K.J. Cartmell's Blog, page 4

Who Does Your Politician Work For?

Who does your politician work for? The answer should be obvious, right? In a Democracy, the politicians serve the people, the voters. Yet, if Congress was doing a great job serving the people, it stands to reason their approval rating would be higher. As of October 10, 2018, Gallup ranked their approval at 21%, lower even than that of President Trump.

Donald Trump will not be on the ballot this November, but he will be on the minds of many voters as they go to the polls. Midterm elections are often seen as a referendum on the incumbent president. Trump has worked hard in recent weeks to rally his base and insure a strong Republican turnout to counter what is expected to be a “blue wave” by the Democrats.

So, let’s ask, Who does Donald Trump work for? Does he work for all of the people in the United States? Or, does he work just for his base, the group of voters that put him in office? Unlike the Bush family or the Kennedys, the Trump family did not have a long history of public service prior to Donald Trump running for President. He had always worked for himself, for the benefit of himself and his business empire. There is reasonable concern that, even as President of the United States, he is still working for himself.

Upon taking office, Trump made only a cursory separation from his business interests. His sons still run the company that bears their name. There is ample evidence that the Trumps are benefiting financially from Donald Trump being President.

Instead of utilizing the secure, private retreat, Camp David, Trump stays regularly at his Florida property, Mira Lago, and charges the U.S. government for the rooms he and his detail uses. There is a Trump Hotel in Washington DC that is popular with foreign dignitaries. The District Attorneys for Maryland and the District of Columbia have sued Trump for this as a violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. The President taking money from a foreign state is prohibited by the Constitution.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump broke with tradition and refused to release his tax returns. Since then, he has released only terse, vague financial reports of his income and holdings. Prior to Trump’s move into politics, he had business ties with both Saudi royals and Russian oligarchs. The question that has hounded Trump since he was elected is how much these past contacts and relationships are impacting his current policy decisions.

Does Donald Trump work for the American people? Or, is he doing the bidding of people who loaned him money and bailed him out of bankruptcy? These questions will not go away, and may not be fully answered until long after Trump has left office.

The upcoming Midterm election, however, is really about local politicians. Who are those Senators and US Representatives working for? The voters, or someone else?

Since the Supreme Court decision Citizens United, campaigns have become increasingly expensive. Politicians on both sides of the aisle must fundraise constantly. They are increasingly dependent on the few who can write large checks at a moment’s notice.

What does that money buy the donors? For one, it bought them a tax cut. Congressperson Chris Collins of New York put it bluntly as the Republicans gathered the necessary votes to pass the tax cut: “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'”

The American people were not clamoring for tax relief. Less than a third of voters polled were in favor of the cut before it was announced. There were dire warnings from both the Congressional Budget Office and economists across the country, warnings that, in the subsequent months, have proved true. The Republicans overlooked both the polls and the experts, and passed the tax cut because their donors demanded one.

Here’s another red flag: a politician railing against “burdensome regulations.” Regulating business is one of the primary functions of the federal government. Corporations are not intrinsically benevolent. They exist to make money. Fair market practices, workers rights, consumer and environmental protections - corporations only care about these things because government regulations make them.

If your Congressperson is wanting to undo or weaken regulations, find out if that individual is taking campaign donations from the industry affected by those regulations. If he/she is, that’s a reason to vote for the other candidate.

Before you throw away those postcards that have been filling up your mailbox recently, find out who sent them. Dig past the innocuous, vague organization name and find out who funds that organization. If there’s a billionaire behind that ad, does the politician in question now work for that billionaire?

Television ads are expensive. For Congressional races, they are typically employed only for close races. Pay attention to who is funding those ads. It may be a long money trail. You may have to trace it through several entities before you find the source. If this is your Congressperson, however, you owe it to yourself to do the research. If a person or group is shelling out that kind of money to help a politician, they are going to expect a return on that investment. That Congressperson is going to owe them.

It’s time to get our homework done. Ferret out the bad guys and replace them with better leaders, ones who will listen to their constituents. November Sixth, go out and vote!

The Case Against Kavanaugh

Unlike my senator, Kamala Harris, who came out against Kavanaugh’s nomination the moment it was announced, I wanted to give the man a chance to prove himself. As this process has continued, however, I have become convinced that Kavanaugh is not suited for the Supreme Court. His nomination should be withdrawn or voted down.


I watched the initial press conference, and I was struck by how polished and scripted it was. Kavanaugh’s wife and daughters were there to show that this was a nice guy, that he was no threat to women and women’s rights. He talked about being impartial.

The PR campaign continued in the subsequent days, as two former clerks, both women, urged support for Kavanaugh. “This is a good man,” they said. “He will be a great Justice.” Then, more ominously, “Trump could have picked someone much worse.”

Methodically, the press began to dig into Kavanaugh’s record. He worked in the Bush 43 Administration as the White House Staff Secretary. Before that, he was a lawyer on Kenneth Starr’s team that investigated President Bill Clinton, and he helped draft the Starr Report, which urged the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Kavanaugh was a key contributor to what was a deeply divisive and partisan investigation.


At the end of that first day of hearings, there was an odd, unsettling moment. Judge Kavanaugh was confronted by Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter had been killed in the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Guttenberg extended a hand to Kavanaugh, but Kavanaugh turned and walked away without a word.

The White House later put out a statement saying “security intervened” and prevented the two men from talking. Like much of what comes out of the Trump White House, this statement was clearly at odds with the documentary evidence. There was no look of polite confusion on Kavanaugh’s face (“Who are you, again?”), or embarrassed apology (“I’m sorry, but they’re taking me away.”) It was a look of cold contempt.


And then came Dr. Ford, with her accusation that Kavanaugh assaulted her in 1982 when they were both in high school. She claims that he was drunk. He held her down and covered her mouth while he fondled her.

Kavanaugh flatly denied all of this. He claimed Dr. Ford was mistaking him for another. Kavanaugh made light of his under-age drinking, and stated that the legal drinking age was eighteen. This was another misleading statement from the Judge: In 1982, the drinking age was 21.

Later reports confirmed at least this part of Dr. Ford’s story - Kavanaugh was frequently drunk at parties in high school and in college. Kavanaugh has dismissed these claims as smears, but there is a preponderance of evidence against him. Kavanaugh hasn’t come clean about his drinking. He may be a functioning alcoholic.

When reports first surfaced, Kavanaugh went on Fox News to defend himself. This was an odd choice. Why not a national news program, like 60 Minutes? Why turn exclusively to the news network considered by many to be the propaganda outlet for the Trump administration?

Dr. Ford’s reluctant testimony against Kavanaugh, before the Judiciary Committee, was riveting. She answered every question put to her in a calm and compelling manner. She was certainly believable. The attack was burned into her mind and continues to haunt her. This is not something you would forget, nor someone you would confuse with someone else.

Following Dr. Ford’s testimony, Kavanaugh made an angry rebuttal. He focused his rant on the Judicial Committee Democrats who had opposed him from the beginning, and to his long-ago nemesis, the Clintons. He claimed all of this was a left wing conspiracy to derail his candidacy, that the accusations of sexual assault, and the accusations that have emerged since, were all lies and smears, designed to destroy Kavanaugh’s family and reputation.

As the committee questioned Kavanaugh about Dr. Ford’s testimony, his responses were evasive and filled with anger and resentment. News outlets over the weekend have detailed the way Dr. Ford was forthright, while Kavanaugh answered only about half the questions that were posed to him.


The mention of the Clintons was deeply disturbing to me. Kavanaugh was reminding us that he once was a partisan fighter, a protégé of Ken Starr.

Kavanaugh used the most partisan of news outlets to defend himself. He was not reaching out to the entire country, but only to the people on “his side” for support.

The interaction with Guttenberg a few weeks ago is now clearer. Kavanaugh was basically saying to this grieving father, “You’re not on my team. You’re not on my side. I’m not shaking your hand.”

Kavanaugh may have been a privileged, drunken brat in high school. He certainly seems privileged, still. This alone should not disqualify him for this promotion, but he should be more open and honest about his shortcomings.

However, if the Supreme Court is to be a check on the other branches of government, the Justices cannot be seen as being part of the Party system. They must be independent from it. The Justices are the referees in any legal contest. You can’t be on a side. Kavanaugh’s partisanship, above all other concerns, should end his candidacy for the Supreme Court.

When America Was Great

When the President says to his followers, “Let’s make America great again!”, what does that mean? Was there a time when America was better, greater than it is now?

Conservatives often look back on the Reagan Administration as a time when America was great. When Ronald Reagan was elected president in November of 1980, I was just about to turn twelve. I remember a big shift in mood from the Carter years to the Reagan years.

Being a young boy, I wasn’t too aware of our country’s place in geopolitics. A few things that I was aware of was the OPEC oil embargo, which caused long lines at the gas pumps, and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Both of these crises made our country look weak, and our government ineffective. There was a sense that, when Reagan took over, that things were about to get better.

And, by some measures, they did. The hostages came home. Gas prices went up and down, but never again were there long lines at the pumps. The economy improved and people were generally happier.

At least, that’s how I remember those years, 1981-1988, when I was 12-18 years old, living in the affluent suburb, Pleasanton California. My wife, meanwhile, was growing up in Milpitas, a more blue-collar town. Her community was hit hard when the Ford plant closed. Her father didn’t lose his job (he didn’t work at the plant), but many of the dads on her street did. Some families had to move away.

The factory was eventually converted into a giant shopping mall, The Great Mall of Milpitas. The well-paying union jobs were replaced by minimum wage retail jobs. This was the beginning of the stagnation of wages and the widening gaps between the rich and the poor, trends that we are still grappling with today. The struggles of common people during the 80’s are captured beautifully in two songs, “Allentown” by Billy Joel, and “My Hometown” by Bruce Springsteen.

For another view of life during the Reagan administration, I recommend this book: And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts, which details the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic, and the Reagan administration’s slow, ineffective response to it. Shilts’ book is intense; it will knock the shine off our nostalgic memories of the 80’s.


Another time that Conservatives point to as being Great is the 50’s (a time, truthfully, that begins in the late 40’s and stretches into the early, pre-Vietnam 60’s.) After World War II, the U.S. emerged as a superpower. We had a strong middle class, and we did great things like build the interstate highway system. It was the happy time represented by the shows “Leave it to Beaver,” and the 70’s sitcom, “Happy Days.” (It’s interesting to note that Main Street, U.S.A., at the entrance to Disneyland, built in 1955, harkens back nostalgically to an even earlier time.)

Conservatives have a selective memory. Progressives quickly point out that the tax rates were much higher in the 50’s than they are now, and that’s how we were able to build so much infrastructure without going into massive debt. If we’re going to make America great again, why not return to Eisenhower-era tax rates?

Most Americans at that time had union jobs. Do the Conservatives in our country, the authors of the Janus Decision, want to bring that part of the 50’s back?

I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of life in the 50’s. As readers, though, we are time-travelers. We can visit the 50’s in books. I recommend starting with Let the Trumpet Sound by Stephen B. Oates, the definitive biography of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We tend to think of the Civil Rights movement as a 60’s era event, but has its roots in the struggle against Southern Jim Crow laws in the 1950’s.

It was also tough being gay in the 50’s and 60’s. In most places, being in a homosexual relationship was illegal. For insight, let me point you to another book, The Price of Salt (aka Carol) by Patricia Highsmith. In the novel, written in 1952, Carol risks losing custody of her daughter when she persists in her love affair with Therese.

So sure, it was tough being black and/or gay in the 50’s, but for straight white people, especially if you were upper-middle class, things were good, right? That’s the lesson of Leave It to Beaver and Happy Days. Well, in the immortal words of Cherry Valance, “Things are rough all over.”

That line is from S.E. Hinton’s The Outsiders. Cherry doesn’t say much about how rough things were for the rich kids in that mid-60’s Oklahoma town, but we can get that information from other sources.

Consider these two books, Revolutionary Road by Richard Yates (written in 1961, set in 1955), and Couples by John Updike (written in 1968, set in 1962-1963). Taken together with The Price of Salt, these books form a remarkably consistent, unflattering picture of upper-middle class American life during this period: rampant alcoholism, crushing conformity, and self-destructive nihilism.

As interested as I was in Piet’s sexual escapades in Couples, I often wondered what was happening to his kids. The children from all the couples in Couples seem completely neglected and abandoned. I think this is what Cherry was talking about.


Conservatives harken back to a past that is mostly nostalgic fantasy. I’d like to think that our best times are still ahead of us. Let’s look to a Utopia that may never come, but one that we can work towards, one step at a time.

Trump and the Economy

Apologists for President Trump often point to the economy as the silver lining of his administration. “Yes, there are scandals, but at least the economy is doing great!”

Democrats counter this by saying, “Yeah, but he inherited a strong economy from Barack Obama.” Republicans retort: “It’s been two years! Give him some credit!”

Is it possible to look at this question from an objective standpoint, outside of the partisan lens? How is the economy really doing? How much of the positives are attributable to Obama, and how much should be credited to Trump?

This Congress has done precious little in the way of legislation. Let’s review the major laws that have been passed, along with some of the initiatives Trump has spearheaded, and see how those laws and executive orders have affected the economy, for better or for worse. I’ve listed them in roughly chronological order.

Changes to the Affordable Care Act: On the campaign trail, Trump promised his followers to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something even better. When it came down to it, unfortunately, neither the President nor his Republican colleagues in Congress had any idea how to improve upon Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment. All the proposals they considered would have pushed millions of citizens off the insurance rolls.

What Trump settled on was some executive orders allowing people to opt out of insurance, and allowing insurance companies to sell plans that don’t cover essential services. These actions destabilized the insurance marketplace, and caused insurance premiums to rise. They are expected to rise again in 2019.

Net effect on the economy: negative.


Opening of National Park land to mining, & the Keystone pipeline: By executive fiat, the Trump administration overturned two Obama era initiatives, allowing for new mining on federal land, and to proceed with the Keystone XL pipeline. I’m not going to debate coal and oil vs “clean energy” (wind, solar, etc.) I just want to focus on one question: how many jobs were created by these executive orders? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 8.5 million Americans employed in construction and extraction as of July 2018. This is an upswing of 417,000 people from July 2017. Jobs created by these two initiatives would fall into this bucket. This category is growing, making a small improvement to the economy.

Net effect on the economy: positive.


The Tax Cuts and Job Act: The TCJA has been a boon for shareholders and corporate executives. Corporations have used the billion dollar windfall to buy back shares of their own stocks. This practice inflates share price, spurring on the bull market and fattening executive bonuses. Meanwhile, less than 45 of the S&P 500 paid their employees even a one-time bonus. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics August 2018 report, the average weekly income for U.S. workers rose less than $30 from the previous year.

The long term consequences of this tax cut could be dire if this law is not quickly repealed. In their June 26th, 2018 report, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project the Federal Debt and annual deficits to grow substantially in the coming years. They state plainly: “Large and growing federal debt over the coming decades would hurt the economy and constrain future budget policy.”

Net effect on the economy: negative.

Changes to Dodd Frank: During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised to make big changes to Dodd Frank, the 2010 law that set restrictions on banks following the financial meltdown of 2009. In May of this year, Congress did address Dodd Frank, but they did not gut the law, as Trump urged them to do. In the words of the Washington Post, “the basic architecture of the 2010 act remains.” The changes Congress made affected mostly regional banks. The Bureau of Labor Statistics August 2018 report shows that jobs in “Financial Activities” increased by 22,000 in May and June, but dropped by 5,000 in July. That’s a net increase of 17,000 in the three month period. It’s a short time window, but this is a positive.

Net effect on the economy: positive.


Conclusions: There have been some positive developments in the economy, and some of these upticks can be attributed to the President and to Republican policies. However, both the long and the medium term looks dire. There has been no effort to control medical costs, including insurance premiums and drug prices. Spikes in medical expenses are swamping the meager raises most Americans have received. Since I wrote about it in November 2017, the National Debt has risen by over a trillion dollars. This is due directly to the Tax Cut. Things will worsen quickly if the stock market has a steep downturn, or if the sabre-rattling with China turns into an actual trade war.

It’s only a matter of time before things sour. The President will likely blame the Democrats for the downturn, especially if they have just taken back the House. We can expect his followers to eagerly believe him. It’s up to the rest of us to remember whose policies brought us to this point.

For Life vs Pro-Life

With the nomination of judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the American media is focused once again on the abortion debate. There is reasonable fear among Democrats that the Supreme Court, with Kavanaugh on it, will vote to weaken or overturn Roe v Wade, the decision which legalized abortion across the United States.

The abortion debate in this country has gone stale. Each side has been giving the same talking points for over thirty years. Each side preaches to their own choirs and declares victory at the end of the debate.

I want to change the conversation. I’m not going to discuss a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. I believe that women have this right, but I’m not going to argue or discuss that in this blog. Instead, I want to go into the other camp and talk about life.


If you are opposed to abortions out of a personal concern for life, that is something I can respect. However, this concern, this philosophy, this culture of life, should not be limited solely to the issue of abortion. It should infuse every aspect of your politics.

Let’s start with something that should be very straightforward, but in US culture never is: gun control, specifically, a ban on assault rifles. I’m not debating the Second Amendment here, but if you are For Life, this should be an easy call. The primary purpose of an assault rifle is to kill people. You would not use one to hunt pheasants or deer. They are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible amount of time. There is no context in a civil society in which a citizen would need to slaughter dozens of people quickly. If you have a personal concern for life, you should be for an assault weapons ban.

Now, let’s look at medical care. The US has the most expensive health care system in the world, and still, one of the most dysfunctional systems. Premiums are expected to rise again this year. Corporations shamelessly hike up the prices on drugs they didn’t develop, that cost pennies per dose to make, profiteering on the desperate needs of families.

We need strict controls on drug prices, and to finally stop the ever-rising premiums, we need Universal Health Care, Medicare for everyone. No one should die because they couldn’t afford care. No one should go bankrupt because their inadequate insurance policy failed to cover a major accident or illness. No one should be pushed into poverty because their child needed an Epi-pen or anti-seizure medicine. If you have a desire to preserve and enhance life, you should be pushing for this type of legislation.

It will take a while, though, to get this system implemented. In the meantime, we need a network of low-cost health clinics all across the country that serve young people and low income communities. It would be great if that organization also dispensed birth control and sexual health advice.

Lucky for us, we have such an organization. It’s called Planned Parenthood. If you have a genuine concern for people’s health, for their life, you would want Planned Parenthood to expand their network and to receive adequate funding from the Federal Government. Nothing stops unwanted pregnancies like birth control. If you want to keep the abortion rate as low as it is (it’s currently at a 40 year low), Planned Parenthood is your friend.

People who are For Life should be concerned with the environment. They should be worried about global warming and climate change for the sake of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They should actively fight against polluters who try to weaken environmental laws with their lobbying efforts.

If the Pro-Life crowd was with me on all these other points, I could respect their opinions on abortion. The sad fact is that they are not. Republicans and their Pro-Life allies have fought successfully to stop an assault weapons ban, in the face of one massacre after another. They undermined the Affordable Care Act, threatening the health coverage of millions of Americans. They have made no effort to curb the drug industry's price-gouging. They recoil at the very thought of Medicare for all. They have slashed funding for Planned Parenthood, shuttering clinics across the country. The ones that stay open are often picketed. Others are bombed.

The Republicans have consistently sided with oil producers to block curbs on carbon emissions, denying overwhelming scientific evidence and ignoring the radical, observable changes to our weather patterns (increases in the number and ferocity of hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, etc.) Republican lawmakers, like disgraced former EPA head Scott Pruitt, looked the other way while their donors violated laws protecting our air and water, putting the health and safety of citizens at risk.

What about the policy of separating mothers from their children at the border? A For Life person should be horrified and ashamed that our government was doing this. Why would 55% of Republicans, presumably all Pro-Life, support this policy? (Quinnipiac University poll, conducted in June of 2018.)

This is the hypocrisy of the Pro-Life position: their self-righteous concern for fetuses belies an utter unconcern for people once they’re born. The intent of anti-abortion policies is not to preserve and enhance life, but to oppress women, to keep women out of the workforce, and to perpetuate cycles of poverty, particularly among people of color.

If your goal is oppression, I will oppose you, as I have done all of my adult life. If you have a genuine concern for life, then let’s work together to make the world a better place.

The Janus Decision

When I was a senior in high school, I heard more than once this piece of advice: “Don’t become a teacher! You’ll never make any money!”

Despite this advice (perhaps, in spite of it), I tried to become a teacher anyway. I did not succeed. I was too shy and introverted to dominate classrooms full of American teenagers. My wife was much better at it, and she has become better still with experience. (She teaches younger kids, but even 9 and 10 year olds can be impossible sometimes.) She is a respected by parents and students alike, and every so often, a teenager or a young person in their twenties will come up and say what a positive influence my wife had on their lives.

After I left teaching, I entered the private sector. I now work for a respected, well known, wealthy and successful corporation. Here is the irony: my wife, the teacher, earns twice my salary.


While corporations have been suppressing wages, treating their employees as expenses rather than assets, public sector salaries have continued to grow. Government jobs - city and county positions, police and fire, teachers - are now the bastion of the middle class, one of the few places in the economy where one can earn $50,000-$99,999 annually.

These high salaries are due in large part because of public sector unions.
My wife is a member of the California Teachers Association, a powerful political force in our state. A certain amount of her monthly dues goes to CTA’s political campaigns and lobbying. In terms of the group’s ability to turn out voters and ramp up phone and email campaigns on a moment’s notice, CTA is the liberal version of the NRA.

Teachers who disagreed with CTA’s political positions became agency fee payers. They paid dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining, but they kept the portion of their dues that go to CTA’s political activities. This has been the law in many states for over 40 years.

Until today. In the Supreme Court decision Janus v AFSCME, the court ruled that all of a union’s activities could be considered political in nature, and that forcing someone to pay union dues was a violation of that individual’s free speech rights. Members of Unions and Associations must now “opt-in,” and agree to pay dues for both salary negotiations and for political campaigns.

Make no mistake – this argument was not made out of a genuine concern for free speech rights. The lawyers and think tanks behind the Janus briefs were intent on one thing alone: to kill vocal, liberal-leaning unions like CTA. The thought is that many members will stop paying dues altogether, and the unions will starve.

Janus, the man himself, was a public service employee from Illinois. He could hardly show that he had been harmed by his local union, which negotiated a generous salary and benefits package on his behalf. Had he been in the private sector, he likely would be making far less money each month. His benefits package would be less generous, and he certainly would not have a pension. His union may have been left-leaning, but he was free to vote Republican if that were his choice. He was free to advocate for conservative causes online and at public meetings.

I do not have a union advocating for me at the negotiating table. In fact, there is no negotiations at all. My boss tells me what my pay raise will or will not be, and I accept it. During the downturn of 2007-2008, my company suspended 401(k) matches. I did not get a voice in that decision. I had no way to protest other than to leave my job (which I did not do).

My company lobbied for the recent tax cut, and crowed about it in their annual report once they had it. I happen to side with economists that say this tax cut will be a disaster for the United States if it is not quickly repealed and undone. No one came from my company, asking me if I support their efforts. They assumed I would agree with them, that they knew best. Even now, when I am criticizing them, I’m being coy, because I’m not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. If I exercise my free speech rights to openly criticize them in public, I could get fired.

I do not make a monthly deduction from my pay to support my company’s political activities. Yet, money that could be put aside for wages is instead re-directed to all sorts of activities that I may or may not agree with: political campaigns, stock buybacks, dividend increases, executive bonuses, etc. I have no say, no voice, because I do not have a union.

I have no idea how much my company invests in lobbying each year. Let’s say they spend $5 million annually. And let’s say that my company has 400,000 employees (also not correct, but it’s close). My “share” of that $5 mil is $12.50. Did anybody come around and ask me if I wanted that $12.50 invested in lobbying? Did I “opt-in” to have that money directed to pushing politicians for a tax break? If they did ask me and my co-workers what we would like to be done with that money, I bet we would pocket the $12.50!

The conservative think tanks that dreamed up the Janus case would be horrified if their arguments were utilized in this manner. The Janus decision is not about free speech. It is an act of oppression, one of a string of shameful recent SCOTUS decisions. The intent is to break the powerful public unions and crush one of the few sectors putting upward pressure on wages.

Innovative FanFiction

On a recent episode of 60 Minutes, a reporter was interviewing first year students at Princeton. The students were there as part of an effort to bring more underprivileged youth to the prestigious campus. The reporter asked the group if they initially felt intimidated. “Yes,” said one, “this place looks like Hogwarts!”

Her classmates all nodded. The show’s producer ran some pictures showing off Princeton’s gothic architecture. The buildings really did seem right out of a Harry Potter movie. What I found interesting: not only did all of this student’s peers understand the reference to Hogwarts, but 60 Minutes saw no need to explain it to the viewing audience, either.

In a time of great divisions - young/old, urban/rural, red states/blue states - J.K. Rowling’s creative world, the school for witches and wizards, is common ground, understood by just about everyone.



My kids are grown, but I still have all their Harry Potter books. I have read each book more than once. When Deathly Hallows came out, I read all seven books in a row, out loud, to my two girls. I did voices for each character, including, with some difficulty, the high cold voice of Lord Voldemort.

When the series was finished, we felt a bit of a letdown. We wanted the story to continue. I began toying with two questions: “What House would I have been sorted into, had I gone to Hogwarts?” and “What should a Harry Potter spin-off look like?”

Every boy wants to be a brave Gryffindor hero, but if I was honest with myself, I knew I wouldn’t have landed there. I wasn’t terrifically brave. I’m smart and creative, but I wasn’t the first kid with his hand in the air whenever the teacher asked a question. So, Ravenclaw was out. And, I’m certainly not Slytherin material. I’m ambitious when it comes to my writing, but not in other aspects of my life.

Hufflepuff was where I belonged, among the other hardworking, loyal and friendly kids who didn’t really shine or stand out. I was quickly convinced that the next hero of Hogwarts should be a Hufflepuff.

(I was doing all this thinking prior to Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts movies. I was very pleased to learn that Newt Scamander was a Hufflepuff!)

The challenge of creating a spin-off series is generating and maintaining interest in the new characters while still honoring the existing characters. A spin-off of this series should not infringe on the legacy of Harry Potter. Potter has to be the pinnacle, the great hero. Trying to knock him down and put someone in his place would alienate fans, rather than win them over. Yet, a hero that solved minor mysteries and fought second rate villains, Harry Potter-Lite in other words, wouldn’t impress anyone.


My solution was to create a kid, a Hufflepuff, who was just going to school - taking classes, hanging out with friends, having girlfriends. This would be The Breakfast Club, but at Hogwarts. I wouldn’t get the whole of Rowling’s audience going this route. There are fans who are deep into the “saving the world from evil” storylines, and there are fans who just love the school and the characters. I would go after the latter group. Rowling’s fan base is enormous, and the subgroup I targeted was plenty big enough for me.

I sat on the idea for a few years, but it continued to build within me. Finally, in June of 2010, I wrote a short story, “The Dangers of Black Cats,” as a trial run for my Hufflepuff hero, Liam Wren. I had a vague idea when I was writing that, when finished, I would publish it somewhere on the internet.

The place I found was called HarryPotterFanFiction.com. Immediately, I felt at home here. People started reading “Black Cats” and posting positive comments. I saw that other writers were writing novels, so almost right away, in early 2011, I commenced on my first Liam Wren novel, Liam Wren and the Dragon Wand.

I strive to be as creative and innovative as I can, regardless of the genre and context. I filled my novel with new characters and concepts, and I took risks with my story structures as well. The structure of Dragon Wand is derived from jazz. I see that book as a ‘syncopated’ version of Philosopher’s Stone, complete with a long ‘solo.’. A later novel, Love and Arithmancy, has little in the way of a main plot; the story weaves and flows between a thicket of subplots.

Six years later, I had four novels on the site, and a regular group of readers, when HPFF suddenly announced they were shutting down. I reached out to a few of my writing friends, who all recommended a new site, HPFT (archive.hpfanfictalk.com). I’m slowly transfering my novels to the new site, chapter by chapter.

My transfer of Dragon Wand is now complete. I ran through the manuscript as I went and freshened it up at bit. It’s better than it’s ever been. Next up is The Witches of Slytherin which I am thoroughly rewriting. The version on HPFT has a new title, Tess Covenshire and the Highcross Scandal.

And, there is plenty more after that. If ‘innovative fanfiction’ sounds like an oxymoron, I invite you to come by HPFT and meet Liam, Tess, and all my other witches and wizards.

Change Comes to the Boy Scouts

As you may have heard, the Boy Scouts of America are changing their name to The Scouts, and are accepting girls for the first time in their 108 year history. Some viewed this news with alarm and dismay, but as a progressive, I saw this as something good.

I’ve felt for a long time that the root of many of the problems in our society is the fact that we separate children repeatedly by gender. Boys and girls are cordoned off from one another by wardrobe, by toys, and by organized activities. I believe that separating boys and girls fosters misunderstandings that lead to misogyny, violence and sexist behavior. At the very least, keeping boys separate from girls can lead to a lack of awareness and understanding of women’s issues.

I can see why high school and college athletics are often separated by gender. Having a boys team and a girls team levels the playing field and allows for greater participation. There is no reason, however, for nine year olds to be separated by gender when playing soccer or baseball. The physiques are too similar. Boys would benefit from playing alongside smart, articulate, cooperative girls. Girls would benefit from being exposed early on to boys’ aggression and competitiveness.

There has been much discussion in the media about the wage gap between men and women, how it forms and what to do about it. Some of this gap can be attributed to separations we made early on. The highest paid teacher at American high schools is often the football coach. And, the football coach is always a man, because girls don’t play football.

Participation in the Boy Scouts are a common experience for boys in the United States. (I was a Scout, once, though I dropped out after a few years.) Former Scouts populate our military academies, our government, and the boardrooms of corporations. Yet, women have been excluded from sharing in this collective experience. This could be another root of gender inequality in the military, government and in the business world.

Here’s a short list of men who were once Eagle Scouts, the top rank in the Boy Scouts of America: Rex Tillerson, Hank Paulson, Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates. No woman has yet been able to join this fraternity, because there has never been a girl Eagle Scout before.

That’s why this change is so important. Young girls right now are starting out as Cub Scouts. They will be able to work their way up the ranks, all the way to Eagle Scout. I’m hopeful that this will open up doors later in life, that these girls, as women, will be on more equal footing, having been through this experience that is common to so many boys in the U.S.

There are many former Scouts among our police officers. I once went to a funeral of four police officers that were killed in the line of duty. All four had been Eagle Scouts. This had been a point of pride for the fallen officers and their families.

In recent years, the press has reported that police departments across the country have a huge backlog of untested rape kits. Advocates for women complain that police just don’t take these cases seriously.

I wonder if police investigators would take violence against women more seriously if they had, as children, spent more time with girls. If, as a boy, he had played soccer alongside girls. Or, as a Scout, he had worked with a girl to build a tent or gathered wood for a fire. These common childhood experiences could be the basis of empathy and mutual understanding.

What about the Girl Scouts? Should they change their names, too, and begin to accept boys? I think eventually they will. Both groups have strong traditions of civic duty and community service. A main focus of Boy Scouts has always been outdoor experiences like camping. Girl Scouts have, in recent years, focused on entrepreneurial skills. There is no reason these focuses should be gender specific. Girls can tie knots and start fires. Boys can make business plans and sell cookies.

We’re not going to eradicate the gender gap or violence against women overnight. This is a very long term plan. An isolated girl in a troop of boys probably won’t make much of a difference. It will take many girls signing up to be Scouts over years and years to truly make a change. The effects of this gender mingling will not be known for decades.

This a small step in the right direction. It’s progress. If an organization as venerable and traditional as the Boy Scouts of America can make a change like this, I am hopeful for the country.

Facing the Facts

There’s a few different ways I could start this blog. Since baseball season is just around the corner, I’m going to start off by talking about Barry Bonds.

I remember that, when Bonds played for the Pittsburgh Pirates, he was an easy guy to root against. He was extremely talented, but he could be arrogant, too, and he was often rude to reporters and fans.

Then, in 1993, the San Francisco Giants signed Bonds as a free agent. Since his father, Bobby Bonds, had played for the Giants, and Bonds had grown up in the San Francisco Bay Area, it was like our Prodigal Son had come home. We greeted Bonds with open arms. (He could still be a jerk, but he was our jerk, now.)

We marveled at baseball prowess for years. We watched as he racked up MVP awards and All-Star appearances, set home run records and knocked ball after ball out of AT&T Park and into the water.

When the rumors started that Bonds was taking performance enhancing drugs, we didn’t want to believe it. We thought that people were picking on Bonds because, most of the time, he was still aloof and arrogant. Fans across the country booed him, because he was so talented, just the way we had booed him when he was a Pirate.

Then some investigative reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle, the Giants home newspaper, dug into the rumors and learned the truth. They laid out the facts in great detail, in a series of stories. Bonds, and many other well known athletes, were cheating by using steroids and other PEDs.

It was tough news to hear. We didn’t want to believe it, but it was right there in black and white. We read the stories, reviewed the facts, and collectively put an asterisk next to many of Bonds’ records.

***

I’ve been a fan of Bill Cosby my whole life. Years before the Cosby Show, on my way to Sunday school or summer camp, I would repeat some of Cosby’s famous routine about God telling Noah to build an ark.

When the rumors surfaced that Cosby was drugging women and raping them, I didn’t want to believe it. None of us did. But, when woman after woman came forward to accuse him of the same thing, it became harder and harder to deny. Eventually, we had to face the facts.

***

The Starr investigation into Bill Clinton was a snipe hunt if I ever saw one. It went on and on, into every aspect of Clinton’s life, and never amounted to anything. There were never any indictments. Nobody turned against Clinton and became a witness for the prosecution.

And then, the Lewinsky story broke. There was no early denial this time. Our image of Clinton wasn’t shattered. It sounded just like him!

I was mad at Ken Starr, but I was mad at Clinton, too, for fooling around with this girl when he knew his enemies were out to get him. I read the Starr report all the way through, the steamy parts and the perjury parts. I had to admit, my guy screwed up, big time.

***

Another investigation is underway right now for our current president, and this one isn’t a snipe hunt. There’s blood in the water, and Robert Mueller’s team is swirling around like sharks, interviewing witnesses, and issuing indictments and subpoenas. Three members of Trump’s inner circle have turned on him and are now testifying against the President. The Worst Case Scenarios, which I wrote about a year ago, have broadened to include money laundering via shady real estate deals in New York, Florida and elsewhere.

Perjury, subornation of perjury, collusion, espionage, it’s all still on the table. Trump could not only face impeachment - he and his sons and son-in-law could face time in prison.

Yet, millions of Americans are still backing their guy. They seem blissfully unaware of the scandals and the chaos in the White House. It’s Fake News, they say. The Swamp is out to get Trump. This is a witch hunt. “He’s doing good things,” a friend of mine told me recently. “It just takes a while to get things turned around.”

I didn’t know what to say to my friend when he said that. Where would I even begin to refute that statement? It drove home the fact that our country is split in two, not between Republicans and Democrats so much as between the Fox News audience and the Mainstream News audience.

What’s going to happen when the trap finally snaps shut? Mueller at some point is going to lay out his indictments against the Trumps the way he did against Manafort and the thirteen Russian agents. Will Trump’s people read the news and face the facts?

Will they turn on Trump, and say, “We knew that guy was bad news all along. Mike Pence will be a great President!” Or, will they deny it all, and say it’s corrupt, partisan, fake?

What will happen to our country if they do?

Sylph Sia vs Instagram

Late in January 2018, Instagram deactivated the account of Fine Art model and photographer Sylph Sia. Sylph had maintained an account on Instagram for years, and at the time that her account was removed, she had made over 900 posts and had 152,000 followers (including me.)

There had been no warning, nor did she receive an explanation from the site. But, most likely, this had to do with her profession - as a fine art model, in most photos she posted, she is nude.

She’s not a stripper or a porn star. She doesn’t perform sex acts for the camera. Fine Art nude photography is about the interplay of light and shadow on the female form. The women pose like dancers or statues against odd, intriguing backgrounds. (Sylph has a background in dance.) This is a school of art as old as photography itself, kin to the artists who have portrayed the human form in sculptures and paintings for centuries.

This is not “revenge porn.” She is posting pictures of herself, and she always credits the photographer in her posts. Likewise, when the photographer posts pictures, they always tag the model. No picture is posted without the consent of both parties.

Before Slyph Sia posts pictures of herself on Instagram, she has to censor them. Nipples and pubic hair must be blurred out. Some models and photographers actually scribble digitally over the “offending” parts of the photograph, which seems to me both an act of vandalism against the photo and an act of violence against the model. A better solution, which Slyph has employed on occasion, is to cover the “naughty bits” with starbursts, as if to say, “Don’t look! You’ll hurt your eyes!”

There is no written rulebook for what Instagram will and will not allow. Through trial and error, users have figured out what will pass and what will get removed (or, get one’s account deactivated). Men are allowed to have nipples, while women are not. Genitals of either type are not allowed. Bare butts are okay for both - just be sure nothing peeks out!

The rules aren’t fixed however, and this is where confusion sets in. Facebook, who owns Instagram, stirred up a public relations firestorm a few years ago when they banned pictures of women nursing their children. So, bare breasts, including nipples, are often allowed on Instagram in this context.

For most photos, though, nipples must be covered, even if that covering is sheer. If a woman is wearing a thin white shirt or a lace bra, the photo might be allowed to stand, despite the color and shape of the nipple being clearly visible beneath the fabric.

Instagram responds to viewers protesting offensive content on its site. There are people who follow Fine Art models and photographers for the purpose of protesting their posts. It must give these folks a perverse pleasure when a post they protested is taken down. My hunch is Sylph Sia’s account was shut down after receiving too many of these complaints.


Though she chafes under these arbitrary and Puritanical rules, she found an upside to them. She was an early adopter of Patreon. Subscribe to her Patreon, and you get access to uncensored photographs. (By the way, I am not a patron.)

Still, most people discover her, like I did, through Instagram. Though she was able to create a new account, the shutdown cost her 150,000 followers. Nor is she the only one affected. Recently, another Fine Art model, Nakita Fox, also had her main account deleted.

Instagram, to my knowledge, has never articulated a rationale for this censoring. Most likely, they would say they are trying to avoid offensive content. Though we tend to think of the internet as one big public forum, sites like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook are all privately owned and managed spaces. (This site, too, is a private space.) The site owner has great latitude in determining what should stand and what must go.

I believe that Internet forums need rules (especially rules of decorum!) In the case of Sylph Sia, however, I believe Instagram is drawing the line in the wrong place.

The first problem is Cultural Imperialism, a charge regularly laid upon people and companies from the United States. We don’t like people telling us what to do, but we love bossing other people around. Sylph Sia is from Australia. Fine Art models hail from all parts of the world. Should our Puritanical traditions be imposed on people from other countries, through sites like Instagram?

The starbursts are cute, but how different are they from a burqa? The burqa is more extreme, but the starburst is imposed in the same way, in the same voice. We are ordering a woman to cover herself.

Another model, Sasskia, recently posted a nude picture of herself on Instagram, under the caption “Not Consent.” She is disputing the idea that her baring her body is an invitation for sex. Her goal is liberation and empowerment. Her statement reminds me of the woman who, at that recent protest in Iran, climbed a pole and removed her hijab.

One might say, “We have to censor these pictures. Otherwise, children might see them!” Let me turn that around and ask: What message are we sending to children now, particularly to girls?

The message, expressed baldly, is this: there are parts of you that are evil. You must cover them up, or bad things will happen to you and to other girls. You will cause men to do bad things, and it will be your fault, because you weren’t modest.

If a man behaves badly, there are laws we can enforce to stop the behavior and punish it. We can publicly shame and estrange certain people, as we did with Harvey Weinstein. Let’s enforce our laws. Let’s not blame the victim.

More than that, let’s teach boys a more respectful way to treat women and girls. Let’s create a world where our daughters, and our sons too, can live and walk and play without fear of violence, a world that is empowering and liberating for everyone.

It’s too big a job to make in a single step, but let’s take a step. Let’s see ourselves as beautiful creatures in our own perfect skin. Let’s move that line and set it down in a different spot. We can block images that are degrading, violent, or intended to humiliate. These beautiful Fine Art photos should stand uncensored.