Drawing the line on which statues we take down

What if we do take down the statues of Washington and Jefferson? It is a popular retort for those defending the monuments of the traitors that fought for the confederacy in the civil war to ask where the line will be drawn and will you take down the Statues of our nation’s founders?

Personally I do not want to take down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It is easy for me to see a distinction. On one side the people that built this country and expressed their moral consternation over the issue of slavery. On the other, traitors who fought to protect the institution of human bondage, taking up arms in insurrection against their rightful government.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that he did not believe that the living should be held in a tyranny of the dead. He wanted our country to change, and be free to change. Today we freely express how revolting slavery was. We openly debate whether someone can be a good person if they ever owned slaves, no matter if they were only a product of their time.

The Confederate monuments were put up during the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras. They were meant to intimidate people of color and today remain as a touchstone for those who want to embolden the cause of white supremacy. The monument to the “lost cause” and “Southern Pride” only serve to whitewash white supremacy.

Washington and Jefferson planted trees whose shade they would never enjoy. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and their confederates wanted to chop down those trees to continue their sins against nature. If the process of liberating our society from memorializing criminals is to take down all of the sinners, even our favorites, that’s the price I’ll pay. Take the damn statues down.

Thinking of North Korea in a Different Light

North Korea is in many ways not the evil, unpredictable place that it is portrayed as in most media. Last month The Atlantic did a good job of breaking down the motivations and possibilities of confrontation. The possibility of resolution does seem remote, but so did any sort of agreement with Iran about nuclear programs. It only came from long months of negotiation and showing them that we were not adversaries but could work as partners. We gave them something they could take back to their people and sell. Not just to the religious and deeply conservative leadership council but also to the moderate population. The majority of that population, by the way backed that plan by reelecting the president of Iran to another term, so clearly the give and take allowed at least one country to believe they had a real leader.

There are reasons this would not immediately work with North Korea. They have less skin in the game, so to speak, internationally. Their leader is not up for popular reelection, so his grip on the country comes from strong propaganda to suppress any possible internal dissent. Even so, North Korea is easier to understand as the kid in high school who wore all black and had videos on youtube of him torturing woodland animals. Are they wrong? Absolutely. Are they dangerous? Probably. Will bullying or formal intervention work? It’s not particularly likely. Instead I see them as needing a friend. Someone to bring them in to the conversation, give them an invite to the party, and possibly even allow them to sit at the cool kids table.

Right now North Korea does not have a middle class. Any sanctions we impose against them will not hurt Kim Jong Un, or those in his inner circle that much. They will hurt those who are already suffering at the hands of the regime. If there was a middle class that would have their lives disrupted by sanctions, and if they were empowered to actually hold a referendum on their leadership, sanctions would have a shot at impact. These conditions were nominally present in Iran and its arguable whether or not sanctions really were ever all that effective.

This is the third generation of Kims to lead North Korea and the third to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Their existence, and therefore survival, has been predicated on staving off the threat of Western intervention. The nuclear pursuit has given them purpose and the ability to maintain power over their people. They need some sort of reward. We need to meet them where they are. It costs the US nothing to admit we have felt held hostage by the machinations of the dictatorship’s regime. We could send an envoy to offer this admission and begin a dialog. Open the lines of communication begin to inject aid into the country. These “rewards” could be the opening to have a discussion with the people of North Korea. Get them sitting at the table and feeding back to dear leader that they want more intervention. We need to be able to show the North that they can allow the world in and still retain their autonomy. Those connections will prevent nuclear holocaust more than any tough talk and posturing. Once the Obama administration was willing to sit at the table with Iran the gears began to turn, they will turn even slower in North Korea from lack of use, but the best collective security is being bound to other countries economically.

Many will complain that admitting to being held hostage by this regime will hurt American leadership in the world. In fact, if that is what opens the door to the hermit kingdom it will cement American leadership. If it fails, then we are free to return to talking tough and preparing for nuclear annihilation. I care less about the pride of those wanting tough talk and more about the utility of a plan. Is it possible to tease out an end game that does not involve shooting or carnage? If so that plan is worthy of an attempt or at least greater study, however if our actions are simply building towards violence, we should abandon them.

This tough guy talk will not work. It feels good to some, but in the end the recipient will only feel bullied more. They will react the way that the budding high school sociopath, when they reach their limit they will lash out. Also like that kid, he may not want our help but he should receive it anyway. In both cases we know there is suffering there and it is wrong to let it continue needlessly. The people of North Korea have been on the verge of starving for generations. That type of suffering needs to be met with a strategy that has a chance at helping them. At the end of the Clinton administration an envoy was sent to North Korea and deals were struck to curtail their nuclear program. Unfortunately the deal was finalized in October of 2000. Just 15 months prior to the Axis of Evil speech, cementing the refusal of the deal that Bush signaled as he entered office. Later in the Bush Administration, North Korea would test their first nuclear device and heighten this dynamic for the next two presidents.

If our president is man enough to set aside his machismo and negotiate like a sophisticated international player, then we all have a chance at a reasonable solution. Whenever North Korean aggression comes up, this should be the first idea that consumes the conversation, not the last and most marginalized. 

Democrats poised to eat their own candidates

            David Dayen has an article in the New Republic about the needless attacks on Kamala Harris for her non-prosecution of Steven Mnuchen during the financial crisis. This was also one of the topics discussed on this Monday’s (8/7/17) Pod Save America. Mr. Dayen correctly points out that the Democratic Party could end up eating its own on this front. To use his words, “no public official in this country, from Barrack Obama on down, covered themselves in glory during the foreclosure crisis.” It is obviously true, only one person went to jail, and the fines seemed to go in the wrong direction once the banks were declared too big to fail.

            Dayen also stumbles upon what could be the most revelatory point of his article, but he doesn’t meditate on it too much. The foreclosure crisis and the financial problems it caused were a major scandal, and they were not prosecuted. There was never a genuine attempt to bring those who crashed our economy to justice, and Democrats were in charge nearly everywhere.

            Post mortems on the 2016 election have talked about the populist rage and how the Democrats were not prepared to deal with it. I have read numerous think pieces claiming this movement just came from nowhere and most can’t figure it out beyond noting the media elite were not willing to talk to white working class voters. That’s the best most are willing to offer. The concerning thing is there is a shift I think many Democrats missed in the party, something independents and those aggrieved Trumpites have been saying as an otherwise unsupported accusation. Democrats are no longer the party of the people.

            The Democrats stopped being the party of the people when they failed to prosecute anyone for the financial crisis. We swept in to power at its height and promised change, promised to care for the people. When it came time to actually wield that power though, suddenly everyone was too big to fail or we were concerned about the secondary economic impact of punishing the malfeasance of companies that had acted immorally and illegally. That’s not something that proves that we are for the people. Sure we did not want to destroy a fragile economy, but we were failing to see the impact and implication of protecting the corporations responsible. Foreclosures continued, and Democrats allowed the poison narrative of personal responsibility to justify it as well.

            The jobs initiatives we did have didn’t do enough and wages never recovered enough to fully replenish the middle class. These problems persist to today, so much so that it is even in the milquetoast new platform, but where is the confidence that we can actually benefit both the economy and the average person. Democrats haven’t been winning elections because they haven’t been fighting. Sure, things got a lot better under the Obama administration, but he acted more the economics professor than the crusader. This is why Senator Bernie Sanders’ message was so appealing to so many. It was a return to the rhetoric that was worker centric. Not surprising for a Socialist, but still a shift away from a more corporate strategy favored by the establishment of the party.

            Bernie may not have been a perfect candidate but he at least was willing to name the problem and vow to fight it. Obama did positive things for the economy and he certainly left the country better than he found it. But in so doing he didn’t rise all boats equally. He is a Democrat, it should be a little socialist too. He failed in not being FDR and bringing the programs that really helped people. Which is not the world’s biggest failure, Buchanan is derided as one of our worst president’s, but mostly because he failed to be Abraham Lincoln. Barrack Obama will be remembered as a good president, whether he rises to be thought of as a great president will be for historians.

            We are not here to litigate previous elections or administrations, but find a way to prepare better for the ones ahead. The lesson here is that Democrats must keep average people at the center of their rhetoric. That definition might shift a little one way or the other, but it is clear that we cannot prize a corporation over those it serves, or that we serve. Our focus on intelligent government solutions to problems can help the Democrats reclaim the mantle of party of the people. 

The defeat of ISIS In Mosul

The fall of Mosul feels good but could mean nothing long term. 

Those who grew up on the original trilogy of Star Wars movies will remember Obi Wan Kenobi fighting Darth Vader in the first movie. Kenobi threatens: "You can't win Darth, if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." I had no idea what he was talking about during that scene, and through the trilogy Obi Wan pops up a few more times as a ghost to help Luke out.It would make more sense for the Islamic State to make such a statement.  It is rather unique for a terrorist organization to hold territory the way a state actor might. But at one time the territory of the Islamic State, or ISIS or ISIL, stretched across Syria and Iraq. A fairly well defined area. They even began operating like an actual totalitarian state, collecting taxes, and imposing laws. 

Driving these forces out of Mosul feels good. It means that the countries in which the Islamic State resided have fought back and are re-securing their territory. As a result, forces backed by the United States have reinstated order. However, as the New York Times pointed out yesterday, ISIS is still able to inspire global attacks. 

Even in the retaking of the city there is the same caveat that sleeper cells very much exist, and will cause problems down the road. 

ISIS had physical territory, but their real power was that they existed online. The reach of social media puts all kinds of ideas in people's minds, and the Islamic State has shown an incredible aptitude for recruiting. They target those most vulnerable to coercion by supplying much sought after affirmations and inclusion on those platforms. This tactic is how the group has established its foot hold in many western countries. The strategy is hard to track and almost impossible to stop.

For as long as the Islamic State has an internet connection, they remain a danger. They don't need Mosul, they don't need territory because they could be reaching in to your next door neighbor's house, or your kid's pocket. We can't fight this with guns alone. 

After World War II the United States government gave money to European countries to ensure they would remain Democracies, remain allies, and remain middle class. The countries that received money used it to rebuild after being ravaged by years of war. They ensured that their populations would have educations and futures worth looking forward to. 

Europe had been at war for a matter of years, arguably the last time peace has actually come to the Middle East could be measured in millenia. If the United States invested in the populations of the Middle East then we could begin to build those same bonds we enjoy in Europe today. This is adhering to Thomas Friedman's "Golden Arches Theory." Capitalist, middle class countries don't fight each other. People with jobs don't give in to extremism. If we create more middle classes, then we can trade, and trade in this context is the fuel of peace and prosperity.

We won't shoot our way to peace.  Now that Mosul has been recaptured, we should help them rebuild. Let's invest in businesses and industry in the new Iraq. To turn a phrase, if we employ them over there, we won't have to fight them over here. 

This Fourth of July

On this Fourth of July I intend to set off fireworks and drink beer. Like so many of my countrymen, that will be my outward celebration. Within my heart however, I intend to have a moment or more of solemnity.

This is a momentous day in the history of our country. The day during which we dissolved bonds with our mother country and struck out on our own, bonds which have been so hard to dissolve we remain in a “special relationship” with that colonial power today. So many have waxed poetic about it through our history; I will not try to top them. I will however, comment on how the American experiment at peoples governance was a revolution, not just against a colonial power but in ideals set forth by our Declaration thereof that are so aspirational we sometimes struggle to comprehend.

It is with this in mind that I will take pause. Remembering that the American Revolution should never end, should never stop seeking out those goals Thomas Jefferson laid out. We are closer now than we have ever been to living the truth that all men are created equal, and women too, for that matter. 

I implore you to listen to the words of Fredrick Douglass, as read by James Earl Jones, on his feelings regarding the Fourth of July. Take a moment to think for whom the American Dream has not yet been realized. Douglass' speech is from 1852, but it can still resonate today. We are not the same country as we were then, we have notably different laws, but have our hearts fully been changed? Perhaps not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tTkHJWxfP0 Douglass expressed his confusion at being asked to speak noting: “These blessing in which you this day rejoice are … shared by you not by me.” Equality was not shared by all our citizens even though our foundational documents promise that all shall be treated equal before the law.

My reflection on his powerful statements leads me to his contemporary, and sometimes friend, Susan B. Anthony. She, along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton proclaimed on the centennial of the Declaration, their own, for women. Writing:

"It was the boast of the founders of the republic, that the rights for which they contended, were the rights of human nature. If these rights are ignored in the case of one half the people, the nation is surely preparing for its own downfall. Governments try themselves. The recognition of a governing and a governed class is incompatible with the first principles of freedom. Woman has not been a heedless spectator of the events of this century, nor a dull listener to the grand arguments for the equal rights of humanity. From the earliest history of our country, woman has shown equal devotion with man to the cause of freedom, and has stood firmly by his side in its defence. Together, they have made this country what it is. Woman's wealth, thought and labor have cemented the stones of every monument man has reared to liberty."

This declaration, a century after Jefferson’s, notes our national failure to embody all of the principles of justice and equality. Before the law, at the very least, we have elevated all to a single class of citizenship. We still exist in a world where rampant inequality reigns. We are not the mobile society which we claim to want, we are not without our original prejudices. We can do better. I will set off fireworks to celebrate how far we have come, I will bum people out with this discussion to remind them of how far we need to go.

The War for Revolution is long past, the ideals set forth to fight it will forever need defending, though. The founding fathers concluded by pledging to one another to support their Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen States with their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor. We should do the same. 

Thoughts, Prayers, and the next Tragedy

            In the wake of tragedy we offer thoughts and prayers. In America we have had so much tragedy though, that it seems like a perfunctory, nothing, of a statement. So much so the show On The Media included the statement in their most recent breaking news consumers handbook.

            It is the only thing to say in the immediate aftermath of a major incident, though. To say anything else and one is accused of politicizing a horrible event.

            I offer in this time, appropriately long enough, following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise while at baseball practice for the congressional baseball game, that for the next horrible thing that happens, I WILL offer my thoughts and prayers, and it will be a radically political statement.

            My thoughts will be for the survivors. And how I will build a better world for those affected by the upsetting event and those it might touch next. Policies may need to change, law makers may need to be lobbied. Deep, values challenging conversations may need to happen. I won’t shy away from them, and I won’t let someone tell me it’s “too soon.” Particularly when, for someone, it may already be too late.

            My prayers will be to change the hearts and minds of those who stand in my way. A better world does not come easy and we must all band together to do that important work. So I’ll pray that my motives remain true, and my methods become effective.

            Perhaps, those thoughts and prayers of mine will end up reiterating a previously held position. Perhaps, the event in question will lead me to question and rethink previously held positions. Either way, I hope to act rationally and begin my work immediately. Any delay could prevent people from genuinely being able to help.

            I will want to offer condolences and empathy to survivors or victims. But my words will be hollow should I not be willing to take action and to be honest immediately following a horrible incident. No one can claim to seriously feel for a victim if they are unwilling to remedy the cause.

            So the next time we see tragedy, can we all offer our thoughts and prayers, and let’s make them count.

Sessions Hearing Live reflections

Note: this was a live blog, without automatic updates. 

Refresh and scroll down for latest updates.

3:00 - Sessions has just begun talking, he is certainly being quite folksy. Immediately he refutes the thrust of this inquiry, so we could be in for a really boring one here. Claims that Senator Franken's line of questioning was "rambling" and "based on breaking news." Both fairly true. 

Also points out that he does not know anything about the current Russia investigation because of his recusal. Sessions does not know anything other than what's been reported in the press, "and I don't even read that!" The folksy-ness is so strong right now...

3:07 - Sessions has recused himself from the investigation but has not recused himself from scurrilous allegations! He certainly has some defending to do with the attacks he has had to endure, and his opening statement suggests he is going to outline his whole narrative. Questioners beware, he will not have another Franken moment.

On to the Chairman, Senator Burr.

3:14 -  One problem with AG Sessions' strategy of  saying he forgot to include the meetings in his disclosure, he may begin to sound dottering by the end of this. He just answered that way for the first time under questions from Senator Burr. I can imagine a super cut of this being played in the press, for his sake lets hope he rehearsed a referential answer along with that one.

Also happening, AG Sessions points out that under DOJ rules, those with political or personal interests must recuse themselves from investigations. He never perceived himself as under investigation. Hey maybe that's what Mr. Comey was talking about? Maybe.

3:25 - No claim of executive privilege, so at least we are not getting a direct stonewall from the president. Not sure how big of a moment that is, but it seems to be worth noting that President Trump does not want to try to challenge on that matter just yet.

3:32 -  AG Sessions did not linger in oval office due to any feeling that the president was about to do something improper. This thread of Jeff Sessions just being really old is heating up, lingered in room because he moves the slowest in the group? Also points out that Mr. Comey should know not to discuss cases with people who aren't supposed to be involved. A touch of whataboutism might begin to show itself as well.

3:35 - In his preamble to a question, Senator Risch, discusses talking to ambassadors in grocery stores when you just bump in to them. That folksy-ness is back! Sen. Risch then demonstrates why leading is not allowed on direct examination in courts. Hey would you like to deny this softball? Yes I would!

3:41 - Attorney General Sessions is getting some great digs in on Mr. Comey, saying the longstanding policy is to not discuss the conversations DOJ employees have with the president. Excellent fodder for several think pieces, you probably won't get one here. The questioning is now by Senator Feinstein, she needs to learn how to cut Mr. Sessions off, he's out to waste her time... And now its gone.

3:50 - Senator Rubio asked a bunch of questions. Moving on. Senator Wyden begins with a lecture about things that should be done out in the public square and how there is no legal basis for refusal to answer. Those think pieces are getting juicier. Sessions says he is going by historic policies of the Department, doesn't want to be accused of "stonewalling."

Now he claims that he recused himself by never taking an interest and never accessing files, then he recused himself formally. Not exactly the same.

3:53 - Oh thank god some yelling. AG Sessions says there is no reason to think there are other reasons than those he stated for recusing and there is nothing problematic about the firing of Mr. Comey because of the recusal. Senator Wyden seems to have drawn out some emotion, AG Sessions is the most sensitive about his reputation. Perhaps an interesting contrast with the testimony of Mr. Comey, who allowed himself to be dragged through on questions regarding why he did not show a stronger spine.

3:57 -  Under questioning from Senator Susan Collins, AG Sessions get another shot at Mr. Comey saying that its time to restore the policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Also gets a question about involvement with the firing of Mr. Comey, AG Sessions offers a fairly boiler plate answer that the FBI oversees many investigations and is within his department. Its a legitimate answer. And then he punts after a question on his choices in light of President Trump going on TV with Lester Holt to say it was all about Russia. So we are back to the more boring side of things.

4:02 - Senator Heinrich is not wasting time and appears to be paying attention what upsets AG Sessions. He immediately states that Sessions is impeading an investigation, then asks for the written policy, seems incredulous about the judgment part of the answer. He may be shooting a campaign ad right here, its hard to say.

4:08 -  Great nugget from the Chair, a clarification that those who have refused to answer in open session have fulfilled their promise to discuss conversations with the president in a closed session. Senator Burr says that all members were able to hear the answers and their questions were answered to satisfaction. That does the work of making the Democrats look like they are grandstanding, but does not ameliorate the practical question of why it will not be discussed in open session.

Senator Roy Blunt on the mic.

4:14 - Blunts time expires with little real revelation. Senator King is out of the box on a line of questioning about AG Sessions preserving a right of the present to assert executive privilege. Premature to prevent the president from being able to assert executive privilege. Kind of dizzying really. King trips Sessions up on having already disclosed content of conversations with the president, nice logic game.

4:24 - Senator James Lankford, seems interested in providing most of the evidence himself. Reads long prepared statement asks AG Sessions to agree, then does it all over again. Really easy to tune out, but he did yield back time so at least we came out ahead in that exchange.

Senator Joe Manchin on the mic.

4:29 - Sen. Manchin seems totally impatient with AG Sessions desire to waste his time. Actually giving him the wrap it up hand signal and asking for just yes or no answers. So Manchin asks for advice! What should we be asking for? hmmm.

4:32 -  Senator Tom Cotton starts up by talking about how they aren't talking about Russia. He wishes they were talking about that? And now he's talking about spy novels. This lets AG Sessions flip and point out how small the amount of contact he has had with any Russian. Its been pointed out prior in this hearing how light and public the communication was. It is all a fair point regarding the heart of the investigation. Though, it misses the whole point that we are now on to an Obstruction of Justice problem, so everyone gets to be right!

4:36 - Sen. Cotton reads a list of "leaks" that have happened and asks if they harm national security. Some of those leaks do indeed threaten national security, some of them are minor. I wrote earlier today about how we need to all be honest about what is serious if proven, obviously no one is interested in heeding my words.

4:40 - Senator Kamala Harris is up now, she is keeping her pace up of wanting to ask as many questions as possible. AG Sessions goes back to the folksy-ness saying being pressed makes him nervous and he wants to qualify some of his answers. It would be adorable if it weren't maddening. AG Sessions even got to talk about the fall of the Soviet Union.

4:46 - We got one of the things we came for, Kamala Harris getting lectured by the Chair to let a witness answer a question they had no interest in answering. It may not be the most productive thing but it does draw in to relief the evasiveness of the witness and the hunger of the questioner.  We also got some more pressure on the written policy of not disclosing communication with the president, which Sessions says he did not consult before coming to the hill to answer questions.

4:56 - This hearing has started living up to my prediction that it would be boring. So not a whole lot of updates, there was not a whole lot of meat on the bones of this matter. Senator John McCain is asking questions now. He appears to be well rested, the Diamondbacks had an off day yesterday, they will be playing the Tigers this evening at 7:10 Washington time.

5:09 -  The excitement really did fizzle out, this whole thing went fairly to script. AG Sessions is President Trump's man, supported him during the campaign and works under him as Attorney General. The president craves loyalty and Sessions wants to keep his job, so he came here to defend his honor as a bonus. The long term of the investigation remains unchanged. Hopefully this investigation does get back to how Russia interfered and who they may have cultivated within the country. The obstruction of justice angle remains very much open, as Mr. Sessions testimony did not actually rebut the possibility. So the investigation will need to continue in that direction as well.

While it seems the desired orientation of the investigation may have something to do with the party orientation of the individual, remember, Republicans have a majority and can call whomever they like. So don't let them protest too much.

That's it for this one!