#14. - Guess Who's NOT Coming to Dinner

Our 45th President now refuses to break bread with "the enemy of the American People".   That's completely understandable, no self respecting US politician, US Government Official, Republican or Democrat, would be caught dead sitting down to dinner with Kim Jong-un, Basshar al-Assad or Vladimir Putin (ok, maybe there are one or two exceptions to this last one).

No, this enemy of the American People doesn't use chemical weapons, strive to place nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles or assassinate members of the opposition party, these enemies write articles, present facts, opine in editorials and generally speaking, lean Left (Jesus, Mary and Joseph and all the Saints, pray for us)

President Donald Trump enjoys having dinner, surrounded by all of the beautiful people at his Mar-a- Layo Country Club, where he can eat out in the open and feel revered and loved by the people that really matter the most.   Apparently he seems to feel that the US press corps doesn't share that same level of reverence. It's true of course,  they don't really care about the conditions of the greens, or if their annual dues are going to go up next year.

Yesterday, Trump tweeted that he will not be attending The White House Correspondents Dinner.   Hmmm, so, if the White House is out, I guess they are going to have rename the thing, maybe we go with the "Public Enemy No. 1 Dinner".  Yes, that's catchy, let's go with that.

This is bigger news than you might think.    This is the first time in 31 years that an American President has not attended the dinner.   The last sitting president who didn't attend was Ronald Reagan, but he had a pretty good excuse, he was recovering in the hospital from a gun shot wound to the chest from an assignation attempt.  The obvious comparison here is that Trump has just shot himself in the foot.  Reagan, the Great Communicator, could have taught the Donald a thing or two.   It makes you think that there were many lessons learned in his B-level movies,  that were lessons lost in the "Reality" TV of the Apprentice.   Reagan wasn't going to miss his opportunity.  Even though he didn't attend, he still appeared by videotape.

I have always enjoyed watching the new clips of this Dinner the day after.  They can be pretty hilarious and sometime poignant. Because all presidents have had an adversarial relationship with the Press, a fact which seems lost on Trump, it provides an opportunity to unite, rather than divide.   The President also has a unique advantage here, as he can pull from a talented cadre of speechwriters to poke fun at the press, poke fun at himself and show Americans that no matter what our differences are, when the day is done we can still break bread and have an enjoyable meal together.  

It may not be the Thanksgiving Dinner, which we all celebrate and revere in our uniquely American Tradition, but it is a close second.  

#13 - Income Inequality in America and the Shining City on the Hill, [ How I Moved from Leaning Right to Leaning Left - Part 3 ]

In the closing scene of Star Trek II - The Wrath of Kahn, Chief Science Officer Spock, half-Vulcan, half-human, enters the radiation filled engine room to fix the ship's engine with the fate of the entire crew at stake.  He knows when he enters the room, he will not come out.  When his friend and commanding officer, James T. Kirk, rushes up from the ship's bridge, in a vain attempt to help, Spock reminds him of their earlier conversation where he had advised his friend, that "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."  Spock had done the math and knew his action was the only solution to the equation. 

Captain Kirk would later eulogize his old friend and acknowledge that of all the souls he has met in all of his travels, his Vulcan friend's, was the most human.  In his final act, Spock had seamlessly reconciled a life based on logic and one based on humanity.

                     _________________________________________________

 I don't remember exactly when I first ran across the statistics on income inequality. I know it was before Obama won his first Presidential election, so it was sometime before Elizabeth Warren moved to Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders had any name recognition outside the Green Mountain State. So it was probably in 2007 or early 2008, but I know it was not a discussion point in the mainstream media.  I do recall it as a "Holy Shit" moment of realization for me.  At the time, the statistics covered a 25+ year period, and they proved that our country was headed in the wrong direction.  For an entire generation, the rich had been getting progressively richer and the poor, well they weren't going anywhere.  And the most surprising point was, that no one seemed to notice.

That's the biggest problem with any trend which happens over an extended period of time.  If you are living through it, day to day, month to month, year to year, you really don't even know that its happening.  The changes are too small, too incremental, to even notice.   Then all of a sudden, you stop to look back, you go to take inventory and then, "Holy Shit" the realization sets in that despite your hard work, your haven't been going anywhere.   There is no validation, and you can lose hope.   Sadly, this would be true for many Americans.  The graph below does a good job painting the picture. For the post WWII period from 1950 to 1980, the country moved together in lock step.  Despite the conflicts in Korea and Viet Nam, the country established its economic footing and everyone's family income grew at a steady pace, whether you were very well off or were just living pay check to pay check.  Everyone, everyone was moving forward.  This was our form of capitalism, and it was good.  But in 1980 a small separation began to occur and it would get progressively worse over the next 35+ years. During this time families in the 95th percentile saw their real income grow 75%, while the real income for those in the 20th percentile hardly budged.

The Greatest Generation, as Tom Brokaw called them, got us through the Depression, WWII and the post war years with dignity and with a sense of equality, but as the Baby Boomers began to establish themselves in the world, America began to change.

Even more telling are the statistics on Wealth Accumulation, which effectively represents the accumulation of family income over multiple years less expenses during that time.  In 1980, the top 1% of families owned 25% of the country's wealth, 35 years later that same 1% now owned 42% of the country's wealth.

Maybe this wasn't the best of times and the worst of times, as Charles Dickens described the years leading up to the French Revolution, but it was directionally accurate.  If this trend continues, there is no telling where it will take us, but it not unreasonable to observe that the election of Donald Trump as our President is the first indication of a shift underway.  Americans who feel left behind are clamoring for change, any change, and at any cost.    

So what happened?  How did we get here?  Why didn't we see this coming? Why didn't we realize we were going down the wrong path and just change direction?.  What factors contributed to the slow moving force of income inequality?  I am sure that real experts on this topic probably have a very long list of factors, but here are my top four:

1.     Advances in technology

2.     Globalization of trade

3.     Failure of our educational systems to keep up with the needs of the workforce

4.     Republican driven tax cuts of 1981 under Ronald Reagan and 2001 under George W. Bush.  

1) Advances in technology - There is no stopping the wheels of progress.  If you stand still you are dead, and this was no more apparent than in the last 35+ years.   IBM introduced the first real PC on August 12, 1981 and PC's would come into their own over the next decade, the Internet took hold in the mid-nineties and smart phones led the way in the new millennium.  Technology was driving efficiencies and disrupting the status quo.  I remember holding up my pre-smart phone era Blackberry (I still miss that wonderful tactile feel...) which could be used to make calls, send email, manage my calendar, take notes, and write letters, and saying "this used to be a secretary".  And before the aforementioned "Holy Shit" moment in my life,  I would say it with the callousness of a businessperson cloaked in the smugness that he knew the world was moving forward, and that it was all good. Later, I would hold up my (now) I Phone, and use the same words, but they would now carry my acknowledgment that the advancement in technology had a darker side I had not previously appreciated.

There is no solution to this particular cause of income inequality.  No one can stop these advances in technology, and no one should try.  It is a runaway train and everyone has to do their best to jump on board.  Corporations and individuals, Democrats and Republicans should embrace its benefits and do their absolute best to keep ahead of the challenges it creates.

 2) Globalization of trade  - The benefits of globalization were supposed to accrue to everyone. Competition would increase, goods would cost less, opportunities would increase, business and capitalism would in turn promote democracy, different countries and cultures would develop new ties. With everyone's interest now in alignment, we could even tackle issues around the environment and stop global warming. It was the next stage in the development of Planet Earth, and it was inevitable, and it was good.   That's what they said anyway.   To be fair, some of these things did occur and given time others may come to be, but in the interim, globalization has led to a clear separation between big winners and big losers.  Large, multi-national corporations (more typically represented by Republicans in our country) were in the best position to exploit the real benefits of globalization. They could go wherever they wanted to make their products, and sell those products into large new markets and sometimes take advantage of tax havens located outside the country. While some segments of the US work force thrived, many workers in the US (more typically represented by Democrats), especially in manufacturing, saw their jobs simply disappears. The luckier ones would be forced to take pay cuts.

The chart below shows that as Globalization took hold in the early eighties, the US trade deficits began to soar.  This was exactly the same time that the winners and losers of income inequality were taking shape.  

As is the case with the advance of technology, we will not stop globalization.  That is not to say that we should not negotiate better trade deals or improve our own tax structure to benefit Americans who have been hurt the most, as Donald Trump has indicated he will do.   While actions we may take now, may have the impact of slowing down or muting the impact of globalization, the genie is already out of the bottle on this one.  If we are not part of this process, America will lose ground to other countries.

3) Failure of our educational systems to keep up with the needs of the workforce-  This is a topic which would be best addressed by individuals who understand the complexity of the issue so much better than me.   And it can't possibly be distilled into a few paragraphs, so I won't really try.

I will just observe that despite the fact that good Republicans and good Democrats alike have sincerely tried to deal with this problem and despite the allocation of significant money and resources to the issue over several decades, the gains have been few.  Compounding the matter, our educational system has been battered by outside forces including, but not limited to, shrinking resources from government cutbacks in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, expanding requirements thrust upon them by state and federal governments alike, and the growing stress placed on families since the 1980s.  The growth of single parent households and dual income households reduces the opportunities for parents to sit down with their children every night to review their homework.  The impact of this last point is difficult to quantify, but we know there is a direct correlation between the strength of a student's network of support or lack thereof, and the success of their educational journey. 

The overarching problem we now face is that specifically because of the effects of technology growth and the globalization of trade, our educational system has to do more than just stand still. It has to keep pace and grow along with these forces around them.       

4) Republican driven tax cuts of 1981 under Ronald Reagan and 2001 under George W. Bush. (which I fully supported during my years of leaning right).  While all Americans benefited, including corporations and individuals, the biggest winners here, were the ones who needed it the least.  It was a very politically astute approach.  Offer everyone something, make them feel good, but distract them enough so they don't see the Man behind the curtain, pulling the strings, making life so much better for the Man.                                                               

Under Reagan, the top individual tax rate was reduced from 70% to 50%.  Reaganomics represented the beginning of the Trickle Down Economics, the concept of providing tax benefits to the wealthy which would accrue down to the poor.  Reagan's eventual VP candidate George H.W. Bush would call this Voodoo Economics.  Whatever you call it, it started the same year we started to see the divergence in income gains between the wealthy, the middle class and the poor.  You do the math, but the only thing that trickled down to the masses was a bunch of empty promises.

Under George W. Bush, as reported by the Economic Policy Institute, the average middle-class family received one-eighth of the tax breaks that a family in the top 20 percent of income earners received.  More dramatic was the fact that the average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.

                                 

The non-Partisan Congressional Research Service (in the Library of Congress) issued a report in 2012, analyzing the effects of tax rates from 1945 to 2010. The CRS concluded that top tax rates have no positive effect on economic growth, saving, investment, or productivity growth; reduced top tax rates do, however, increase income inequality.  The report stated that top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

Of my four major reasons for the causes of income inequality, the only one we have complete 100% control over is tax policy. This needs to be fixed, and it needs to be done in a way where the neediest gain the most.  The Republican perspective on this has been uniquely warped to the betterment of a large slice of their constituency, and they continue to pursue this goal with a fervor that seems out of place especially in light of increasing budget deficits, the massive growth of the country's debt, the ongoing and costly battle against terrorism and the country's financial overhang from Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It represents one of the primary reasons I now lean Left, after leaning Right for many years.   The one issue we can control is the one thing we screwed up, all by ourselves.

In 1980, on the eve of his first Presidential election, Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, would speak of America as the Shining City on a Hill.  It was a beautifully simplistic vision which both reminded us of who we were, and where we were going, all in a single image.   It resonated with all Americans, and it made us feel good.  And over the next few decades some would be able to make the climb and reach this Shining City, but many would not, and some would remember the image as deep betrayal that their country had left them behind.

                          _______________________________________________

For those of you who don't know, Mr. Spock was miraculously reborn in Star Trek III - The Search for Spock.  When his remains were sent out to space, they were caught in the waves of the Genesis Project which was attempting to jump start life on a dying planet and he became an indirect beneficiary (its all very logical, really).  For Trekkie fans everywhere, this Christ-like raising from the dead was a time to rejoice.  The most unique character on the show, who quietly inspired those around him with his unique DNA of logic and humanity, would continue to impact their lives in the future.   For the crew members of the Starship Enterprise, The Search for Spock was more than the search for their friend, it was also a metaphor for the search for their better selves, it was a search for their souls.

I view the need to solve our problem of income inequality as a selfish act of patriotism.  If we love America, and everything it has stood for in the world, then selfishly we want it to move forward and grow.  And if the current trend continues unabated for another 35+ years, while we can't know what exactly will transpire, our own understanding of history and our own logical views tell us, that things will not end well.

On the Democratic side, the battle has begun and the banner for this issue has been carried by Elizabeth Warrren and Bernie Sanders.  I absolutely applaud their effort on this issue, but I have to admit that both of their personalities grate on me somewhat, and if they grate on me, think how roughly 40%+ of the population probably feels.  On the Republican side, some believe Donald Trump will carry the banner, but I have my doubts, for me, his first month in office is anything but, reassuring.  No, this will require the effort, focus and commitment of moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats everywhere.  I know they are out there, but they must raise their hands and be counted, and they have to move past the partisan behavior that has dominated our country in the new millennium.

So now, if we want our country to succeed and grow and thrive, long after we are gone, we must recognize that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, that we want and need a strong middle class, and we want and need a lower socio-economic class that believes they can achieve more.  We need them to be able to harness the benefits of capitalism to move forward. We need them to have an honest chance where the deck is not stacked against them.  We need them to climb the hill and reach the Shining City.   If we do the math, it is the only logical solution and it is also the most humane.

I am optimistic we will get there.  I am optimistic we will find a way.  In the process we will put our children and grandchildren in a position where they all might have the opportunity to ...live long and prosper.  

Thank you, Mr. Spock, thank you.

.

#12 - Your Math Lesson for the Day: -1+1+0=3

You may not know it, but you had a good day yesterday.  You just need to do the math. 

                      ______________________________________

Yesterday, President Trump picked Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, as his new national security adviser Monday, calling him “a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience".   Putting aside for the moment, the fact that Trump overuses the word "tremendous" when he speaks, by all accounts, McMaster is a solid choice for the roll.  McMaster is known for his intellectual pursuits, receiving a PhD in history from the University of North Carolina (which, as an avid Tar Heel fan, will make my brother-in-law happy), and he wrote a book taking the military to task for aspects of its public posture during the Vietnam War (which, as a teen in the sixties, makes me extremely happy) .  

This means, that no matter what your political tendencies are, this is a win for you, so you just scored a point (+1). Nice.

Simultaneously, McMaster replaces Trump's controversial selection of Michael Flynn for the NSA role, who for the record was previously fired by Barack Obama, and who lasted, let me think, what was it, a week? two? with Donald Trump before promptly being fired by him, for playing a little too much footsie with the Russians, before the movie even started, when they were still doing the preview of coming attractions and you left to go get popcorn.  Jettisoning the guy who some Republicans had doubts about going in, is a good thing.  We all gain here.   

Now this is where the math gets a bit tricky.  You see the -1 here is just your basic "addition by subtraction".  So, you just scored another point (+1).  Wow, you are on a roll now

But, I save the best for last. Despite the fact that there were small demonstrations around the country yesterday, claiming that Donald was "Not My President"' our 45th president somehow stayed off of the Tweeter yesterday, and just, somehow, someway, was able to ..... let it go.  Hard to believe, I know, but for everyone in the country, it was like a breath of fresh air on an early day in Spring. Why it was almost, dare I say it, presidential!   This, coming on the one month anniversary of Trump's inauguration and on Presidents' Day no less.  By taking no action here, i.e.  +0, you just scored your third point (+1) !  

There you have it.    -1+1+0=3

Damn it, man.  You are on fire!

#11 The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

I hesitated to use the above title, as its a bit over the top, and not completely in line with what I want to say, but it's too good, and will help to make my point

I woke up this morning to read about two completely unrelated world stories, to which the essence of this title speaks, both of which I found....compelling

The first was that China recently announced that starting immediately, it would suspend all imports of coal from North Korea until December 31.  Coal is North Korea's largest export item. China said the move was designed to implement last November's UN Security Council resolution tightening sanctions against the North Korean regime in the wake of its last nuclear test.  However since that resolution, China has continued to allow imports for "the people's well being".  Experts in China affairs believe that the announcement of the import ban reflects Beijing's frustration with North Korea over its very recent missile test and the apparent assassination of Kim Jong Un's half brother in Malaysia (as reported in the Washington Post)

The second was Senator John McCain's comments challenging President Donald Trump's comment that "The FAKE NEWS.... is the enemy of the American people"  and his general attacks on the media this week by noting dictators "get started by suppressing free press." "I hate the press," the Arizona Republican sarcastically told NBC News' Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press." "I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital."   But he continued, "If you want to preserve -- I'm very serious now -- if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press," McCain said in the interview. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started."

In the first story, China appears to be taking an important step in aligning itself in with the US and the rest of the free world, to apply pressure to its ally in the Far East to "stop with the stupid shit", to be blunt.   In the second story, John McCain, longtime senator from Arizona. former POW and former Republican nominee for President (i.e. a player with lots of street cred) is aligning himself with comments from many Democrats to put pressure on HIS party's President to "stop with the stupid shit"

In both cases, two divergent groups/entities/countries: the US and China, Democrats and Republicans,  found common ground upon which to act and upon which to speak.  It is smart, intelligent and good for all involved.    Good relationships, really start with something small, and grow slowly over time, allowing trust to develop.  This is true of marriage, politics and diplomacy. We wont know for a long time if these small events will lead to better world, but without them, we are dead in the water.

There was still a lot of negative news on the morning of February 19, 2017, but still, I thought it was a good day.  

#10 The Series Finale of Deflategate

I hold no grudge against Roger Goodell.   If a man acts according to his heart and his principals, and does so with the best of intentions, while I may choose to disagree with him, that does not make him a bad person.  No, I hold no grudge

A little over two years ago, just before the New England Patriots sealed the fourth Super Bowl victory in a decade and a half with a stunning interception, by an undrafted, unheard of, hard-working rookie, the story of deflated footballs, made its way onto the national scene. What ensued was nothing short of a debacle for the reputation of the National Football League, the New England Patriots, Quarterback Tom Brady and for Commissioner Roger Goodell.  Unbelievably, an incredibly minor event/infraction (the choice of words correlates directly to one’s love or hatred of the Patriots) almost made its way to the US Supreme Court.

Roger took the position that a major wrong had occurred, and it was his responsibility to uphold the honor of the "badge" of the NFL.  Without action on his part, he believed the issue could become a stain on integrity of the league, and because the collective bargaining agreement signed with the players union several years earlier gave him the power to act like God, he was going to use all that power.  So the matter had made its all the way up to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals and the dust had cleared, Roger's punishment, forced down upon the Patriots from above, had been affirmed.  The Patriots had been fined $1 million, they had been docked their first and fourth round draft picks, and Tom Brady's suspension would run for the first four games of the 2016 season.

Brady's what?  Sorry, say that again, I don't think I heard what you said. Brady's what?

There was no legal standard upon which Brady's suspension was based (unless you consider "not provably crazy" a standard).  There was no proof that Brady was involved in or knew about the deflating of footballs, there wasn't any proof that the footballs were even deflated (see ideal gas law), but Roger suspended Tom because "he generally should have been aware" and because Roger had his god-like powers bestowed upon him by the collective bargaining agreement and because Rodger believed that the best way to protect the badge was to showcase all that power. Unfortunately Roger, as well intentioned as he may have been, lost sight of a perspective which really good men, really good leaders understand at their core that with great power, comes great responsibility.  For the country the debate centered around PSI readings, for New England the question was now all about abuse of power.

I doubt the country appreciates why we hold the New England Patriot organization in such high esteem.  It’s understandable, you have to live here a while to know.  It may sound silly, but it actually begins with the name.  We are not the Boston Patriots or the Massachusetts Patriots.   We are New England, six of the original thirteen colonies, who were there in the beginning, who actively participated into the birth of our nation.   So when we speak of New England and when we speak of the New England Patriots, we are including the small towns in Maine, the farms in Vermont, the shipping ports in Fall River and New Bedford, the high-tech start-ups in Cambridge and the Ivy League schools in Dartmouth, Providence and New Haven.  All of these are built on the common foundation of hard work and good ol' Yankee Ingenuity.  There is a humility that flows through the region.  We are not flashy, showy.  We are not big and bold or ostentatious. We are not New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago.   Boston, the biggest city in the six states only has a population of 650,000. And the six states remain among the smallest in our country.

We never say it, in some ways to say it would go against our humility, but we believe it. We believe our team represents our core values.  And we have placed those values in the capable hands of Coach Bill Belichick to hold and to nourish.  It is a sacred responsibility.  More importantly we expect him to show the rest of our country that there is a better way.  Do your job, do your job well, play for the man next to you, we’ve had a good week of preparation, we’ve studied the film.  Play as a team. One game at a time.  Coaches don't win games, players do. (Humility starts at the top).  Coaches put players in a position to win.  Situational Football (that's code for "play smart"). We are on to Cincinnati!  No days off, No days off.

The Dallas Cowboys, the self-proclaimed (and self-centered) America's team had five first team All-Pro Player on their roster.  They lost in their first and only playoff game. And they have only two playoff game wins  in the last 20 years. The Atlanta Falcons, our opponents in this year's Super Bowl had three first team All-Pro Players on their roster including Matt Ryan, the league’s Most Valuable Player.  The New England Patriots had one first team All Pro-Player on their roster, and he was a special team player.  I didn’t even know that special teams’ players could be voted All Pro.

For the Patriots, it’s been the same for all of their Super Bowl wins.  Reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid asking the question of the skilled trackers who follow their trail at the end of the movie, many so-called experts in the league ask the question, with the same shock and amazement….. Who are these guys!?  Well, they are a bunch of middle round draft picks, undrafted rookies, and old veterans who care less about the money who want to learn how to win again. They may not be the fastest or the strongest or the youngest, but they are some of the smartest and they buy into the system. And only the ones with the biggest hearts make the cut each year.

So when Brady was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 season by Commissioner Goodell, it was almost as if a terrorist had set off a dirty nuke right in the middle of South Station during rush hour (and I say that with only a hint of exaggeration).  The shock waves emanated out and were felt in all six states.  It ripped at our very fiber.  Roger had the audacity to go after one of our own, one of our offspring.  He had attacked New England's favorite son.  And like any good parent, the message to outsiders was - you can come after us if you want, but don't come after our sons or daughters.  When you do that, it’s no longer business, you have made it personal, and this we do not forgive.

So in the third game of the season and the third of Tom's four game suspension, when a rookie third string quarterback was leading the team to a shutout victory over the Houston Texans and with Coach Belichick and his players were focused on the plays in the field, the parents in the stands were chanting  "Roger Roger, Roger".  It was still very early in a sixteen game regular season, with the playoffs to follow, but the message was clear - we are coming Roger, we are coming for you.  You couldn’t blame them, for them it was now personal.

Brady returned for the fifth game of the season and did, well what Tom always did, he played like the leader he has always been, winning all his games but one, throwing 28 TD passes against a measly two interceptions, a new league record.  The sports pages said he was 39+ years old, but many deemed this to be just another urban myth as he seemed to be getting both better and younger along the way.

All throughout the season Brady deflected all the questions about Deflategate and the commissioner.  His focus was on the next game, the next challenge, being motivated for his teammates.  He would always say that was all the motivation he needed. It was always the same reply, repeated patiently.  The words flowed like silk, and we dutifully followed his lead.  We get it Tom, wink, smile, nod, we are going to be patient, we are going to wait until the moment comes, when Roger goes to hand you the trophy for MVP of Super Bowl 51.  And then, and then you are going to level him with both barrels. You are going to blow him off his feet.  Justice will be served. Yes, Tom, if you can wait, we can wait with you.

The playoffs came and as usual, the Patriots had different game plans for each team, and won in different ways.  This was Yankee Ingenuity on steroids. They played ugly against the Houston Texans and while the team behaved as if they had lost the game, they had beaten Texas by 18 points.   Then came the high-flying Pittsburg Steeler offense.  Everyone knew the Hoodie would have a game plan to shut down the opponent’s best weapons and another Patriot player would step up big.  This time it was a lacrosse player who never played a down of football in college who set a new Patriot post season record for most passing yards in a playoff game. Two weeks later, the Pats were in the Super Bowl, and in uncharacteristic fashion, both the offensive and defensive units played poorly past the halfway point of the third quarter.  A look at the scoreboard showed the Falcons were ahead 28 - 3.   No team in the 50 year history of the Super Bowl had ever come back from more than 10 points down and won the game, and the Patriots were now down 25 points.  For all of New England, the pain was almost too much to bear.   For most of the rest of the country, it was a time to celebrate.  But the Patriots began to do what they always do, taking it one play at a time, scratching and clawing their way back in to relevance.  And they had Tom Brady, who began to get in to a rhythm.  The O-Line started to give him the pocket of protection he needed,  and Tom could see the field, and this time, the Patriot’s third sting halfback was the next man to step up.  James White caught the ball 14 times, had three touchdowns and a two point conversion and Tom set the field afire, setting a Super Bowl record for passes attempted, passes completed and total yards.  He had almost 200 yards in Q4 alone and when the Patriots had won the coin toss to begin the overtime period, you could see the smile on Tom’s face. The game was now over.  The Atlantic Falcons would not see the field again,  The Patriots had scored 31unaswered points in a highly improbable comeback.  And the confetti fell from the sky.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the trophy presentations, all of sudden, it didn’t seem to matter.   In the presentation of the Lombardi Trophy after the game, Tom celebrated with his teammates and family, and shook hands with Roger and accepted his congratulations.  And he celebrated with the fans.  The following morning, the moment when Roger was going to hand the Super Bowl MVP trophy to Tom, a moment everyone in New England had waited and wished and hoped for, for over a year, it had become crystal clear. Overnight, the moment had lost its value.  It was now irrelevant. Tom accepted the trophy and praised his team.    In New England, no matter how much things change, they always remain the same.

The day after the team's fifth Super Bowl victory in the new millennium, Coach Belichick put the final nail in the coffin of Deflategate, and he did it in typical Belichickian style.  He expressed genuine dismay at the concept that Tom Brady was more motivated this year (because of Deflategate). simply because it inferred that he was less motivated and less hard working in any one of his prior 16 years in the league, and that was just was insulting to his quarterback.   The Hoodie always has a way of looking at the world through a different lens.  But for those who have listened to him over the years, we know that all of his messaging is consistent and on point. The message here was clear and simple, forget all this Deflategate crap.  We are on to 2017.  For added emphasis, when he spoke at a press conference the day after the team’s big Super Bowl win, he told the audience that "yesterday'" was nice, but we have to remember we are already five weeks behind most of the other teams in the league (in preparing for 2017).  And he said it with a straight face.

It's true, we admit it.  Up here in New England, we love the Hoodie.

Once again, our coach and our quarterback had led us all back from the brink.  They reminded us who we were.  They reminded us there was a better way.  And they had been doing it all season long.

While some around the country have referred to the 2016 NFL season as the Tom Brady Revenge Tour or the Tom Brady Redemption Tour, it was neither of these. If you have to give it a name, it would more appropriately be called the New England Validation Tour, validation of our coach and our favorite son, validation of our team, and validation of our own core values.

I hold no grudge against Roger Goodell.

richardpiccolo.blogspot.com
With Malice Toward None, With Charity For All (...mostly)

#9 How I Moved From Leaning Right to Leaning Left - Part 2, Gay Marriage in the Great State of Massachusetts

I started watching the John Adams mini-series by HBO in the mornings, while I exercise (I know it doesn't look like I exercise, but I try), and the opening segment deals with a young British Captain in British-occupied Boston who is accused of ordering his men of firing into a large raucous crowd without cause.  Captain Preston is described as the most despised man in all of Massachusetts, with little chance for a fair trial from a Boston jury.  John Adams agrees to take the case, when no one else would, despite the unpopular position he would be taking and despite the risk to his own practice. During the trial he would stubbornly work to present the facts, and when it was over, his client was judged to be innocent.  Mr. Adams had defended the individual rights of a man who was a member of a very disrespected minority group in Boston, a British soldier.  He had argued against the grain and sentiment of his own friends and neighbors, and a jury of his client's piers had agreed with him.

Fast forward to November 2003, and seemingly out of the blue, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court by the slim vote of 4 to3, declared that laws prohibiting gay marriage were not in alignment with the state's constitution.  At the time of the vote only 50% of the state was in support of the judgment and at the national level, support was overwhelmingly against it.  The backlash that ensued was fierce.  Within the state, a large effort was underway to get the state legislature to write a new law which affirmed the fact that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. The Archdiocese of Boston began using its own funds to promote this new law, an unusual move really, but they must have thought that they needed to end this abomination, before it ever got started,   In the end, the state legislature decided not to move forward with a new law  and so the judicial decision held.  Gay marriage was legal in the great state of Massachusetts in May 2004.  The rest of the country would get there too, they just didn't know it at the time

In the immediacy of the ruling, the push against the activist judiciary in Massachusetts was swift and harsh.  By November of that same year, eleven states would pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.  

Supporters of gay marriage who had been so emboldened by events in Massachusetts had come to realize that many battles remained.  On November 4, 2008, four years after the Massachusetts ruling, voters in California (that's right, liberal California) approved Proposition 8, which would amend the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage. And around the same time, voters in Arizona and Florida would approve similar amendments to their state constitutions.

But still, the tide was beginning to turn, at first it was slow, incremental, but it would pick up speed

One week after the vote in California, gay marriage would become legal in Connecticut, the result of a ruling from its highest court, and on April 7, 2009 Vermont became the first state to legalize gay marriage through legislation, after they overturned the veto by Republican Governor Jim Douglass. Over the next month and half, three more states would fall in line: Iowa, New Hampshire and Maine. Three more years would pass, with gay rights advocates making gains at the state level, but it was a always a case of two steps forward, one step back. In February 2012 Republican Governor Chris Christie would veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey.  Three months later President Barack Obama would endorse same-sex marriage in an interview aired on ABC news.  It was the first such statement of support by a sitting president.  On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court would reject parts of the the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 under President Bill Clinton,  ruling that same sex spouses legally married in state could receive federal benefits. Exactly two years later to the day, on June 26, 2015, almost 12 years after the ground breaking decision in Massachusetts, the US Supreme Could would rule, again by the slim vote in a 5-4 ruling, that same-sex couples could marry nationwide.  It was now official, the tide had turned, permanently

While all this was going on in the rest of the country, in Massachusetts the ruling and subsequent challenges faded into the background. Life resumed a normal pace. The institution of heterosexual marriage did not collapse, and the sky did not fall.  The sun rose in the morning and set at night. Despite the dire warnings from certain religious groups, this little experiment in Massachusetts had proven that opposition to gay marriage was much to do about nothing.. A bold move by the state's  highest judicial body had led to the affirmation of equal rights for a minority group who just wanted to be treated, like everyone else.  By the slim majority of a 4-3 vote, the Court had declared a wrong and tried to right it.  They had led the way and the country would be infinitely better for it.   

John Adams would have approved.

I have always been a supporter of gay rights for as long as I can remember, although it really crystallized for me when I heard a friend's story of a family member who was.....disenfranchised by others who held strong religious beliefs,  But for those that don't know, in the interest of full disclosure, and as the old expression goes, I have a horse in this horse race.  In January 2004,  my son told my wife, my daughter and me that he was gay. It was one month before his 18th birthday, and two months after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's important decision.  Now, its very easy for me to tell you, that I love my son unequivocally. The words, if spoken, would just roll off my tongue.  Oh, don't get me wrong, he and I have our disagreements, like any father and son, but being gay isn't one of them.   So everything I say on the topic of gay marriage, whether it's today or some day in the future, must be viewed through a prism which says I am clearly biased, because I am.  

               ________________________________________

This single issue in my life does represent the first of several reasons for the shift in my thinking, from leaning Right to leaning Left. Generally speaking many, many more Democrats have made the shift over the last 15 years to support all aspects of gay rights, specifically gay marriage. This is not to say that Democrats have always been advocates of gay marriage.  As I stated earlier, Bill Clinton signed DOMA back in 1996, and Barack Obama did not announce his out right support until May 2012, but they get all the credit, in my world anyway, for getting there first.  This is a race they should be proud that they won.  And sadly, many Republicans have been very slow to evolve on this issue, their feet still stuck in the mud.  Let me offer three very specific, very important relatively recent examples to make my point.

• In the fall of 2012, if you went to web site of then Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, you would have read the following:   Marriage is... critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  I think Mr. Romney is a good person,  He was governor here in Massachusetts several years back, but he lost his bid to unseat Barrack Obama, so thankfully, he never got the chance to champion an amendment to the Constitution, which I would strongly argue, is absolutely discriminatory. And while I can't prove that his position on this Marriage Amendment was even partially responsible for his loss, selfishly, I would like to think so.

• In a March 12, 2015 on the topic of same-sex marriage, Christian Today wrote:  Last month, Ted Cruz reintroduced the State Marriage Defense Act, which would allow states to enforce their own definition of marriage.   "I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states," Cruz said in a statement."The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens."      If memory serves me correctly, Ted came in second  to his party's eventual nominee in the 2016 Presidential race, a guy who called him "Lying Ted" throughout the primaries.  And I would be lying, if I said...that his loss didn't bring a small smile to my face.

• Lastly, lets hear the thinking of our current Vice President, Mike Pence.  
• As reported in Time Magazine - In 2006, as head of the Republican Study Committee, a group of the 100 most-conservative House members, Pence rose in support of a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Pence called being gay a choice and said keeping gays from marrying was not discrimination, but an enforcement of "God's idea."  
• I want to be very respectful of any one's belief in their own God and in their own religion.  One of the founding principals of our country is religious freedom, and if someone tells me because of their religious beliefs that they disapprove of gays, I will not attempt to engage in debate, they have their right to their opinion,  But in setting laws, they don't have the right to impair the rights of any gays or impair the rights of my son, even in the name of religious freedom..   As I said, I am biased.  So, know I need to be respectful here, I think I need to give Mr. Pence some leeway.  After all, these comments were over ten years ago, when the concept of gay marriage was still a foreign one to a large majority of the country.  But times have changed, and now-a-days, those changes occur at accelerated rates.  A Gallup poll in May 2016 found that 61% of Americans supported same-sex marriage.  Even more telling, 70% of all millennials supported it.  Surely this significant, almost seismic, shift in public opinion over a relatively short period of time would have some impact on Mr. Pence's thoughts on the matter, maybe.
• Or maybe not, then Governor Mike Pence first burst on the national scene and gained notoriety in 2015 for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law in Indiana. As reported in Business Insider, many who read the law said made it possible for businesses within the state of Indiana to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community based on their personal religious beliefs.  Pence did his best to label the law as defending religious freedom. "The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said when he signed the bill. But detractors weren't convinced. The law brought calls for boycotts on products from Indiana.   Significant negative publicity followed, and the law was eventually amended.  I think many in the State of Indiana, including many Republicans, were thrilled when Pence joined Donald Trump's presidential ticket, not because he was on the national ticket (because at the time, no one thought Trump would win), but because it just got him out of Indiana.

So when I say I believe Republicans are stuck in the mud on this issue, its because, well, they are stuck in the mud.  Having said that, I do have hope that things will change with President Trump, who has expressed support for the LGBTQ community in the past.  The problem is none of us really know what to expect from our new president, including most Republicans.  I am not certain he really knows.  My great fear is that VP Pence will exert his influence and we will see some type of actions under the guise of religious freedom which will displace the rights of a minority class.  If that happens, I will have more to say on this topic.  A lot more.

#8 How I Moved From Leaning Right to Leaning Left - Part 1, the Republican

[As the commentary in my blog is a small attempt to reach through the divisiness in our country, and to speak thoughtfully, but written from the perspective who has leaned Right most of his life, but currently leans Left, it is only fair to present some background on the reasons for that shift.  I will attempt to do so over a series of half a dozen or so posts.  Part 1, the Republican follows]


I am a bean counter by trade.   My colleagues prefer to use the term - Certified Public Accountant, but really, they are just playing to their collective egos here.   They are all good people, but if you get a few beers in them, they will tell you the same thing.  We are all just bean counters.

Now contrary to what many people think, being a bean counter is actually a pretty cool thing.  You see, your job as a bean counter is to go into to different businesses in different industries, in different locations and count different beans.  Of course, I use the term metaphorically.  Our jobs were to go into different businesses and audit them: hospitals, universities, manufacturing companies, banks, insurance companies, retail stores, service companies and if you were real lucky, you could land a really cool gig like auditing the Boston Red Sox.  You would check out Fenway Park, the Green Monster, watch batting practice and review all the players contracts. Now that never happened to me. The closest I ever got to a "glam gig" was auditing the historic Trinity Church in Copley Square in Boston.  Every Wednesday we would have lunch with the staff and the pastor in the basement of the church.  We'd hold hands, say a prayer and sit down to eat. Tomato soup and grilled cheese.  Being a bean counter you see, was not without it's many perks.

In my own, then Big 8 accounting firm, the policy was "Up or Out", and you knew this going in.  At the end of every year, there would be a thorough performance review of everyone in your starting class, and if you were ranked in the bottom 10% - 15%, one day you would just be gone. It was Darwinism in the modern world, survival of the fittest. Your desk would be cleared out, your nameplate removed.  It was silent, quick, almost as if you never existed. The narrative they painted was because you couldn't cut it here, you would have to get a job that was lower than bean counter.  I couldn't imagine what that might be, but it had to be horrible.

It was here where I learned the fundamentals of our capitalistic system.  In our roles, we would get a pretty good education as we visited anywhere between eight and ten companies a year.  You observed new management techniques, the implementation of cutting edge technologies.  It was all about efficiencies, doing it all better, faster, cheaper.  Taxes, regulations, unions, welfare was bad. Increasing the bottom line was good.   And America had no equals   You could study the winners and every thing they did right and dis the losers and everything they did wrong.  More than anything, you realized that many of the really big winners, not all but many, were just shit lucky.  They just happened to be in the right place at the right time.  Indeed it was then and there that I set my most important lifetime goal.  I was going to grow up and be lucky.  God help you, if you got in my way.

I remember when Nixon resigned (not all that long after he ended the military draft for Viet Nam in my year of eligibility, which would endear him to my father forever), and Gerry Ford couldn't get reelected, largely because of his pardon of the former President.  I remember the malaise that followed in the Jimmy Carter years, and 15% interest rates.  I remember the Miracle on Ice, the occasion where a bunch of spunky college kids beat the dominating Russians in hockey in the Lake Placid Olympics, and America felt good again   Ronald Reagan was the man,  The Great Communicator made us feel good again, the Berlin wall fell, and the Cold War was in our rear view mirrors.  It was good to be an American.  He was followed by George H.W. Bush, and his Thousand Points of Light.  H.W. doesn't get the credit he deserves. He went to war for a valid reason, and set an attainable goal, and then ended the war (Sadly, his own son would not follow his father's example). He eventually lost his job because he broke his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," promise, because he was well intended and wanted to balance the budget. What a concept.  Bill Clinton came into office, at at time when the economy was good, technology was really taking off, and the world was relatively calm. It's not clear to me what Clinton did for us in his eight years in office, oh wait,  that's right, he brought us his abusive affair with a White House Intern, and a permanent stain on our country, which started out as a small stain on a blue dress and grew bigger with each passing lie. While I never felt it was an impeachable offence, I wanted him impeached anyway.  I hate waste, its a pet peeve of mine, and Clinton wasted our time and our resources. If he were a company CEO, he would have been gone, and never been heard from again. So when George W. Bush came along, he got my vote.  I figured - like father, like son.  This had to be good.  And his Compassionate Conservatism, seemed to appeal to both my support of Capitalism, but also to the desire to help those in need. It was the best of times.   It was 2000, the start of the new millennium, I was leaning Right, and I had voted Republican all along the way.

#7 Disagree, but Don't Disrupt

The name of the Facebook post was "Disrupt Gavin McInnes".  I confess I did not recognize the name, but Mr. McInnes was described by the Daily News as a combative right wing speaker and he was scheduled to speak at an event on the NYU campus sponsored by the NYU Republicans. 

The protesters showed up with chants of "No Trump, No KKK,  No Fascists USA".  And I thought, here we go again.  Everyone just needs to take a deep breath here.  Maybe NYU needs to add more courses in yoga and meditation.  In the end, when the protest was over, the event had been cut short and eleven protesters were arrested.  For their own good, I hope mom and dad make them pay their own bail and court costs..

             ________________________________________________________________

So now, my youthful friends, let's think about this and review some points you might want to consider if you really want your own voices to be heard.

1)  Please listen up here, because this one is important. Our country was based on the principal of free speech.  That means anyone can say anything they want, and what is implied, is we must respect everyone's right here, even if we disagree with what is being said, and we should never, ever cause any disruption from letting any and all voices be heard.

2) If you really want to change the direction of the country, I would observe that you are not helping your cause  here.  By protesting against a Negative (in your view anyway), and not pursuing a Positive (whatever those are, in your view), you are not influencing anyone.   As an example,  I offer you, Hillary Clinton.  Hillary spent too much time going after Trump, and not enough time articulating a case for her own presidency.

You are simply making the problem worse and adding to the polarization in our country today.  You must recall the old expression, that that two wrongs  don't make a right.  How would you feel if the NYU Republicans created a Facebook page called "Disrupt Elizabeth Warren" if she was scheduled to speak on your campus.  I am guessing that would not sit well with you.

3) So, let the guy talk.  More than that, I think you want the guy to talk. I have no idea what his stance is, but if its so egregious that you felt compelled to disrupt the guy, then go ahead and let him broadcast his message far and wide. You are not fighting for the allegiance of his audience or followers, you are fighting for the hearts and minds of good, conservative, reasonable people who have voted Republican (who are not fond of your misdirected  protests). You are fighting for middle America and you need to speak to them respectfully, and listen to them with even greater care. . 

4) You also need to learn to pick your battles.  Thanks to our aforementioned right of free speech, the political debate for the direction of our country will continue long after you graduate, long after your kids are in college, and long after you (and I ) are all gone.   That, my friends is actually the good news, 

Note, I have written on this topic of misdirected protests before.  While the Woman's March on Washington on Day Two of the new Trump Administration was done extremely well, I was not without my very clear cut criticisms.  See Blog post  #4