn't the kind of lying we are used to from pundits and elected officials.  This isn't just a distortion of the truth or looking from a different perspective.  These were straight up lying.  Many said this was simply hearsay which should have no value.  It does since it has been corroborated.  They said that the hearsay law was changed recently, it wasn't.  Kevin McCarthy, the highest Republican in Congress, when read the words of the summary of the call were read to him said the Scott Pelly added a word.  Others have said that following the whistle blower law is treason and a dangerous precedent.  These lies are simply made up nonsense so I have questions. 

1.  If what the President was doing is so normal and legal why all the lies?
2.  Why is there so much effort to keep the information from Congress? 
3.  Why is a personal lawyer of the President doing foreign policy? 

One answer appears to be an attempt by the President and his team to get dirt on Joe Biden in connection with his son's role in a Ukrainian energy company.  But the focus seems to also be to confirm a widely debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukrainian and not Russian operatives who hacked the DNC server during the 2016 election and did so to benefit the election of Hillary Clinton. 

I continue to be amazed by the Republican party who continues to carry water for a clearly corrupt President, even now as we see possible impeachable offenses in relation to foreign policy and American intelligence.  Where are the leaders in the party?  Senator Chuck Grassley did come out to stand with the whistle blower law and demanded protection of whoever he or she is, because the White House and others are calling for the name to be released and calling him or her a spy, a deep-state actor, or worse. 

If you are a Trump supporter, I have to ask, what can the President do that violates our values and laws that would make you speak out?  When has he crossed the line if at all?  Should he be held responsible for any of that?  It seems like people are willing to go on TV and in print simply trying to create a different reality..  Is that the world you want to live in?  j

Bias-Awareness and Our Own Common Prejudices

 I was already feeling less than generous about the world as I pulled in to get gas this morning.  Drivers seemed to not notice others around them and as I turned into the station cars were parked everywhere, making the actual turns into the slip difficult at best.  So when I finally got to the pump I looked up to notice a Jeep in front of me.  It was older and looked well used, maybe a work vehicle.  In the back window was  a Star Wars family sticker.  (you know like the stick figures you see only with Yoda, Luke etc.) and then I saw another one.  It said "My family is different from yours" and it was pictures of guns see here.  Above was an NRA sticker.  So immediately I thought for a second who the person might be who drives this car.  When he came out to pump his gas I was trying to find something I lost in my car.  When my tank was full I took out the nozzle out and proceeded to get ready to go when I heard "Have a great Rosh Hashanah".  I looked up, the driver who had the gun family, casually dressed and likely  the stereotype I had the second I saw the sticker had wished me a happy new year, in Hebrew, a few days before the holiday.   A stranger, seeing my kippah,  made me feel included and in my head I didn't do the same.  I have to say that was an interesting feelings a few days before Rosh Hashanah.  Even after he said it I assumed he wasn't Jewish and just said thank you.  Then as we both returned to our vehicles I said, "Have a great day".  There I was, my soul naked to the world.  My prejudice was out there, in the open, and while no one else saw it, I did.   

It has haunted me all day, especially as I do High Holy Days preparation.  I was reminded of a song from my punk days.  The Offs had a song, Everyone's a Bigot, lamenting that some oppressed groups still harbor bigotry that they call to end against them.  I see that they were talking about me.   We all have biases.  Some more than others, but we all carry a series of prejudices and too often we let them come out.  Even when people are trying to fight that very thing.  Years ago I responded to a book for early childhood teachers, called The Anti-Bias Curriculum, with a workshop called Bias-Awareness Beyond the Anti-Bias Curriculum.  My point was that while trying to eliminate bias you build new ones.  The writer of the curriculum seemed hostile to deeply religious people for example.  In the end however, she felt that she had a way to eliminate bias.  We shouldn't be about eliminating bias, it should be about confronting it.  When we think we have eliminated bias, we become blind to our own. 

Confronting our own biases are difficult. There is some irony about the fact  I went to a production of 12 Angry Men at the Indiana Repertory Theatre yesterday where those 12 men, judging the life of a young man, confronted their biases head-on.  They did it in a crucible of a jury room.  It is amazing to see the bias of others laid out in the open as the play does, but it also is a strange feeling when you can see it in yourself.

Part of the High Holy Days is looking at your missing of the mark for the past year.  We are not looking to be perfect, for in fact we never can be, but addressing the short-falls and acknowledging them is an important part of who we are as Jews and I dare say human beings.  I know I have some strong prejudices. I can't really do T'shuvah for this as I will likely never see this guy again.  But it does make me think more the next time I see this kind of thing.  Perhaps this season I can make a list of where my prejudices focus on them.  For those who celebrate may the New Year bring you joy and the opportunity to see yourself how others see you, embrace the greatness they see and work on the problems we can identify.  Shana Tova. 

Why Can't We Talk about Guns?

Rep Beto O'Rourke touched what might be a new third rail of politics during the recent Democratic debate.  Well he not so much touched it but tongue kissed it on national television:  Gun confiscation.  The idea that the government is going to come an take your legally purchased weapon that you have not used to commit a crime is the nightmare scenario that has been the center of the NRA propaganda for decades.  The last time we, as a nation, banned the import and purchase of certain so-called assault weapons, Dianne Feinstein, the leader of the movement, said she would love to ask all Americans to turn those weapons in but it isn't possible.  As Joe Biden said at the recent debate, "We have a Constitution".  I see no Constitutional mechanism in the current political climate to have a mandatory buy back of any kind of gun that was legally purchased and I don't think I want one.  We can legally ban all future sales, put certain weapons in a category that requires a higher grade of scrutiny for the purchaser and of course pass laws that do take away guns from people deemed by a court they are a danger to self and/or others.  But the notion of a government program to take legally purchased guns away from people is a non-starter with the vast majority of people in Congress, and frankly I believe with the country.  It is too  dangerous for that kind of power to exist inside the government and particularly in the Executive branch.  So O'Rourke's position could have some support but it truly is a fringe and unthinking approach to this important situation.  But there are other extremes.

Recently major retailers from Wal-Mart, Kroger, Giant Eagle, CVS and Walgreens among others have asked to not open carry weapons into their stores.  The initial reacts of some is that they will boycott said stores.  Worse, some have decided to ignore that policy.  Again, one argument is that it violates their 2nd amendment rights.  Clearly it doesn't.  These stores are private property and can make the rules they want when weapons in their stores.  They aren't even asking people not to carry, just not to openly carry.  Open carry causes more concerns than it solves problems.  People, especially with rifles, walking into a grocery store usually does not make people feel safer.  In fact it brings a sense of anxiety because we don't know the intent of someone carrying it.  It also is less likely to stop any bad actors who might show up to do harm with a weapon.  First they would become the first target and secondly there is no evidence that an untrained person would be able to respond in a way that is beneficial to the situation.  Nearly anytime a civilian is seen as stopping a shooter in a public environment we learn that the person has some expertise in weapons.  So what is the benefit of open carrying?   Experts I know would rather their weapon be concealed and frankly have a weapon that is easier to pull out to respond. 

So there is a huge divide in how we see guns, gun ownership and rights.  Let's be clear, the founders enshrined a right to weapons in our Constitution.  In part because the states had to have the ability to respond to any attack on the new Republic, even if it came from our own Federal government.  The Heller decision made the right an individual right, so states can't overly regulate gun ownership.  But it also allowed for, in the decision, that, like all rights, there are limits to it.  So there is a role for government to limit who can own and what kind of weapons can be owned.  But even members of Congress don't seem to understand that.  That is where we are. 

We can have an honest conversation about weapons, but it needs to start with facts.  Too often facts are the first casualty of the emotional reactions to both views of people like Beto and that of the NRA, who, to be clear, is not about gun owners but gun makers.  We can't solve problems on the extreme.  We can't solve problems without knowing the legal protections and guard rails.  It is time to ignore that nonsense and focus on what actually can be done.  The first call should never be to groups like the NRA and shouldn't be to someone who wants to ban all guns.  They will not build the future.  That is not what we need.  We need true statesmen and stateswomen to take legal steps.  If you know one give them a call. 

He Isn't Alone

So the latest story about the President is his tripling down on a mistake that Hurricane Dorian would threaten Alabama after it was clear that the storm would turn north eliminating the potential of crossing of Florida into the Gulf of Mexico.  Over the last several days President Trump has tried to make it sound like he was right about Alabama, up to and including alerting a chart with the cone of uncertainty with a sharpie.  I mean it is on brand for him to make something phallic appear to be bigger than it is but this is a dangerous thing.  When the President tweeted that Alabama was in the path of the storm when it wasn't that could have caused confusion in that state as no local or national forecasts were suggesting a concern.  The National Weather Service has to send out a message refuting the President's tweet.  This is clearly not the first time the President was wrong about something.  He lies regularly on many issues.  He lied about Chinese trade envoys calling him during the G-7, they didn't.  He lied about changing policy on separation of children and parents at the border.  Now he is lying about the weather. 

President Trump's inability to live in a world not of his making is troubling.  That is true.  His words change markets world-wide, focus policy and of course challenge democratic principles.  Everyone knows this.  But there are those who allow it to continue.

In an interview with Stuart Varney of Fox Business, Joe Walsh was being pushed for calling the President a liar.  Joe, a conservative former member of Congress who has tons of baggage, is challenging the President because he feels he has gone too far.  He finally asked Varney if Trump has ever lied to the American people, Varney said no.  That is false on its face, but that is how so many on the right react to this President.

While some have stepped up from the outside of power in the Republican party most are allowing the President to simply create a fantasy world where his statements are seen as truth when they are objectively not at all.   Some seem to do as part of their job, Rear Admiral Peter Brown, a homeland security adviser, suggested that it was he who told the President Alabama was in danger.  If he did then he should be fired because his information was not based on the science we understand, if he didn't and is lying to cover the President he should face a court martial. 

What is even more amazing are the everyday people defend this President in the face of facts.  It is not an opinion that the storm was not headed for Alabama on September 1.  It certainly was never going to be bad.  There was never a 95% chance that Dorian would hit Alabama as the President also said.  But there are people on social media, interviewed by TV and radio shows and in the right wing noise machine who are trying to square the circle of that simple mistake the President made.  That is what is dangerous.  We can dismiss the President on many things he says and probably should.  Especially when there is a reputable organization that can follow up.  But when people ignore the truth, repeat the nonsense and try to make it look like everyone is wrong but the President that is the start of a dictatorship.  I never believed and still don't that this President and the array of sycophants around him could pull off destroying democracy on their own.  He isn't Darth Sidious or Adolph Hitler, he is Esposito from Bananas.  But even a mad dictator can do things if the people are willing to turn away from reality and support him or her.  I hope that with the latest crazy that we see from the White House there are some in the GOP leadership to stand up and that people who support this man will see that it is not good for the party or the country in the long run.  But my hope is all but gone.  

Stupid and Disloyal

This week the President of the United States suggested that I and many of my friends are  dumb or disloyal because we vote for Democrats.  While a stunning thing for a President to say, it may not make his top ten of ridiculous or slanderous statements he has made since his election.  But many were confused as to being disloyal, to what?  He clarified that some how if we vote for Democrats we are disloyal to Israel.  

The thing is I still don't know what he means.  The United States has always been a strong ally with Israel.  Both Republican and Democratic Presidents and members of Congress have worked hard to support Israel.  Democratic Presidents (Carter and Clinton) helped broker deals that have led to eras of relative peace in the region.  The current argument is that Jews should support President Trump because he moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, as if that was some how an important issue for world Jewry.  In fact I think that might be counter-productive in the long run when it comes to peace with the Palestinians.  But my Jewishness and my love and commitment to Israel are not about American partisan politics and shouldn't be.  

I am loyal to values and the Constitution of the United States.  For me throughout my entire voting life I have felt the Democrats have upheld my understanding of those better than the Republicans.  It is even more striking with this particular administration and GOP leadership.  There are days I don't believe the President fully understands the role his playing and how the Constitution works, but what is worse are those in the party who enable this insane behavior despite their duty to the Constitution.  Why would I as an American Jewish or not vote for such a thing?  

I know there are liberal voices that are not pro-Israel who are part of the Democratic party.  I also know that there is a fair amount of ignorance on the part of some current members of Congress when it comes to the current situation in Israel.  But regardless of what the GOP says those voices are not the mainstream of the party.  In fact recent events have given some of those members more power as the President not only punches down to them but asked the Israel government to do the same.  But the beauty of living in our country is that I can challenge them on those issues with the hope that they might see the broader world view on the issues.  Frankly it would have helped Reps Omar and Tahlib to have visited Israel and see through the eyes of the people on the ground how complex the issues are and what role the US could play in peace.  But the short-sighted nature of both our President and Bibi Netanyahu allowed for the missed opportunity.  

But what is truly amazing in this discussion is the notion that American Jews have to have a lock-step view of Israel.  One that is more associated with the right wing politics of Christian Zionists who use Israel and the Jews of the world as part of their eschatological endgame without much care for us as people.  I choose not to live in Israel for many reasons.  But I also feel a strong connection to the country.  I feel that I should not have a say in how Israelis choose their leadership or the direction of the country because I choose to live here.  That doesn't mean I shouldn't be critical of the government if I feel they cross a line.  (Frankly I feel I should be critical of any country that crosses a many a line).  But I feel without reservation that the State of Israel should exist as a Jewish State.  I will deal with my own internal struggle of what that might mean in the long run.  So while I don't have a dual loyalty there is a special place in my heart for Israel.  I want it to continue to thrive and I want it at peace with its neighbors.  I don't think that this President, nor the current leadership of his party share that vision.  So the assertion of the President is ridiculous on its face.  

What is even more troubling is that people have been writing about how there are bad Jews who don't support this President, specifically because of his standing with the current government of Israel.  They, like the President, conflate Israel and Judaism.  President Trump once told a group of American Jews, talking of Netanyahu, that he was "your Prime Minister".  That is where I think this whole debate goes off the rails.  This is where I get the most frustrated.  I love Israel as a nation, but I have neither sworn an oath to the country and certainly Bibi Netanyahu is in no way my Prime Minister, nor the leader of all things Jewish.  

Jewish Americans, like every other sub-culture of Americans, vote their personal values.  Mine are informed and shaped by my understanding of my Judaism and what it calls me to do.  I see the Democratic party upholding the values of Judaism that are dear to me as well as what I have always believed and was taught America stood for.  Many of those values are shared between my faith and my country.  That doesn't make me dumb or ignorant, nor disloyal.  It makes me an American, using the my rights to think for myself, choose whose voice I want to speaking for me in government and standing up for what I think is right.  Mr. President if you think that makes me disloyal in your view then I worry you don't understand the greatness that is this country.  That sir is a pity.   

Give Us Your Tired and Poor Meant What It Said

When Emma Lazarus wrote her poem The New Colossus, to raise money for the pedestal of the what is now called the Statue of Liberty, the statue was new and a gift of France.  A representation of the Libertas, the  Roman Goddess of  Liberty and was initially intended to represent the freedom that comes with the rising of republican style of government and the growth of democratic ideals.  The broken shackles on her feet were there to represent the very recent end of slavery in the United States.  But it served more as a different symbol for many, a symbol of hope. It was a symbol to the waves of immigrants who came to New York Harbor as their first stop to a new life and when Ellis Island opened it was the milestone that many on ships entering the New World saw and felt like they made it.  While it still stands for Liberty, Freedom and Democracy it also was transformed when Lazarus' poem was added to the base.  She liken the statue to Greed colossus of Rhodes, another great statue of the ancient world.  She went on to give her maternal attributes as if to suggest that she welcomed to a new home those who were tossed away by their countries of origin or fled from fear or famine.  Lazarus showed a new vision of the still young country to welcome the stranger and we will help them realize their better selves.  That was sometimes not a common sentiment in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Much like today, Immigration was a hot button issue.  But in the last few weeks we have seen the Trump administration try to rewrite Lazarus' poem or completely dismiss it because of their own hatred of immigrants and seemingly immigrants of color.  We must remember who we were when we the statue rose over the New York Harbor.  We have heard administration officials, like Steven Miller, say the poem had nothing to do with the statue.  This radically insane take tried to bring out the idea of the original intent of the statue, but that was a soon faded reality.  But without the poem, the statue can't be a symbol of who we are as a nation, a nation of people who have worked together from many different places in the world.  A tapestry of traditions, cultures, faiths and races.  Something that seems to scare this administration.

Worse than Steven Miller's notion that the poem is meaningless was a recent series of interviews with Ken Cuccinelli, the acting Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service.  First he said that the poem was better written to say "give us your tired you poor your huddled masses who can stand on their own two feet".  Later he said that Lazarus' poem was only about European immigrants.  First of all history doesn't agree with Cuccenelli's first statement.  While there was a test that people immigrating to the US were not simply going to be wards of the state, that was not a hard and fast rule.  In fact the first immigrants through Ellis Island were unaccompanied minors.  If there was someone to reach out to people and they had potential they were allowed into the country.  Cuccenelli was seemingly trying to suggest those immigrants on the southern border were going to simply be wards of the state.  But like Ellis Island, if they were allowed in, they could work and build themselves up.  Many did, look at the businesses built by immigrants, who like today's immigrants, were fleeing dangerous government supported or allowed violence.  Only about 2% of the people who entered the country after passing the Statue of Liberty, were permanently turned back.  

But the second piece is a growing worry for many people, both people living here in the United States and those who may some day want to make this country their home.  The President has said in the past he would rather have immigrants from a place like Norway, something he has repeated.  Cuccenelli said that Lazarus and thus the immigration expectation of the time was for Europeans.  This appears to be code for white people.  Again, this is just nonsense as the poem references that the Mother of Exiles From he beacon-hand glows world-wide.  I think it is clear that Lazarus' call was for all those suffering under the governments of the world that hurt more than helped their people.  True the vast majority of people who immigrated through Ellis Island were Europeans, but it was also the closest port of entry for Europe.  America's open doors did not have a White Way to enter.  We were open to all. 

We might say that this is just a little election rhetoric to gin up the base and make people feel we liberals just want open borders and an immigration free-for-all.  But there are real world issues when this thinking influences executive action.  We have seen it in the inhumane ways that people on the border have been treated.  In fact it took a federal court judge ruling to push the Trump administration to provide simple, everyday hygiene products and opportunities to detainees.  Think about that, a judge had to rule on whether the United States of America can avoid giving people, including children, an opportunity to wash themselves and brush their teeth.  But those federal courts could rule in other ways in the future if we aren't diligent.  President Trump has nominated Judge Steven Menashi to the Court of Appeals one step down from the Supreme Court.  He wrote in a law journal that a country cannot function unless it was a monoculture.  I won't bore you with the details but the argument was that a country with many sub-culture cannot find a common link to focus on and thus will fail.  This is an old racist argument that we must all be the same in order to survive and it was used in countries that oppressed minority populations by not giving them rights or status.  That is the antithesis of the American experiment.  This is not normal and not okay.  

I truly believe our government is broken, and while the adage from Game of Thrones, that the small folks care little who sits on the Iron Throne that should never be the case for our Republic.  The government is us.  When we elect people they act in our name.  If you believe that immigration has made this country stronger, if you believe that there was a time when we welcomed the stranger and if you believe that we are better together it is time to rise. This is the direction our country is going.  If you believe we should be purged of diversity, that we should close up our borders, that we should only allow people to thrive who are of a single culture, you really need to explain that to me.  Either way take a moment to read what a young woman in the 1880s wrote about a symbol Americans seem to love and are being told it doesn't stand for what it stands for: 

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

As you read this think about your own ancestors, how and why they got here and what they might say to a country that right now, at this moment, is demonizing the other.  I don't think they would like what they see.  

Partisanship Should Stop at the Edge of the Police Line

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a partisan.  I truly believe that the ideas of the Democratic party are better for the country as a whole than the Republican party.  That is not to say I would never vote for a Republican.  In fact I have.  If the candidate is Republican they have a higher bar with me, but there are times that the GOP candidate is a better fit, mostly in local elections.  That said there are things that shouldn't be partisan in our approach.  So last weekend the country failed that test miserably and this weekend we did it again.  Or at least some of us are.

When the horrific news of the El Paso shooting and over 20 dead started coming across the internet, it didn't take long until there was a response from the lunatic fringe of the right wing noise machine to try to make the shooter into a Democrat.  Like clockwork, these fringe websites posted false information like they had in every major shooting event in the last decade.  But we soon learned that the shooter was a person who was inspired by the language of a Mexican invasion that is championed by the President and others in the Republican party. The shooter was a White Nationalist wannabe.  That uncomfortable notion was quickly mitigated by the fact that in a few hours another shooter killed 9 people in Dayton, Ohio.  It didn't take long until it was learned the Dayton shooter had retweeted posts by Elizabeth Warren, Antifa related people and liberals across the spectrum.  For some the whataboutism was a relief.  Even the New York Times ran a piece suggesting that if we are to hold the President's rhetoric as partly responsible for the El Paso shooter that we must hold the left responsible for Dayton.  That of course is nonsense but it sells papers and promotes clicks.  The bottom line is that we shouldn't immediately look to see if the shooter in a case like this agrees or disagrees with our political positions.  In fact if that is your first reaction, there is an issue that needs to be addressed.  But if the political rhetoric drives an act of violence, we must acknowledge it and move to end it.  We must think in a way that ends violence, not look for excuses to ignore the reality.   For many they see the shooting up of a synagogue, a Wal-Mart or where ever the putting into the actions the words of the President.  That cannot be ignored and shouldn't be.  The rise of White Nationalism needs to be met head on and those who can must point out the President that his angry rhetoric feeds their desire for action.  But just because someone likes a politician doesn't mean that their actions are inspired.   The Dayton shooters actions are still a bit of a mystery but he had a history of misogyny, which is not usually associated with progressive politics, but they are not mutually exclusive.  So if in the end there are voices on the left that helped drive him then we must clearly repudiate them as we do Trump's.  But as of this writing it doesn't look like the Dayton shooter had a political agenda. 

Looking for an angle to stories can bring out so much anger and thus feed further acts of violence.  But sometimes it seems like just a cheap attempt to score points.  Jerry Epstein's suicide clearly is an example of this.  Epstein, being held before trial for sex trafficking, including of under-age girls, was found dead in his cell.  This came less than 24 hours after the release of documents in one of the cases against him that named famous political figures as having sex with under-age girls.  Epstein was linked over the last few decades to political and celebrity figures that crossed many ideological lines.  Like Harvey Weinstein, there are pictures of him with many and varied people.  So conspiracy theories are bouncing around the net.  People have revived the long debunked Clinton kill list, others say Trump's justice department had him killed, still others say he isn't dead just being help somewhere and this is all a hoax for some nefarious reason.  False information for political gain has been spread all over the net and even the President retweeted a crazy conspiracy theory about the Clintons.  This is a problem.  Until there is evidence to the contrary I can only believe that a man who lived the life of royalty, faced with being alone and in a drab cell for the rest of his life, facing potential inmate justice, and losing all his political support chose the easy way out.  He wasn't on suicide watch, he had material to form a noose, and he is not hard to kill yourself even in custody.  But it seemed that the body was still warm when the partisan extreme made so many accusations. 

Partisanship is not evil in an of itself.  It helps define the parameters of your political world.  Being a partisan is not a straight jacket.  But if your partisanship has you manipulating reality and promoting nonsense because it fits your political positions then you are not really just partisan, you are a propagandists.  Rethink before you retweet. 

It Happened Again

Last week I started writing this post after the attack on the Gilroy Garlic Festival in Northern California.  A young man with a legally purchased weapon killed 3, including a small child, and wounded 9.  But yesterday it got worse.  In El Paso, Texas a young man drove 600 miles, put on protective gear, and took a semi-automatic weapon and fired into a crowd at a mall complex with the intent to kill Mexicans, in his own words.  Twenty dead and 26 injured.  Then over night a man in Dayton, Ohio killed 9 and injured at least 16 in a nightclub area.

In a little over a week 3 individuals, at least two of which driven by far right ideology, have killed 32 people who were simply go about their lives.  These kinds of killings should not be normal, but sadly they are becoming just that.  The responses are almost fully programmed.

We hear thoughts and prayers from politicians whose thoughts are limited to attacking anyone who wants to even look at perhaps limiting access to military style weapons and prayers that something else will push the story off the front page.

When someone suggests we have to talk about guns that can be restricted we hear "It is not the time to talk about gun control".  I am wondering when the time will come.  After another 100 deaths, a 1000?  10,000?  Can they just give us a number they are willing to wait for?

As soon as the shooter in all these cases were white men, the calls of mental health issues needing to be addressed.  We know that when a shooter is Muslim, like in the Fort Hood shooting, there is no real call about mental health.  White supremacist ideology and radical Islamist ideology follow the same path leading to a different place.  Both are about purging the world of the other.  Even if the shooters in the rash of the shootings in this country did have a form of mental illness (which I am not sure it is true) it is the carpet bombing of hate that spurs them on.  But here is the chance of all these guys in Congress who call for better mental health support.  I call on Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Mike Turner, and Rob Portman to write a bill calling for another $2.5 billion in mental health funding, maybe take it from DOD.  I find it offensive that Republicans have been all over the media saying this was a crazy lone wolf, bottom line the President and his supporters are raising a pack.  One does not have to join a labeled group to be part of a terrorist movement.  The internet allows for a virtual collective.  Funny, they say he was mentally ill but he acted with both forethought, preparation, drove for at least 10 hours, posted minutes before opening fire and planned for his eventual capture.  He was making a statement not acting like someone with voices in his head.

The shooting in El Paso also destroys the idea that open carry and concealed carry will protect people.  The Wal-Mart was an open carry store in an open carry state where the shooter could walk around with his weapon totally legally and not break any law until he started firing.  In fact if someone where to try to stop him they would be violating his rights.  So we can only assume the there were armed citizens in the crowd.  They couldn't stop him, it took a group of cops.  While it didn't take them long to get there, it continues to show that armed, untrained citizens do not react well in a mass shooting situation.  There are no heroes.  I can't imagine what would happen if they did.  Dozens of people firing in a public location not knowing who the real criminal shooter is?   The cops in El Paso were there in few minutes, imagine if someone seeing this guy get out of his car with his long gun called the police and they could have come and deal with it before the first shot.

Solutions to these tragedies are not easy, but there are things we can do to make it harder for people to get their hands on guns who can kill dozens in a few minutes.  We can pass a background checks on a federal level with two laws sitting in the Senate that Leader McConnell will not bring to the floor.  We can investigate White Nationalist groups and put back the funding that the President withdrew from Federal law enforcement.    We can hold those who stir the pot of hate to a standard that makes them see they need to stop.  And we can ban certain weapons.

Military styled weapons that shoot many rounds a minute and large magazines can easily be banned.  We did it before and it makes it harder for people intending to do harm to get their hands on a weapon that can kill so many.  Someone actually said in England where guns are restricted that knife attacks are up.  Yes, people who have homicide on their minds can kill in many ways.  I know that for sure.  But it is impossible to kill 20 people in a few minutes with knives on your own.  It is nonsense to suggest it.  Many people suggest that banning such weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment.  But I have it on good authority that it isn't.  Someone wrote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

That was Antonin Scalia, the most pro-gun and conservative Supreme Court Justice in the Heller decision that made the 2nd amendment an individual right.  So even the man who wanted to limit local government from regulating guns as had been the case for the life of the Constitution didn't want unlimited access and carry of weapons. 

While guns are part of the equation it is not the entire one.  But it is something we can do, we can do it to not end the individual rights of people, we can do it in way makes is harder for people whose only aim is to kill people to get the easiest way to do it and will not change the ability of people to hunt, fire for sport or defend their life and property. 

I want say one other thing.  I have watched all day as elected and former Republican officials find every possible excuse from not enough prayer in schools, to video games, to the opioid crisis.  Let me be clear, I don't know what drove the shooter last night in Dayton.  What I do know is that the shooter in El Paso was driven by anti-immigration hate.  While he said he had these feelings before the President was elected he spoke in his writing with the President's words.  Words have power.  Words drive people and when the President joked a few weeks ago about shooting immigrants that is a starting pistol for some.  These republicans worried about too much Fortnite or lack of God should spend some time talking to the President about calming down not only his own words but those of his followers online and his supporters dehumanizing so many in quips and chants at his rallies.  Presidents, like all world leaders, are supposed to represent the soul of the country, especially in times of crisis.  Our current President seems to not have the ability to call out the hate because some of those pushing it are his people.  He seems to fear alienating them and in fact feeds them.  Tonight many people will go to bed grieving for lost of life but also loss of safety. We are in the season of  children will return to the classrooms around the country with bulletproof backpacks and planned shooting drills.  This is not the country we have to be, this is not the life we have to live.  We can do better.  I just wish there was the leadership to do it.