Lies/Reckless Disregard For Truth Can’t Be Allowed To Doom Democracy

Fox News Defamation Woes Highlight and Exemplify the Threat

Sorry about the long hiatus for Other Aspects. Welcome back and thanks for reading.

It’s not that there’s been nothing much happening worth writing about. It’s more like the opposite: there’s been so much truly bizarre stuff going on that it’s difficult to absorb and gather oneself for a coherent response.

For the third time in eight years, DJT is the candidate for President for what was once a proud, major party. Polls indicate that, regardless of the outcome, he again will get tens of millions of votes. Like many, I find myself incapable of imaging how, at this point, anyone can conceive of voting for this man for President of the United States. Yet, here we are. So, let’s dig in a bit.

Whence Comes Support?

It’s tempting to break Trump’s supporters into two groups:
(1) Those who support him despite his despicable nature; and
(2) Those who support him because of his despicable nature That first group can be further subdivided:
(a) Reality Deniers  – Those who don’t especially like DJT, and may even thoroughly dislike him, but fail (or refuse) to grasp the severity and depth of his criminal malevolence and the danger he poses, and thus somehow worry about “the alternative”; and
(b) Opportunists – Those who grasp exactly who and what he is, but see him as a useful vehicle to further their own interests.

That Second Group – the Trump True Believers (TTBs)

Let’s consider the TTBs briefly before moving on. These are folks who love Trump for his racism, his cruelty, his dishonesty, his defiant ignorance, and (maybe most of all) his ability to get away with saying and doing what he does.

Every time he commits a serious crime in plain view, they love him more. Every time he identifies a new group to hate, a “Them” for “Us” to despise for their supposed inferiority, TBBs want more to be part of Trump’s “Us”.

It’s fascinating that no one ever notices that it’s impossible to really be part of Trump’s “Us”. For The Don, there is only Himself. Absolute, unconditional loyalty is always demanded; none whatsoever is ever afforded anyone. With each passing day it becomes clearer that anyone who is not doing exactly what he wants, at every moment, is an “enemy of the people”, against whom he is eager to seek retribution and exert military might.

Virtually everyone who has ever had anything to do with Trump has lived to regret it, deeply, and usually sooner rather than later. The delusion for those who fall all over themselves declaring fealty for Trump is like that of someone’s seventh spouse. It will be different for me.

So, What’s the Attraction?

It’s not like Trump is charming. Is this merely America’s peculiar infatuation with the Bad Boy, the Anti-hero, taken to absurd, previously unimagined extremes? No, there’s more to it.

Racism isn’t the only factor involved, but it seems the most significant. Many TTBs feel the wrong side won the Civil War, haven’t gotten over it, and think they’d like another crack at it. At the very least, they look back on Jim Crow as the “good old days”; that is, the “Great” the MAGA crowd would like to make America again. Not for nothing did Confederate flags appear next to Trump flags in the Capitol on January 6 and at Trump rallies from the beginning.

The need for Us vs. Them at work for TTBs isn’t always explicitly race-based. Pick any bigotry; Trump has a series of lies and made-up grievances for you. If you need somebody to hate, or blame, or feel superior to, the Don is your candidate. More and more, he’s not even bothering with the dog whistles; he just comes right out with it.

Whether the bait is explicitly racist or not, it is inevitably taken; the more people hurt as a result, the better. COVID-19 is a liberal hoax. Immigrants seek “asylum” because they’re insane. Thugs await word on which honest public servants are the “enemy” ever since Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand by”. John McCain was not a hero; January 6 insurrectionists were. Dog and cat burgers, anyone?

Perhaps the single most depressing realization to accept is that earlier assumptions that TTBs were a small lunatic fringe group were very wrong.

Moving On To That First Group of Trump Supporters

These, you’ll recall, are folks who support him despite his despicable nature. We subdivided those expected to hold their noses and vote for Trump into 1(a) reality deniers and 1(b) opportunists.

Reality Deniers

I will never forget the first time someone said to me, about Trump, “at least he’s honest.” For a while I was stupefied into silence. The single most dishonest human being of which I have ever been aware, a virtuoso of every form and technique of dishonesty, a person seemingly incapable of uttering a statement of fact that is true, and your take is “at least he’s honest”?!

I finally managed to sputter out something like “I don’t understand; what do you mean?” The reply was, “He says what so many others are thinking.”

Information Source

Everyone needs sources of information. So often, when asked if I’ve heard some nugget of misinformation and fact-checking confirms the falsity, I learn the source was Fox News, Breitbart, or their ilk. Reality-denying Trump fans who rely on Fox News 24/7 are unlikely to know much about the Dominion case.

Here’s the thing: Defamation cases are very difficult for plaintiffs to win anything, much less large awards. It’s not enough for the information conveyed to be false and unfair. The standard to be proven is “actual malice”. The defendant must be shown to have known the information was false or had reckless disregard for its falsity. The burden of proof is “clear and convincing”, second in difficulty only to criminal law’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Suffice it to say that plaintiffs win nothing unless defendant’s behavior is reprehensible.

The lie in the Dominion case was the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen and that Dominion’s election equipment was one way it was done. There was no verdict; the case was settled – for $787 million dollars. Fox didn’t dare go to a jury with the evidence available.

When I learned of the case, I couldn’t wait to see what discovery in the case revealed. The story’s told in Brian Stelter’s 2023 book, Network of Lies. It’s devastating, revealing a breathtaking level of cynical lying for profit. Reading the internal emails of the time leaves no doubt why they were terrified to have anyone – owners, writers, on-air talent – testify under oath.

It’s not the only case of its kind.

The Colloquy I Wish I’d Had With Reality Deniers I Know and Like

Here’s what I wish I’d said (where appropriate):
I’ve been considering everything I love about you as friends, and cherish about our friendship: You’re honest, hard-working, caring, giving. You love each other as a couple, and you love your children, your extended family and your friends. You bend over backwards to do no harm and help those in need.

In every single respect, then, you are the exact, diametrical opposite of Donald Trump. If you knew him in any capacity, or had anything whatever to do with him in the real world – business, social, political, professional – you would loathe him.

The public record could not be clearer on his character, personality, interests and morals. If you doubt this, you must be limiting yourself to Fox News or the equivalent. You are doing yourself a great disservice and deserve better.

Everything you taught and begged your children not to be – Trump is. How is it possible that you would consider for a second voting for this lying, thieving sociopath for anything, much less President?

Trumpian Mythology

Opportunists and reality deniers have some favorite myths about who and what Trump is that they use  attempting to justify support for The Don. It’s hard to say which one is the most preposterous.  Really, each would be hilarious if he weren’t so dangerous and the harm caused so tragic. What follows are several of the myths heard most often.

Conservative Republican

No one should be more outraged by Trump than true conservative Republicans. Just now, finally, some are speaking up. Assuming America survives this ordeal intact, nobody will have more ‘splainin’ to do than cynically enabling conservative Republicans who knew better all along. History will not be kind to Mitch and the gang.

One hallmark of conservative Republicans has been urging fiscal responsibility. No president has ever added to the deficit more than Trump, including before the pandemic. He loves deficit spending, just as long as none of it benefits Americans who actually need help. Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Reagan would have despised him and what he’s done to the party and the country.

Those seeking a detailed treatment of the modern mass capitulation could do a lot worse than Mark Liebovich’s 2022 book, Thank You for Your Servitude. You sell your soul to the Devil for THIS guy? The presidency is not the only office up for grabs in 2024.

Law and Order

I’ll try not to belabor this, a point about which books will be written for decades. Could there be a more comically inapt candidate for any office to be dubbed a Law ‘n’ Order guy?

Anyone who’s read all the indictments (four cases, 91 counts) against Trump can only be struck by a number of points:

  • The severity, number, and deadly serious nature of the allegations
  • The meticulous care with which the allegations are presented and documented
  • The number of felonies committed in plain view for which he has not been charged – at least, yet
  • The mind-boggling possibilities of wrong-doing by him and his associates that have not yet come to light

Shortly after Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, I predicted to a close friend that he would average about a felony a day for as long as he remained in office. I suspect I got it about right, as long as you don’t count all the crimes he induced those around him to commit.

Looming over all criminal cases is the burden of proof facing the prosecutor: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. The daunting hurdle posed by BARD probably had much to do with both the time it took to get these charges filed and the detail presented.

Had he been charged with everything he might have been – like, say, treason – Donald Trump may have seen his enthusiasm for the federal death penalty greatly diminished.

In the one case of the four that has reached verdict, of course, Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts and awaits sentencing.

Tough Guy

He never stops whining. Never, about everything, and this is one of the many reasons the extent of his popularity is so surprising. Until he came along, most would say “Nobody likes a whiner.” But everything and everyone is so UNFAIR! There’s a two-tiered system of justice in this country!

Unfortunately, he is correct on that last point – in exactly the opposite way he intends. That he has not spent the majority of his adult life in prison is the clearest indication of how that two-tiered system has been working. It also shows how wrong the Left has been to consider him stupid.

The funny thing is that it has become almost impossible to be unfair to Donald Trump. He has reaped the benefit of lowered expectation to the point where the bar is lying on the ground; atrocious behavior is just Trump being Trump.  In so doing, though, he’s created the situation where no matter how terrible a thing one says about him, it’s likely to be true.

Like most bullies, he’s a tough guy when surrounded by his mob. Stand by, Proud Boys. January 6, 2021 was just the warm-up.

Christian

Contemplating the undying support of many Evangelicals and Christian Nationalists for this man leaves me thinking of the Seven Deadly Sins. It is probably due to my background as a life-long practicing Catholic. They, by the way, are the sins that make it more likely to sin again, gateways to further wrongdoing.

If someone were to write the definitive Trump biography, its title should be Greed, Lust, Pride, Envy, Sloth, Gluttony, and Wrath: The Life and Times of Donald John Trump. The author could do no better.

For those who prefer guidance from the Old Testament, here’s a conceptual exercise. Try to name a commandment Trump does not break – publicly, gleefully, repeatedly – and encourage or demand others to break.

In supporting such an individual, these Evangelicals and Christian Nationalists (forgive me, but the latter term is an oxymoron for anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the Gospels, but I digress) are showing their hands. Their real agendas as the most cynically opportunistic of opportunists are laid bare for all to see.

For the Little Guy/Working Class

In some ways, this is the saddest con. Start with the obvious point that the Don cares nothing for anyone but himself. That this epitome of the arrogant, spoiled rich kid somehow grew into a champion for blue collar workers is a painfully false myth.

First, he has no less contempt for his followers than for anyone else. Second and ironically, the Kamala Harrises and Joe Bidens of the world, actually do care about their lot, and work hard to improve it.

Successful Businessman

He’s considered a successful businessman because he played a role on a television show. I like businessmen whose word is their bond. (RIP: John McCain.)

We’re talking about Mr. Bankruptcy here – and not just his own. Democrats should have a new ad every hour featuring true stories of countless honest American business owners Trump has ruined over the years by refusing to meet his most basic obligations.

By the way, how do you fail running casinos, an industry where the House is guaranteed to win?

There is no greater tell for dishonesty than a business having two sets of books. Who believes it was Allen Weisselberg’s idea to do that for the Trump Organization? So far, everyone but Trump goes to prison for doing Trump’s bidding. That may change soon.

In a related matter, it’s both unusual and embarrassing when an accounting firm announces publicly that they must disavow financial statements prepared for a client for any period of time. Mazars, USA did so for their client, The Trump Organization, for the DECADE of 2011 – 2020. Specifically, they instructed Trump to notify anyone who had received statements of financial condition for all those years not to rely on them.

Conclusion

Phony conservative, phony Republican, phony patriot, phony Christian, phony family man, phony businessman – yep, Trump is the complete package. He’s never been more himself than when he said to John Kelley, at his son’s gravesite in Arlington, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”

He’s right. He doesn’t get any of it: honesty, common decency, honor, introspection, empathy, remorse, service, responsibility, respect, duty, commitment, love. All are for losers and suckers.

Each item just in this post, alone, is enough to be absolutely disqualifying.

Meanwhile, his opponent, who’d be the first to say she’s not perfect, is smart, accomplished, experienced, qualified and committed to public service. Sane and normal would be enough, but we’ll get much better than that. Inexplicably, the polls insist it’s a toss-up. This could be either the end of America as we know it or the end of polling as we know it. I’ll take the latter.

The fifth-grade bully has punched the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and basic human decency in the face, and sneered, “Whatcha gonna do about it?”

Well, voters, what are we going to do about it? “Leaders” of the Republican Party have had every opportunity to take care of this, and have cowered in corners every time. Remember Barry Goldwater, Hugh Scott and John Rhodes telling Nixon it was over on August 7, 1974?

Not this time. At the very least, the vote to convict and remove Trump in either impeachment trial should have been unanimous. Think of the expense, the turmoil, the insanity, and the damage to democracy and to US standing in the world we might have been spared, if the Senators had simply done their sworn duty.

Imagine if Bill Barr had not lied to the American people (as Attorney General, no less) that the Mueller Report was a nothing burger? And so on.

But, nope, it’s up to us. There’s nowhere to hide. The record is clear and available for anyone interested. What each citizen does, or doesn’t do, matters. What we need is a solid, no-doubt-about-it repudiation of Donald Trump. The ugliness unleashed by his assault on America’s first principles will not dissipate on its own. The hard work of damage repair already begun by Biden needs a mandate from the people to succeed. Anything less invites the continuing criminality.

The lies and frivolous litigation will be attempted regardless, of course. They never stopped and have already begun for the 2024 election. But the more Americans who vote against Trump, and for what truly does make America great, the less harm his lies will do.

Assuming what needs to happen on November 5 happens – and the American Experiment continues – what will future history books say about the last ten years or so? Assuming history books tell the truth, our children and grandchildren are going to have a lot of questions.

“Did this Donald Trump really exist?” they’ll ask. “Did he really say and do these things? How did this terrible person get votes? By the way, who did you vote for?”

What answers are we preparing to give them? Vote. Vote in a way that won’t force you to lie to your grandchildren.

Ken Bossong

© 2024 Kenneth J. Bossong

Sully and the Singers: A Tale of Two Cruises

Collaboration Magic and the Beauty of Jazz

One benefit of retirement, obviously, is time flexibility. Sailing on two consecutive one-week cruises while working full time would have been unlikely, but that’s just what we did in January. First there was The Jazz Cruise (TJC) and then it was Blue Note At Sea (BNAS).

Each was run by Jazz Cruises, LLC, formerly Entertainment Cruise Productions, out of St. Louis and headed by Michael Lazaroff. The company also does two other cruises devoted to smooth Jazz, but the company’s history started with the first Jazz Cruise put together by Mr. Lazaroff’s mother, Anita Berry, in 2001.

Among the two cruises’ dozens of highlights were two concerts, one from each cruise, with a special commonality making them irresistible: collaboration magic with phenomenal pianist Sullivan Fortner accompanying an extraordinary vocalist.

Sullivan was scheduled to appear with Cecile McLorin Salvant on BNAS, which was one very good reason to book that cruise. In a similarly great reason to book, Dee Dee Bridgewater was bringing a working band with her for TJC the week before. When something came up to prevent Carmen Staaf from taking the piano with Dee Dee’s band, the call went out to Fortner to come aboard a week early. Now, that was a perfect phone call.

Dee Dee

It seems there is only one vocalist to attain the following trifecta: win a Grammy (three, actually), win a Tony, and become a National Endowment of the Arts Jazz Master. In truth, these are but three of a long list of accolades for Dee Dee Bridgewater. More impressive than the number of her achievements and awards, though, is their breadth. At 72, Dee Dee remains in her lengthy prime, a force of nature.

Known primarily as a Jazz singer, Bridgewater has also had successful forays into pop, R&B, acting, and philanthropy. In short, she does well and does good in virtually anything she undertakes. As a result, anyone about to see Dee Dee Bridgewater can be sure a treat is in store, with little idea what treat it will be. As a headliner on 2018’s Blue Note At Sea, for example, she did a concert of songs associated with her birthplace, from her 2017 album Memphis…Yes, I’m Ready.

Moments into her concert on this year’s Jazz Cruise, after thanking Fortner for taking the gig on such short notice, Dee Dee announced that she would be doing an entire set of Billie Holiday.

For many singers, this could be problematic. Taking on the music of the inimitable icon tempts lesser talents to make one of two mistakes: either try to imitate Lady Day or ignore her altogether in doing lame versions of her stuff. Adding to the potential for trouble was the timing: the show was just a few hours after the ship set sail on day 1, and immediately after the big Welcome Concert in which headliners participated. Bridgewater and Fortner may not have had a chance to say “hello”, much less rehearse.

This being a savvy crowd, however, there were no muffled groans, but rather murmured excitement, coming from the audience. Many undoubtedly were aware of Bridgewater’s celebrated portrayals of Billie in Lady Day in 1987 and 2014 and her 2010 Grammy for Eleonora Fagan: To Billie With Love. Sure enough, those lucky enough to be there soon witnessed the special magic that only Jazz can provide.

The Concert

Dee Dee did what masters do. She was her gifted self, but captured the spirit of Billie – wisdom drawn from painful experience, joy where salvageable, and the essence of the blues regardless of song form – without delving into imitation.

Thus, the evoking of a revered influence inspired Dee Dee to be a special version of herself. Any young musicians in attendance, and not just singers, could hardly miss the point; this is how the art form evolves and grows. Meanwhile, there was transcendent piano accompaniment, from the first note through the last. Drawing on his unique combination of virtuosity, taste, and command of Jazz piano history from Harlem stride through swing, bop and beyond, Fortner had something better than perfect at every turn.

By “perfect” here we mean standard classy comping, flawlessly executed. Sullivan went beyond that. The expected was nowhere to be heard. Whether weaving lines underneath the vocals, punctuating with phrases or individual notes, or soloing at Dee Dee’s nodded invitation, Fortner delivered sublime creations. They were better than the expected because they enhanced what a superb singer was creating, right there and then.

None of this was showing off. Everything was in service to the music, to the song in the moment, and to what Dee Dee was achieving – musically and emotionally. It wasn’t long before the two of them were luxuriating in each other’s brilliance, instantly and seamlessly responding to fresh ideas. It is in this rarefied air that real magic happens. In the one-hour set there were moments that took listeners’ breath away, from the understated hurt/anger of “Don’t Explain” to the ironic humor praising those stripes that are really yellow in “Fine and Mellow”.

Sullivan Fortner (p) and Cecile McLorin Salvant (v), Blue Note At Sea 1/16/23

Cecile

There is an exciting wave of remarkably gifted young (20s through mid-30s) singers making their mark in the music these days. Among those wowing audiences and listeners all over are Jazzmeia Horn, Veronica Swift, and Samara Joy (who lived up to her last name on this year’s Jazz Cruise). Leading the way, arguably, is Cecile McLorin Salvant.

Eclecticism comes naturally to Cecile. Born in Miami into both French and Haitian heritage, she studied classical piano and voice starting very young. Her household featured all genres of music. Extensive formal study in both France and the US included a move to Darius Milhaud Conservatory in Aix-en-Provence at age 18. Cecile was 21 when she won the Thelonious Monk International Jazz Competition for vocalists. Her second album, WomanChild, was Jazz Album of the Year in the 2014 Downbeat Critics Poll; it’s been a steady stream of critical acclaim for Salvant ever since.

Hers is a rare instrument, a voice with rich lows and ethereal highs. This tempts comparisons to Sarah and Ella, but her harmonic risk-taking brings to mind my favorite vocal explorer, Betty Carter. The thrill of seeing Carter had much to do with her use of dissonance, unexpected key shifts and other devices that left the listener wondering, “How is she ever going to get out of this one?” Then she would resolve everything brilliantly, of course; you imagined her winking at you.

When Cecile takes on a standard, she probes aspects seldom previously explored. Her other two sources of material, generally, are her own compositions and obscure songs from every realm, especially show tunes and folk songs from anywhere. If she launches into something unfamiliar, an initial impression from esoteric, dated or quirky lyrics can be that the piece’s obscurity was well earned. It isn’t long, however, before Salvant injects pain, humor, wisdom, irony, or other slices of humanity with an unexpected phrasing, bent note, or key change. Wonder quickly replaces skepticism for the listener paying attention.

Taking In the Set

Cecile does not so much sing a song as become its protagonist. She inhabits a song while performing it. Perhaps that’s why her interludes between selections can be a bit longer, and her exchanges with Fortner more substantive, than typically heard between singer and accompanist. She’s coming down from one role and taking on another.

Theirs was a true collaboration, as it always is, with exchanges both playful and knowing. One gets the feeling that Cecile and Sullivan take sly joy in proposing to each other songs to perform. Once one of them starts, however, they’re all business in creating something special with the piece.

There is something else that makes Salvant and Fortner an intriguing pairing. Each of them is on the artistic journey of discerning exactly what to do with their prodigious talents and how to utilize their limitless resources. Delights await those who search the Internet for their two names together. Imagine what’s to come.

Sullivan

Then there’s hearing Sullivan Fortner when he’s not accompanying, but leading, at the piano – whether alone, in a larger group, or leading a trio. We did, several times between the two cruises. Tellingly, so did a number of other pianists. One of the pleasures of being on a Jazz cruise is seeing the kick great musicians get out of listening to each other, as many of them do.

When Sullivan was playing in one of the ship’s venues, it seemed any pianist on board not playing elsewhere was there. The delight on their faces validated what I was feeling, and reflected an artist’s appreciation more profound than anything I could muster. (At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuUUoMsRXTU, one can see him leading a trio in concert.)

In the pantheon of history’s pianists, one who does not always appear as high up on the lists as he deserves is Jaki Byard (1922-1999). One of the joys of seeing or hearing Byard was the command he had of virtually everything that had preceded him on the instrument right through the current cutting edge. Byard employed just about all of it on many of his wondrous solos with the great band Charles Mingus brought to Europe in 1964 (Eric Dolphy, Clifford Jordan, Johnny Coles, Byard, Mingus and Dannie Richmond). See in particular the versions of the masterpiece “Meditations on Integration” available from that tour. At only 36, Fortner seems intent on bringing similar mastery through the 21st Century.

How does one so young acquire such musical resources? An interview of Fortner by another astounding young pianist on both cruises, Emmet Cohen, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTzH0QffiU) provides a hint, starting around the 19-minute mark. In going over Fortner’s musical upbringing in the church, Cohen has Fortner tell the story of how as a kid, he’d be handed a cassette of a new piece, listen to it once and “have it”. He had it not just for that day’s service but for years to come, and not just the piano part but what the altos and tenors in the choir were singing.

Emmet Cohen describes realizing “Wow, this is a different kind of mind that Sullivan has, to be able to channel everything he’s ever heard into something he can express through his fingers…this guy thinks differently than anyone I’ve ever encountered.”

Indeed.

Appreciation

Generational talents of different generations (Dee Dee and Sullivan) and the same (Cecile and Sullivan) collaborated to create something truly special. In our two weeks of jazz cruising, they were hardly alone. It was, like Jazz itself, an embarrassment of riches, from and for all generations.

Recall a time when you had a really good idea, nobody squashed it, you brought it to fruition, and it worked. How did that feel?

Somewhere, right now, an unknown fourteen (or thirty, or seventy) year-old is working on something exciting that peers and even teachers may consider wrong, silly or crazy. Maybe that idea changes everything. Maybe the idea is in a setting other than music.

Happy Jazz Appreciation Month. What we celebrate is the music, of course, but it’s also the daring to be creative, to be open to all that is possible as human beings.

Ken Bossong

© 2023 Kenneth J. Bossong

Reflection on True Greatness – Roberto Clemente

On New Year’s Day fifty years ago, I heard the news – and wept.

The greatest right fielder I’ve ever seen had died the night before. It was on a characteristic mission of mercy, personally delivering a plane load of supplies to earthquake victims in Nicaragua. The plane carrying Roberto Clemente, four other people, and the much-needed food and medical supplies had crashed into the sea not long after takeoff in San Juan.

In one awful moment, wife Vera was widowed with three young sons, the relief was scuttled, the Pirates lost a franchise icon, and the groundbreaking Latin American superstar shockingly was gone.

The Greatest Right Fielder?

Calling anyone the greatest anything in sports is asking for an argument, but twelve consecutive gold gloves makes the statement above no mere hyperbole. Simply put, baseball’s best right fielders have known comparisons to Clemente were inevitable ever since he set the standard. Indeed, other than Willie Mays in center, Roberto was the best outfielder I’ve seen.

His range and glove were remarkable, but his throwing arm – what an arm! – made him incomparable. Woe to anyone looking to advance from first to third on a single to right. Baserunners thinking they had it made were greeted by a third baseman with a smile on his face and a baseball in his glove. Fans who got to see the speed and trajectory of the ball’s path getting to third could scarcely believe their eyes. Seeing such a laser-beam strike thrown that far, that fast, and that accurately was one of sports’ real thrills.

Oh, and batters who managed to hit a shot to the corner that Clemente couldn’t catch needed to settle for a double, if that – and hustle to second base. Triples to right were rare against the Pirates.

That Wasn’t All

Roberto Clemente was special when the Pirates were up, too. Hitting, hitting for power, and taking extra bases he made impossible for opponents: he was a complete package.

Baseball lends itself to statistics like few other sports. Clemente’s are readily available. Let’s just mention a few with some other fun facts. With a lifetime batting average of .317, it’s hardly surprising that he hit over .300 thirteen times and won four batting titles. With his last at bat, on September 30, 1972, Clemente hit a double and became the eleventh player ever to reach 3000 hits.

He hit to all fields and not just singles; his extra base hits included 440 doubles, 166 triples and 240 home runs. Pitchers not wanting him to be the one to beat them with a timely hit had to be very careful; Clemente was one of the best bad-ball hitters ever.

He is the only player to hit a walk-off, inside-the-park, grand slam.

At 38 when he died, Clemente was presumably no longer in his prime. His last four batting averages, though, were .345, .352, .341, and .312. He had led the Pirates to a World Series title as MVP in 1971. While injuries were hindering him more regularly, it is reasonable to assume he have had another good year or two in him.

The mind boggles at what he might have accomplished after playing. While developing into one of the greatest ball players ever, Roberto was also a tireless humanitarian.

Beyond The Stats

Clemente seemingly did everything with a rare combination of grace, passion and elegance. That wasn’t limited to the field of play. His heavily-accented English led to considerable derision, especially in the early years, and his insistence on speaking up for himself and other Latin American players had him labeled as moody and worse by some. I can picture one baseball card I had of him, wondering even as a kid “What is this? Bob Clemente?!”

Yet, his impact ended up being similar to that of Jackie Robinson for African American players in the Major Leagues.

The Major League award given annually to the player who “best represents the game of Baseball through extraordinary character, community involvement, philanthropy and positive contributions, both on and off the field” is the Roberto Clemente Award. Recipients consider it the achievement of a lifetime. Those who knew its namesake tell of extraordinary acts of kindness and charity done on the condition of no publicity.

The fatally overloaded plane was the fourth Clemente had sent to Nicaragua after the quake killed and injured thousands and left hundreds of thousands homeless. It was the first of the planes he boarded. Apparently, he wanted to ensure personally that supplies got to the victims rather than being taken by corrupt officials.

A grief-stricken sport waived its rule that a player not be eligible for the Hall of Fame until five years passed after he’d last played. (The only other time was for Lou Gehrig.) Clemente was enshrined in 1973. One of his three sons, Roberto, Jr., has told of how often people have approached him over the years to say what his father meant to them. Thus he finds himself consoling strangers over the death of the dad he lost when he was seven years old.

Fifty Years Later

As a people, we sometimes choose our heroes poorly. Here, on the other hand, is one for the ages. In his own way, he taught that it really is okay to seek and attain rare excellence and to do real good – the right way and for the best reasons. On the day he got that 3000th hit, Clemente told a writer “I never was a big shot and I never will be a big shot.”

Perhaps, but if we’re smart, he’ll serve as an iconic role model well beyond his beloved Puerto Rico.

Ken Bossong

© 2023 Kenneth J. Bossong

“Joe Biden’s Inflation” – and Other Idiocy

Election Day marks the merciful end of a silly season in the US that starts around Labor Day. It’s a time when we watch television at our mental-health peril. The years of presidential elections are the worst; mid-terms, like 2022, are the next worst.

Bombarded with screeched messages, we develop coping mechanisms. We may wear out the “mute” button , or record everything on a DVR to fast forward through political ads. Perhaps we simply try to tune out most of the noise. Unless we stop watching or listening altogether, though, some particularly obnoxious idiocy breaks through to our beleaguered consciousness.

For me, the worst has been the notion that we’re experiencing “Joe Biden’s inflation”.

Too Much Credit or Blame

Let’s start with a fairly obvious general point: Presidents usually get too much credit for good current economies and too much blame for bad ones. Determinants of the state of an economy are numerous and complex. Policies emanating from a president vie with those from other forces, especially the markets and Congress.  Those market forces at work are increasingly international in scope. Any big event anywhere affects everything, everywhere.

While it’s not impossible for an announced policy to have some immediate impact on the economy, it takes months and even years for most initiatives to move the economic needle significantly.

In this case, the foolishness of “Joe Biden’s inflation” goes well beyond merely overstating a president’s immediate impact on the current economy, however. The reasons could hardly be clearer; there are two major factors and two subtler ones, in place before the major factors, that set the table for inevitable inflation, or worse.

Obvious Cause #1: Covid-19

In General

Who thought we were going to get out of the worst pandemic in a hundred years without significant inflation, at the very least? Preventing financial collapse was the goal; inflation was inevitable. (As an aside, complaints about stimulus programs are rich, aren’t they? First, almost everyone supported them and lined up to take credit. New designs were required when a certain president’s name had to appear on the check. It wasn’t Biden’s. Second, stimulus checks deserved support. Third, the notion of Biden’s predecessor being a financially responsible conservative is hilarious.)

Consider fuel as one example. (It’s the best single factor to discuss because it affects the price of everything, like food, it is used to transport.) One of the very few advantages of the pandemic was that traffic disappeared overnight. There was no such thing as rush hour. Anyone with a reason to drive reached their destination in record time. Millions discovered stars in their night sky.

With the collapse of demand for fuel, prices dropped. Producers had to cut back production dramatically to avoid ruin. Emerging from the crisis brought not only restoration of more normal demand, but also two to three years of pent-up demand. Ramping up production involves far more than flipping a switch. Such high demand and low supply meant prices could do nothing but skyrocket.

As prices begin to settle back down, in fits and starts, should that be attributed to Joe Biden’s taming of inflation? If so, we’ll be re-assessing that every minute as the market for crude shifts. In a recent trip through parts of Europe, gas ranged from 1.90 to 2.20 Euros/liter. That’s $7.18 to $8.32 per gallon. Boy, that Joe Biden has enormous influence on global markets! Since it’s up again since I got home, it’s undoubtedly higher yet in Europe.

An intelligent discussion on the merits of Biden’s action on the Keystone Pipeline is possible, if anyone is interested, but it had nothing to do with the prices we’ve been paying at the pumps.

Handling of the Pandemic

First there was portrayal of Covid as a liberal hoax. When its existence became undeniable, next came denial of its severity – just another flu, if that. Keeping a safe distance was for sissies, even though experts had determined that the virus spread by people breathing on one another. It was somehow unpatriotic (?!) to wear a mask. Doing so to protect others was for losers.

In The Infodemic (Columbia Global Reports, 2022), Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney examine the ruinous approaches to Covid employed in two groupings of countries. The subtitle serves as a summary: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free. The first group was of authoritarian states like China, Iran and Russia, where censorship of truth is a blunt instrument. Those telling the truth about the virus were silenced by any means necessary.

In the second grouping, referred to as populist-led democracies, the authors say “governments relied on a more sophisticated and increasingly effective means of censorship, drowning the truth in a sea of lies.” (11) This they dub “censorship by noise”. Thus, “alongside the Covid-19 pandemic, there was an infodemic, a deluge of lies, distortions and bungled communication that obliterated the truth”, (10) with catastrophic consequences for public health and genuine freedom.

The three countries in the group of democracies whose similarly terrible handling of the crisis is described in detail are Bolsonaro’s Brazil, PM Modi’s India, and Trump’s USA. While aspects of Brazil and America’s responses were so similar as to suggest some coordination between Trump and Bolsonaro (sloughing off responsibility to more local officials being one example), some of the most bizarre behavior of any of the three countries came out of the White House. Historical analysis of American behavior for the years 2016 – 2020 will place us in relentlessly unflattering company.

Why Handle a Pandemic So Badly?

Donald Trump always knew he could not beat Joe Biden in a fair election in 2020, and behaved accordingly. That’s why he was so furious with Elizabeth Warren for not bowing out earlier (after disappointing primary showings), and throwing her support to Bernie Sanders. Trump believed he had a chance to beat Sanders.

Similarly, Trump was at his projecting best when he declared so long before the election that someone would try to rig or steal it. He knew that because he was planning to rig or steal the election. Step one was to declare victory early election evening. He went ballistic when thwarted by Fox News correctly projecting Arizona for Biden.

To have any chance against Biden, Trump knew he had to have an economy going gangbusters. So, he tried to deny the virus away, then minimize it. Then he was desperate to push ridiculous miracle cures. He ordered a hundred million doses of the vaccine while it was being developed, considering it his chance at re-election. He lost all interest in vaccination when clear it would not be ready before the election, other than getting it quietly for himself.

Some of the most heartbreaking stories from the whole ordeal were from caregivers relating how patients used their dying breaths to deny the existence of the virus that killed them.

Obvious Cause #2: Putin’s murderous rampage in Ukraine

It’s often called a “war”, but, as conducted by Vladimir Putin, it seems more a series of war crimes. While Putin devises ways to kill civilians with the evident hope of persuading them to give up, it becomes more evident that most Ukrainians would rather die than re-subjugate themselves to Russia. Meanwhile, the lack of enthusiasm Russian soldiers exhibit for the conflict seems understandable.

In any event, the economic effect is to lessen or negate each country’s participation in various global markets. Either or both are major players in a number of important markets – from oil, to wheat, to neon. (Europeans are wondering how they’ll stay warm this winter.)That last one, neon, is interesting. Ukraine is, or was, the world’s largest supplier: 70% of neon gas and 90% of highly purified semiconductor-grade neon used in chip production. Guess what happens to prices when supply of oil, wheat, neon and other essentials goes down suddenly and drastically.

Now, there actually is a president who spent every day in office giving aid, support and encouragement to Vladimir Putin’s every interest in the world. At the top of that list was destruction of NATO. Putin’s fondest aspiration is to be The One who restores Russia to its USSR glory, at least. The Mueller Report documents in exquisite detail the extraordinary lengths Putin’s Russia went in support of Trump’s 2016 bid for the White House. No effort or expense was spared.

Meanwhile, amid the chaos of American policy for those years, the one objective Trump worked on effectively and consistently was the evisceration of NATO, which had managed to keep peace in Europe since the last World War. Not a day went by, seemingly, without doing something to further alienate one or more of our allies. The traitorous quid pro quo could not be clearer.

The American electorate scuttled Vladimir and Donald’s plans in 2020, leaving Putin to do it the hard way. Startled, and perhaps a bit unnerved, by the speed and effectiveness with which Biden was resurrecting NATO and re-establishing America’s stature in the world, Putin invaded. Disastrously. The results are death, destruction, and yes, massively inflationary market disruptions – all done with the fawning approval of Donald Trump for his favorite “genius”.

The Inflation Table Was Already Set – Tariffs and Worker Shortage

Having written about this before, and cited the full-blown analysis available in the December 2019 edition of Fortune magazine (“Why Trump Is Bad For Business”), we’ll keep this relatively brief. Before anyone had ever heard of Covid-19, there were clear signs the economy was headed for trouble due to two flawed policies.

The irony is that Covid might have provided cover for these missteps, by taking the blame for a broken economy. An honest and competent attempt by an average president to encourage people to distance themselves sensibly and mask up would have gotten us to the vaccines in much better shape. Then, vaccines and boosters taken by all (other than the hard core 1-2% anti-vaxxers) would have provided finishing touches on a course that saved hundreds of thousands of lives and greatly lessened the economic impact.

It’s doubtful that such an approach would even occur to Donald Trump.

Trump’s Tariff War With China

As many have said, “Somebody had to do something about China.” Yep, somebody did, and still does. That something is not a tariff war. What’s needed is something tied to China’s piracy of intellectual property.

Tariff wars serve mainly to increase prices across the board to consumers. To the buyers of raw materials and finished goods, tariffs function very much like an enormous sales tax. It’s not impossible but it is rare for tariffs to help a US manufacturer or industry, or to hurt a Chinese competitor. More often, tariffs hurt more American companies than they help.

And, by the way: so cowed was China by this “getting tough” with them that they became more belligerent regarding Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the entire Pacific.

Trump’s Immigration Policies Choked Off Supply of Labor

Because he has employed so many of them over so many years, Donald Trump knows better than most that immigrant workers are as likely as anyone to work hard and behave well.  The “murderers and rapists” nonsense is the red meat upon which his base feeds, however. So, people seeking asylum are “illegals”. Immigrants are taking all these jobs from our college kids who were hoping to pick turnips in the hot sun all summer. And so forth.

The truth is that the number one thing holding back our economy is a lack of workers across the board. Help Wanted signs are everywhere. The labor shortage is a double whammy; not only is it stifling growth, but it’s also raising prices. Scarce workers cost more, obviously.

Meanwhile, we still await serious discussion, by adults, of whatever changes are needed to develop immigration policies we believe in enough to enforce.

In Short

There was a president who made the inflation we’re facing longer lasting and more severe than it had to be. It isn’t Joe Biden.

Other Idiocy

Out of all the other harmful and dangerous idiocy out there, let’s briefly address one more: Election denial.

I’ve seen estimates that over half of Republican candidates for office across the country in 2022 are election deniers, and that about 60% of American voters will have an election denier on the ballot. Recognizing there can be some divergence in how the term is defined, the point here is not to get mired in definitional disputes or statistics.

The point is that support for the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump should be disqualifying from holding public office for any candidate by reasonable voters of any political persuasion. Yet an incredible number of such candidates are on the ballot.

There has never been any basis for such a belief. For those with lingering doubts, despite the loss of 64 cases and the absence of any evidence, there is Lost, Not Stolen (https://lostnotstolen.org/). A group of leading, life-long conservative Republicans produced this exhaustive, documented study of all the baseless allegations of a stolen election one might hear. They categorically obliterate every argument made about the results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They conclude: “In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct.”

Anyone arguing the 2020 election was stolen at this point is either (1) psychotic; (2) truly stupid; or (3) simply lying.

Let’s be clear on what’s at stake here. In many US jurisdictions, there are a number of Republicans hard at work to change the outcome the next time Donald Trump, or someone of his ilk, makes the call he made to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger. In response to “Find me 11,780 votes!” they don’t want to hear “That’s not how we do things in America.” No, they want to ensure the answer next time is “Sure. In fact we’ll ‘find’ a few extra hundred to make it look better.”

Conclusion

I yearn for the good old days when “liberals” and “conservatives” argued about taxes, too much vs. too little regulation, big government vs. small, and the like. Indeed, I miss the day when one could have any discussion on the merits.

The argument now is whether basic American principles like checks and balances, the rule of law, and free and fair elections are worth preserving. Not content with “mere” voter suppression and grotesque gerrymandering, some now have voter nullification as the goal.

In a saner time, it would be safe to assume that anti-democracy, un-American cretins would be routed off to political oblivion. How we vote today, and perhaps in the next election or two, will determine whether our votes will continue to matter.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

Fred Below: A Cut Above
Other Aspects’ Second Zebedee Award Goes To The Great Blues Drummer

A Lesson From “One of Those Records”

Music lovers tend to have different kinds of special recordings they cherish. There are those we consider “the greatest”, or “the most important”, or simply a “favorite” in various genres.

Then there’s another odd little group of recordings. These are ones we don’t consider among the greatest, most important, or favorite; we just play them. A lot. It’s a peculiar phenomenon, and it happens to me: songs and albums I’d never include on a top ten list, yet find myself playing more often than many I would.

One of those records is a 1969 vinyl called Electric Blues “Chicago Style” (Buddah Records BDS 7511). It’s a compilation of singles issued by Blues artists a tier lower in fame than the BB Kings and Muddy Waters of the world: Floyd Jones, Billy Boy Arnold, Snooky Pryor, and Eddie Taylor. At first, I assumed I played it often simply because of the tough, straight-ahead, no-nonsense urban blues in its grooves.

Then I realized that when I replayed individual tracks they tended to be Billy Boy Arnold’s. Why the cuts on Side 2 especially? Arnold’s vocals and harmonica were marvelous across the board, but I finally noticed there was one track I wanted to hear over and over – very unusual for me. So, I decided finally to actually listen to “My Heart Is Crying” to figure out why.

Mystery Solved

Seconds in, I knew; it was obvious. The drummer was the incomparable Fred Below. The beat was an irresistible shuffle, compellingly driving Arnold and the rest of the band to expressive heights. It wasn’t just the beat, though. Accents and virtuosic little fills perfectly placed in non-obvious places lent texture and nuance to every measure. The drummers on the album’s other tracks range from fine to quite good, but there was only one Fred Below.

This little light-bulb moment epitomizes why Fred is a suitable choice for our second Zebedee Award. The award gets its name from the first recipient, singer and master guitarist Earl Zebedee Hooker. (See post of 12/27/20.) The point is to honor musicians unknown to many who should be national heroes. I can’t live long enough to get to them all.

With apologies to Jump Jackson, Elgin Evans, Odie Payne, Bill Stepney, S. P. Leary, Clifton James, Earl Phillips, Sam Lay, Willie “Big Eyes” Smith, and others, Fred Below set the standard for Blues drumming.

Brief Bio

Fred Below was born (September 16, 1926), raised, and died (August 14, 1988) in Chicago. Thus, he was one of the few major figures in the birth of urban blues who was not part of the great migration north from the Mississippi Delta or Texas. Following high school and study at the Roy C. Knapp School of Percussion, Below served in the Army, playing for the 427th Army Band.

Fred came to the Blues by way of Jazz training and playing. Before and during his service he got to meet, learn from, and play with any number of Jazz greats. Arriving back home in Chicago from his Army stint, Fred found a burgeoning Blues scene in the early ‘Fifties that dwarfed anything happening in Jazz.

While Fred had to adjust to the nuanced requirements of blues drumming, he would find the virtuosic skills developed while steeping himself in both swing and bebop serving him well the rest of his life. Specifically, his use of the entire drum set – tom-toms, all the cymbals, blocks, rims, bass drum, and so forth – and sophisticated use of elegant rhythms and poly-rhythms made him highly desirable just as the masters (Muddy, Wolf, Walter, Sonny Boy, etc.) were creating the framework for urban blues and all that followed.

Starter Kit for Listeners

Fred Below has an enormous discography. It’s difficult to think of a major figure in the first several decades of Chicago blues with whom Below did not play and record. The house drummer for Leonard and Phil Chess (Chess, Checker and Argo record labels), Fred propels any number of landmark urban blues records. It’s tempting to say, most of them.

Any exploring you do will be amply rewarded. Allow me to get you started.

Audio

Not just the founding fathers of city blues, but also the then-rising generation benefited from collaborating with Fred. A perfect example is Buddy Guy’s early singles on Chess. All are recommended, especially “The First Time I Met the Blues” in which Buddy’s explosive new attack paired perfectly with the thunder provided by Below’s drums. Here’s a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exutWZUTl44

Guy’s first album was on Vanguard. A Man and the Blues is special for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the personnel. The quartet consisted of Buddy on guitar and vocal, Otis Spann on piano, Jack Myers on electric bass, and Fred. Remarkably, each of the four gets my vote as the greatest in Blues history on his instrument. They play like it throughout, but there is a special treat.

The version of Big Maceo’s “One Room Country Shack” is simply exquisite. Maceo was one of Spann’s favorite influences, and he is really feeling it here. The interplay of the four with Buddy’s best recorded vocal is extraordinary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEiBlzrwxh0
Holding it all together is Fred’s sublime brushwork. When was the last time someone recommended a Blues cut to you for the drummer’s brushwork?

A previous post (5/10/2020) described Buddy and Junior Wells as one of music’s “dynamic duos”.  Junior’s album on Vanguard It’s My Life, Baby features Buddy, Fred, and Jack Myers behind Junior on harmonica and vocals. If you want to hear Blues virtuosos play Jazz, do the title track. On one special cut, though, “Look How Baby”, Buddy’s guitar solo turns into a freely-improvised duet with Fred’s drums. Only half-jokingly I’ve referred to this as Avant-garde blues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxwI53XRP5o
No one but Fred and Buddy, with Jack Myers, could have done this. Almost as noteworthy is the restraint of Junior Wells – not always as generous sharing the spotlight – in having them stretch out to this extent.

Video

Luckily, there is also some video.  Here, Fred (with Jack Myers again on bass) backs the great Otis Rush in Europe in a stunning version of “I Can’t Quit You, Baby”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2tEP3I3DM&list=RDtMMjurLqYJQ&index=1

Fred’s regular gig was with The Aces. When brothers Louis Myers on guitar and Dave Myers on bass took on Below as the drummer, they indeed became the Aces, the most sought-after rhythm section in Chicago. Little Walter made the Aces his band after he left Muddy Waters to become a star in his own right, with remarkable success. (Sometimes they called themselves the Jukes, after Walter’s classic hit instrumental.) Everyone wanted to play with them.

Here the Aces back another underrated hero, Eddie Taylor, lead guitarist on all of Jimmy Reed’s hits but a monster in his own right. This is rare footage of Eddie as a leader: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrUb4N37RU&list=RDtMMjurLqYJQ&index=5

An unusually good view of Fred in action is also with the Aces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5m7Dve4ibo

One last treat for now – exploring YouTube further yields great rewards – is this video of Fred, Buddy and pianist Eddie Boyd backing Big Mama Thornton on “Hound Dog”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvbSXVc451Q

Not Just the Blues

The records that guaranteed rock ‘n’ roll was not going to be just another passing trend in American pop music were Chuck Berry’s on Chess. These anthems of rock, “Johnny B Goode”, “School Days”, “Roll Over Beethoven”, “Rock and Roll Music”, “Sweet Little Sixteen”, et al, established both the guitar as THE instrument of Rock and the beat that would rule. Fred Below was the drummer.

Another early R’n’R guitar master was almost as famous for his “Bo Diddley beat” as his guitar licks. Fred was not the drummer on most of Bo’s hits; Clifton James was. James cited Below as a top influence, however, and Fred claimed a significant role in creating the iconic beat (https://scottkfish.com/2016/03/09/fred-below-the-beatles-wouldnt-have-been-the-beatles/).

When he wasn’t driving the greatest blues bands or rock innovators in the world, Below drummed for artists as diverse as Dinah Washington, the Moonglows (yes, he’s the drummer on “Sincerely”), and the Platters.

Summing Up

For decades, when dancers on American Bandstand rated a record, that single was headed to a high score if “It had a great beat” and “I could dance to it”. Suffice it to say that Fred Below had a lot to do with what “a great beat” was in American popular music.

Drummers were my entre into Jazz (in order of my becoming aware: Gene Krupa, Buddy Rich, Sonny Payne, Max Roach, Art Blakey, Elvin Jones, and Philly Joe Jones). Not so, Blues. For me, like most, it was singer-guitarists at first, then pianists and harmonica players. Instances of real listening, as described at the top of this post, brought appreciation for great drumming in Blues.

With space my senior year at Rutgers for an elective, I took bassist Larry Ridley’s superb course on the History of Jazz. One of the most memorable classes was given by guest master drummer Philly Joe Jones. PJ sat on stage at his drum set, explaining and demonstrating the rhythms of world music through 20th Century American popular music. I’ve never learned more on any topic in one one-hour session in my life. Interestingly, he had a kind word for Rock.

“It’s easy to look down on Rock, musically,” he said, “but actually the real Rock ‘n’ Roll beat, done right, is intricate and compelling. It’s derived from the Blues’ shuffle rhythm [demonstrating] and not easy to do, either” [transitioning into rock ’n’ roll]”. No one in the class could sit still as one of the greatest Jazz drummers went back and forth between Fred Below’s Blues and Fred Below’s Rock – and that’s exactly what PJ was doing to epitomize each.

The timing couldn’t have been better for me, to reinforce what I had recently realized about the difference a Fred Below (or a Jack Myers on bass) can make. The least I can do is share the notion.

Enjoy.

***********************************************************

Another Other Aspect: Grachan Moncur III

The main focus here is to honor Fred Below.

I’d be remiss, however, not to mark the passing of Grachan Moncur III on his 85th birthday, this past June 3. He was my “other favorite” trombonist. Not coincidentally, and more importantly, he was tenor sax great Archie Shepp’s other favorite trombonist.

I had paid little attention to the instrument until I first heard Shepp’s first album as a leader, Four For Trane. Featured throughout was the robust playing and imaginative arranging of Roswell Rudd. Wow. Then I discovered my second favorite Shepp album, The Way Ahead. It was my introduction to Moncur, and from then to now I’d be hard pressed to choose between Rudd and Moncur – not that there’s any need to do so. Here’s “Fiesta” from the album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4rkRpaA63Y

As a sideman, Moncur did stellar work not only for Archie Shepp, but for other notables, especially alto great Jackie McLean.

Grachan’s writing and arranging take center stage in two albums as a leader of all-star ensembles: Evolution on Blue Note (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hIqmji2wlY)and New Africa on BYG. A standout on the latter is “When” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aN5VTUUsQ8), a remarkable 12-minute performance featuring one of Shepp’s greatest solos on record.

RIP, Grachan Moncur III. Again, if you can find the time to explore this music, you’ll be glad you did.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

Live Hearings: Must-See TV

“January 6” has become a date that needs no reference, like “9/11”. Writers and speakers need provide neither the year nor further explanation to convey what’s being addressed. Events too awful to watch and too momentous not to watch tend to have that effect on audiences.

All sentient Americans, regardless of political persuasion, should be glued similarly to televisions starting tonight. Indeed, it is both more important and more compelling than gazing at spectacle to discover what’s been learned through careful study of events leading up to, during, and since 1/6/21.

The Hearings

Aired live starting tonight, 8 – 10 p.m. (Eastern Time) on networks with at least a modicum of interest in something resembling news, are hearings conducted by the US House of Representatives committee charged with investigating the attack on the Capitol.

The American public is owed no less than a thorough, careful investigation and comprehensive report. That reporting aspect begins in earnest tonight. Citizens and taxpayers paying public servants to mind the store will be wise to watch.

Talk about reality TV.

Yes, This Is a Big Deal

If we learn nothing else, it should become evident why certain individuals did not want this investigated at all. Think about that: the Capitol of the United States is attacked by a large, violent mob while Congress is doing official business and they DON’T want to investigate.

They also really don’t want you to watch these hearings. They know they have much to fear from the truth coming out, and self-interest is paramount. Such individuals disqualify themselves from the honor of public service. If they remain in office, or regain office, that will be our fault.

I’m no fan of conspiracy theories in general, but any notion that this attack was all there was to it, no more than a spontaneous eruption of overzealous support for the candidate who summoned them, is preposterous on its face – as criminal as that behavior was. The day and timing chosen for the attack tell you all you need to know about the planners’ intentions (a car was even provided to whisk Mike Pence away) although their grasp of the Constitution was infantile.

There are a lot of dots to connect here. If the picture that comes into focus is that of 800 rioters arrested so far actually being the least of our concerns, very significant indictments better be on their way. If not, the next coup attempt, while just as evil, might be smarter. Not that this one is over, yet.

This Is the Chance

“Just give me the facts!” is a common refrain directed at the media. “Don’t tell me what to think, or how to feel. I am so sick of spin, and worse. Report; tell me truthfully what happened. Go where I can’t go, dig out the facts, and give them to me straight. I’ll take it from there.”

For all who lament the state of modern journalism, this is your/our chance: Watch live (or record and watch later) every minute of these January 6 hearings. Skip, mute, or record for later, all the talking-head commentary that networks provide before, during breaks, and after the hearings. Listen, consider, and decide for yourself: What really happened here? What is credible, what isn’t, and why?

What is the big picture that emerges? Is there a big picture? If a compelling take on what has happened seems irrefutable, what does that series of conclusions mean for what is happening now in our country? What should happen going forward?

Then, if you feel like it, listen to others’ commentary.

If nothing else, and perhaps best of all: Watching carefully will enable a discussion on the merits about where we are with our republic, and what we can do to keep it. Imagine that.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

Still Pondering Black History Month, 2022
(A White Guy’s Reflections)

A blizzard of thoughts and feelings accompanied this year’s Black History Month – before, during, and ever since. I’ve long had a love/hate relationship with Black History Month, anyway.

What I Love

I love learning of special people I’ve never heard of before and their remarkable ideas, exploits, and inventions.

I love having new heroes from hearing their stories of overcoming immense obstacles of hardship and hate.

In late January, a friend delightedly said he had seen John Coltrane’s A Love Supreme and an album by Sam Cooke on display in a Target store. It was, of course, for Black History Month. I love seeing overdue celebration for the deserving, with the chance it brings of enriching more lives.

Far more invitations to speak about the music I have studied and particularly love, Jazz and Blues, have come my way in February over the years. Giving this great music the presentation it deserves is immensely gratifying.

What I Hate

I hate the fact that I’d never before heard of those special people and their remarkable ideas, exploits, and inventions.

I abhor the hardship and the hate these new-to-me heroes had to overcome. Why they faced obstacles of hardship and hate is even worse.

My one visit to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland was in mid-2017. I did not begrudge the enormous roomfuls of stuff expected for Elvis, the Beatles, and the Stones. (The huge, comprehensive, albeit temporary, display for John Mellencamp was a bit surprising, though.)

What I dreaded was what I’d find for Chuck Berry. Sure enough, the visitor got to see a guitar or two, a jacket or two, some pics, a nice plaque. Easy to miss was one of the best things in the museum: a piece of paper containing the lyrics to “School Days” in Chuck’s handwriting. Berry’s exhibit was lumped in with similarly underplayed tributes to Bo Diddley, Fats Domino and Little Richard in a section for early contributors.

It was infuriating, especially shortly after Chuck Berry’s death, which should have converted the place into a shrine for the music’s most important founder.  

I hate it when I hear a white person sneer, “When’s it gonna be White History Month?” Admittedly, it does make me chuckle thinking of the time I asked my mother on Mother’s Day, “When is Kids’ Day?” Bet you got the same answer if you asked your parents that question: “EVERY day is Kids’ Day.”

In short, I love Black History Month, and hate that it’s still necessary.

The Bad Stuff

At least as unfortunate as leaving significant contributions by African Americans out of American History is hiding so much awful stuff that has happened to them. The result is a number of Whites who seem not to grasp where we really are, and how we got here. Aggrieved they are, to be hearing about all this race stuff. Articulating this can take any number of forms, but it often goes something like this:

Yeah, slavery was bad, but that ended after the Civil War. Segregation was wrong, too, but we got past all that in the Civil Rights era. My people [Irish, Italian, Polish, etc.] weren’t welcomed here either. They called us names, denied us jobs, made us live in tough neighborhoods. We climbed our way out through determination and hard work.

The first two sentences of this are beyond naïve; indeed, they’re essentially false. Sure, they’ve put racial atrocities behind them. (What systemic racism?) The last three sentences present grotesquely false equivalencies.

Most lessons offered in February for Black History Month are remarkably benign, actually, focusing on neglected good stuff. Grasping an accurate, balanced perspective on the truth, however, requires a dive into some very disturbing history with real-world consequences to this day.

The Really Bad Stuff

I am no historian, much less one who devotes life to digging up every negative thing that’s ever happened to anyone. Something’s been hard not to notice, though, even from a very young age: Many have crazy ideas about other people based on skin color. Along the way, a resolve formed to both (a) appreciate cultural contributions on their merits and (b) face the facts as I found them on the bad stuff. This was for my own good.

When subjected to an aggrieved-white-person harangue, I find myself asking if they’ve ever heard of one or more of the following:

Specific Violent Incidents
Memphis  1866
Clinton, Mississippi  1875
History of Ku Klux Klan
The 1898 Coup/Massacre in Wilmington, NC
East St. Louis Massacre of 1917
The Red Summer of 1919
Tulsa 1921
Lynchings – of thousands, over decades

Discrimination by Operation of Law
[For background] The actual thriving, for a while, of many African-Americans working hard and playing by the rules, when given the chance during early days of Reconstruction
The Black Codes
The presidential election of 1876 and how it was resolved by the so-called Compromise of 1877, effectively ending Reconstruction and issuing in a new era of terror for Blacks
Jim Crow laws, era, and way of life
Redlining
Restrictive covenants
The “crime” of Miscegenation
Mississippi’s ratification of the 13th Amendment – in 1995/2013
Neo-slavery/involuntary servitude/forced labor

How I wish this were an exhaustive list! Unfortunately, it comprises mere shavings off the tip of an ugly iceberg. And these are just ones I know about. Here’s a depressing thought: The atrocities known must be far fewer than all that actually happened. Some attempts at covering up horrific racial crimes undoubtedly succeeded.

What is known is horrific enough. Anyone doubting as much is sincerely welcomed to look into any or all of the above with reputable, documented sources. Read them, and weep. (And, as always, if anything in this post is wrong, PLEASE say how and why in an email to KenBossong@gmail.com.)

Short Summary

At the end of the Civil War, there were some genuine attempts, by the Republican-led federal government, to give former slaves some chance at success. These attempts to meaningfully implement the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are collectively referred to as Reconstruction.

Newly freed Blacks were not the only poor people in America. If there was one thing many white people, especially those doing poorly, could not stand, it was seeing formerly-owned black people doing better. Many were.

Early on, freed people eagerly availed themselves of much that had been denied them as slaves, especially education, beneficial work, and the vote. Some immediately excelled in all lines of endeavor. As individuals found success in business, the arts, law, medicine, sciences, education, and public service, the communities in which they lived similarly began to thrive.

Violent reaction by individuals and groups of Whites began immediately in response to Blacks being elected to office, acquiring land, and starting schools, churches, and businesses.

An incalculably important pivot point in history was the resolution of the bitterly contested presidential election of 1876. The short version of this Faustian bargain is that the Republicans got their candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, sworn in as President. In exchange, they essentially agreed to forego Reconstruction. That included withdrawal of federal troops whose presence had helped keep “freedmen” somewhat free.

Predictably, this provided carte blanche for white supremacists. Both the frequency and severity of racial violence grew apace. Although provocation ranged from negligible to non-existent, the truth is that innocent men, women and children were killed, and whole neighborhoods, even towns, were burned to the ground. Groups like the Klan ran amok. Folks brought snacks, and the kids, to public lynchings.

“Legal” Machinations

More insidious than individual acts of violence, however, was the deliberate, carefully orchestrated discrimination institutionalized within legal structures. This is the (also incomplete) second part of the “Really Bad Stuff” list above. Those who scoff at the notion of systemic racism want no part of this information.

Herein lies an extraordinarily important point often missed for being more subtle than murder and mayhem. Practices like redlining and restrictive covenants – enforced as a matter of law – present a whole other aspect of evil, beyond acts of discrimination and violence. When odious statutes are passed, or such contracts enforced in courts, discrimination becomes official public policy. Cloaking hate in law makes a mockery of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws.

Please don’t miss the last item on that list of bad things, by the way: Neoslavery. Like every other concept in this post, the topic deserves its own book. Luckily there is one: the winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction, Douglas A. Blackmon’s Slavery By Another Name. No brief summary of this convincingly documented book could do it justice, but here’s a teaser: Human beings were no longer bought and sold; they were leased. By the tens of thousands, for decades.

When coal mines, quarries, factories, railroads, lumber camps, brickyards or farm plantations needed workers, officials would swoop into an area, arrest men over the age of around twelve for charges like vagrancy, and convict them. Sentences always included large, unpayable fines, and the men were taken away to work off their “debts” under unspeakable conditions. It was rigged so that the indentured servitude lasted for years, or until death for many. The scope and the details of the system are mind-boggling.

Bottom line: The Jim Crow era, in the century following the Civil War, was as shameful as slavery. (Slavery was an execrable institution for millennia before America existed; Jim Crow, sadly, was very much American.) Admirers included the worst people on earth; proof abounds that Jim Crow America inspired the Third Reich’s architects of the heinous Final Solution to their “Jewish Problem”. Hitler and his henchmen studied and emulated the implementation of race hatred through US legal mechanisms (compare the Nuremberg Race Laws to criminalizing miscegenation in 30 of the 48 states) after slavery’s official abolition. The patina of legal authority helped keep any foes the Nazis might have had at bay until it was too late.

The Sinister Sequences, or Why Cluelessness Matters

The point here is not that all Caucasians are inherently hateful or bad, of course. Those who are, however, have found demagoguery very lucrative. One reason is that too many of us have no idea about the subject matter of this post.

This really matters. Ignorance sets the stage for fear, the demagogue’s favorite tool. Absent the facts, almost anything or anyone can be cast as The Problem. Then, hate can stroll right in. This is not the “I-hate-Brussels-sprouts” kind of hate; this is blinding, irrational hate that is personal. Who benefits? Only the demagogue. This sinister sequence gravely harms everyone but the demagogue, who finds it irresistible because it works.

Race is the ultimate Us vs. Them (see post of 2/19/19), however. Those people are responsible for all problems – theirs and ours. Luckily, one can spot demagogues by their rhetoric. Lately, they’ve seized upon their two greatest threats to our society: being “woke” and “critical race theory”. They can’t stop saying either one. Whether unprompted or in response to any mention of racial justice, demagogues eagerly knock down their two favorite straw men.

The sequence at work for decades regarding race has been especially sinister. It perpetuates itself: Segregate; denigrate; then stigmatize. Repeat. Specifically, when the stigma is believed widely enough to stick, segregation and the rest simply flow. Marginalization ensues, preventing families from attaining financial or personal security for generations.

Less fancy wording makes clear these are the oldest tricks in the book: Deny certain people decent jobs and call them lazy; deny them education and call them stupid; force them to live crammed together in poverty and complain about their bad neighborhoods. And so forth. It’s OK to let some superstars do well; a certain few spectacularly so. Even for them, there can be a price to pay – the sense that you are the exception being used to prove the racist rule.

Why This Black History Month?

Getting back to the present, why did all these things especially resonate this year when so much of this is nothing new?

Indeed, for years, I’ve wondered whether folks who feel the wrong side won the Civil War, yet piously sing “Amazing Grace” on Sunday morning, have any idea what had made the hymn’s author a “wretch”.

This February’s musings, though, involved fellow Caucasians who know the right side won the Civil War, but seem oblivious to much of what has occurred from then to now.

Thoughts turned to conversations had with white friends and acquaintances.  For example, with the sight of officer Derek Chauvin snuffing out the life of George Floyd (with that smirk on his face, no less) emblazoned in my brain, I recalled people saying how disgusted they were by the images on screen. Not the images of the cold-blooded murder, you understand, but of knuckleheads skipping out of K-marts with televisions and sneakers.

Outraged they were, and frightened by the (overwhelmingly peaceful) protests that erupted in the wake of Floyd’s death – which they seemed to confuse with the looting. My brain juxtaposed these sentiments with an unforgettable brief exchange during coverage of the protests: Reporter: “What do you say to all the people worried about this unrest?” Protester: [incredulous] “Well, white people are doing the worrying, and we black people are doing the dying. What else is new?”

A Brief Aside

Is it necessary to say that, of course, vandalism and theft are not OK and should also be prosecuted? If so, then it’s also worth mentioning this: A much higher percentage of the few who tossed Molotov cocktails under police cars are being brought to justice than all those whose brazen criminal conduct caused the devastating financial carnage of 2008’s Great Recession.

For a nation so sensitive to property damage, it should be a national scandal that precisely one banker received jail time in the US. Then there are the individuals trusted to rate securities who knowingly slapped AAA grades on junk. But, I digress.

Back to Why This Black History Month?

Do a quick word association with the phrase “race riot” and the majority of responses will be Watts in 1965, or Detroit or Newark in 1967. Not a glimmer of recognition is likely to be found of the unrelenting racial terror and violence aimed at Blacks by Whites that preceded (and undoubtedly had a cumulative role in provoking) Watts, Detroit, and Newark.  Or that, to this day, white people are doing the worrying and black people are doing the dying. Cluelessness precludes the context and perspective needed.

That’s nothing new. What seems kind of new in 2022, though, beyond the usual passive acceptance of history’s whitewashing, is a dogged, active, almost desperate pursuit of ignorance. Ignorance is the stated goal, and knowledge is the enemy. Lately, we have the specter of teachers, school board members, librarians, election officials and other public servants fearing for their lives for doing their jobs and speaking plain truth.

It’s bad to not know. It’s worse to not try to know. It’s worse yet to not want to know. This, however, is active, proud, explicit advocacy for ignorance. It’s lying, and wanting to be lied to. Unsurprisingly, the “advocacy” bears little resemblance to rational debate. They can’t prove that facts are false, so they just attack those presenting the facts.

That’s not to say falsehood advocates can’t be clever. It’s strategic genius to cast the fight as being whether parents can have any say over what’s taught in school, for example. Of course, parents have a role in curriculum, but that role can’t be to insist their children be shielded from knowledge. Yet, this was the difference in Virginia’s last race for governor. “Parents’ Rights!” is a much more appealing rally cry than “Keep our Kids Dopey like Us!” or “Teach ‘em the Lies We Need!”

With startling clarity, the last thing these parents want is for their children to be taught the truth in school. Nope, slaves were treated like family. The Civil War was really the War of Northern Aggression. It was fought over states’ rights, you see, not slavery. All these minorities have to do is work hard, but they won’t do it. All this affirmative action crap is unfair. In fact, we’re the victims here. Oh, how I long for a color-blind society!

Calling All Patriots

Here’s one more reflection that ran through this white guy’s brain during and since Black History Month. It was the iconic scene from the movie A Few Good Men. Tom Cruise’s JAG officer, Lt. Kaffee, cross-examining Jack Nicholson’s Col. Jessup, has asked whether he ordered the Code Red.

Jessup: I’ll answer the question. You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I’m entitled to them.
Jessup: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessup: You can’t handle the truth!

Actually, we can handle the truth; we must. Averting our eyes from the truth does not alter reality; it just hampers our ability to cope with it.

Our choice is not between being ”woke”, or patriotic. It’s between loving America enough to consider all of its history (including the painful parts), in order to unleash all of its incredible potential – or not. Real patriots categorically reject what keeps America from attaining its full promise.  They repudiate the sinister sequence of Ignorance>Fear>Hate.

Ignorance is not bliss; it’s misery. Centuries of needless misery aren’t over just yet. The FBI is hot on the trail of those responsible for a wave of bomb threats at more than one-third of the nation’s 101 historically Black colleges and universities throughout this Black History Month. (And why did America need HBCUs? Oh…) How’d you enjoy those Senate confirmation hearings for soon-to-be Justice Jackson? Black lives mattering is a controversial notion?

This is not a call for white people to wallow in guilt or self-loathing. Rather, the suggestion is actually to mean what we say when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Then behave like we mean it. Imagine what we could achieve together if we simply ensured that every American family knew they had a real, reasonable shot at success.

Time To Unshackle Ourselves

America’s true greatness lies in the liberty, justice, and opportunity it offers. (No wonder we have immigration challenges.) Yet, utterly at odds with such lofty core values, there’s been this tragic, senseless interweaving of white supremacy. Why not rid ourselves of the latter by discarding what has never belonged? Could there be a better way to celebrate our 250th birthday on July 4, 2026?

Pipe dream? Maybe not. A quarter-page ad in the real estate section of a recent Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer led with “This Ad Won’t End Discrimination In Real Estate. People Will.” Continuing:
“If recent events have taught us anything, it’s this: we have more work to do. Racism is real, tragically so. Discrimination in all its forms still casts a long shadow in this country, and too many are being denied the opportunities that all Americans deserve.” There follows a description of the group’s code of ethics, and then:
“As the Bucks County [PA] Association of Realtors we believe that fairness is worth fighting for, and we won’t stop until the fight is won.” Then, in bold, there’s an urging that any discrimination be reported to hud.gov/fairhousing. From a segment of an industry once in the middle of restrictive covenants and redlining, it’s a step.

Is a quarter millennium long enough to wait before fulfilling the promise of our American Experiment and its truths, self-evident since 1776? It’s certainly long past time to undo completely the horrendous mistakes flowing from that deal with the Devil in 1877.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

The Idol And His Protégé

In the midst of his murderous plunge into re-subjugation of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin oddly paused with an attempt to justify his actions. “Oddly” because Putin, while he lies as naturally as he breathes, seldom cares enough what anyone thinks to bother with attempts at justification.

Yet, there he was speaking of his “denazification” of Ukraine, even as he channeled 20th Century fascists in action and intent. Commentators were quick to note how bizarrely, ironically irrational this was. (Best seen so far: Trudy Rubin in the February 25 Philadelphia Inquirer.) Yes, Ukrainian President Zelensky is Jewish.

In speaking so, Putin presents a case of the master learning from his follower. In four years of emulating Putin, and catering to his every whim, Donald Trump was his equal in scope and depth of dishonesty. The Donald displayed unmatched skill, though, in one special technique of dishonesty: projection. As pointed out in the Other Aspects post of October 16, 2020, Trump is the unquestioned GOAT at projection.

The erstwhile Republicans who have chosen to abandon principle and sanity to follow Trump use it constantly. That is, they falsely accuse others of wrong-doing in which they are actually engaged. This is expected of trumpsters by now, but this was his idol projecting? It must make Trump so proud, though to be sure, Putin’s technique could use some refinement.

But, like the commentators, I digress. Let’s get back to the news of the day. Emboldened by four years of worshipful enabling and assistance by the then-President of the United States, and now desperate to make a move because that party is over, KGB thug Putin risks unthinkable catastrophe with one last attempt to reclaim the “glories” of the USSR. He invades.

What Vladimir Did for Donald

Memo to the US Department of Justice: Un-redact the Mueller Report. Today. Now.

Memo to all fellow Americans: Read the Mueller Report for yourself. Today. If you really don’t have time for all that today, read the Other Aspects post of November 1, 2020.

Then read the Mueller Report for yourself, as soon as you can, and think about how the crimes reported and everything that has happened since fit together.

There’s also a bonus for Donald in the current events: delight that Vladimir is bringing hell to Zelensky, the guy who wouldn’t lie about Joe Biden.

What Donald Was Doing for Vladimir

Perhaps the better wording is: What wasn’t Donald doing for Vladimir? For anyone wondering why Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump elected, and then re-elected, so very desperately, the answer is clear. It wasn’t just the constant, indefensible aid and comfort (Helsinki, anyone?) that continues to this day.

At the very top of Donald’s to-do list from Vlad was the one thing Trump did consistently for four years: everything he could to undermine NATO. The only way to make sense of his behavior on the international stage is to view it in light of one goal – the systematic dismantling of NATO. Even to America’s detriment? Certainly.

The Deal on Full Display for Those Who Look

What Vladimir Putin sought to get out of this arrangement could not be clearer – namely, not having to bother with what he’s doing today. If successful, he’ll see no reason to stop with Ukraine. He’s the one destined gloriously to restore the mighty USSR. If successful with that, by the way, why think he’ll stop with “merely” rehanging the Iron Curtain at those borders?

What Donald Trump sought to get out of this arrangement also could not be clearer – unlimited power and money, and a Putin-like status in the United States. Think he was kidding when he wondered aloud about the need for term limits on the presidency? Trump doesn’t kid.

Vladimir saw considerable success in skillfully sowing further division among the American people (really; it’s all in Mueller) as well as among the members of NATO. However, “genius” though he may be, Putin’s best efforts couldn’t overcome the number of US citizens who considered Trump’s performance as president when voting in 2020. It was too bad for both Vladimir and Donald that Joe Biden was actually qualified to be president, and not as dislikeable as Hillary Clinton.

Thus did the election of 2020 disrupt the deal. Whether their plan is scuttled for good or merely delayed, if some have their way, is up to us.

It was essential to America’s interests that one of Biden’s top priorities be to restore relations with our genuine allies. He’s done well with that, which is why Vladimir and Donald are so upset.

Meanwhile, Trump would be foolish to think Putin cared about him beyond his usefulness while positioned as US president. Did he hope to solve his financial woes by being cut in with Putin’s oligarch buddies in sharing corruption bounty? Trump, of all people, should know loyalty is a one-way street, for guys like him.

Further Musings

It never ceases to amaze that human beings arrange their affairs so as to permit a single individual, so often a despicable individual like Putin or his protégé, to do so much harm.

I’ve heard it said that the best form of government would be a “benign dictator”. The problem, of course, is that there’s no such thing. Human nature does not permit it; dictators find no reason to be benign.

That’s why, aside from the Bible, the Constitution of the United States is the greatest and most important document ever produced. It is our republic, if we can keep it.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

Of Inglorious Exits… and Entrances… and Stays
(Or “Who Are the Bad Guys?”)

From last post’s homage to Integrity, we turn to the consequences of its absence.

I love my country more than words can say, but why, oh why, can’t we get our exits right? There is nothing sweet about the sorrow with which we part our engagements.

These were the kinds of thoughts washing over me while viewing our exit from Afghanistan last year and the ending of what is dubbed “America’s Longest War”. They have since been supplemented by many other impressions and reflections that demanded a post. And, do I have a book for you to read!

Beyond the Bad Optics

President Biden should have known it would be trouble to comply with the Afghan exit agreement in place. This is especially so since the prior administration had negotiated withdrawal, in typical fashion, only with the forces it was US policy to oppose, to the deliberate and pointed exclusion of the government it was US policy to support. This, you understand, is the Art of the Deal.

That it would be a bad deal was almost a foregone conclusion. Joe Biden should have understood that better than anyone. Most criticism of him is not for leaving, but for not insisting on doing it well, or at least competently. For some reason, he seemed to feel obligated to adhere strictly to a given timetable.

Those thinking our exit from Afghanistan was the worst part of this 20-year misadventure are terribly mistaken, however.

One of the “Must-Read” Books of 2021

Any doubts on that point are obliterated throughout The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War by Craig Whitlock (Simon and Shuster, 2021. Page numbers from the book appear in parentheses below.)

Timely publication of such a book is beneficial. By way of comparison, the Pentagon Papers came out four years after Robert McNamara commissioned the report on America’s involvement in Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the top secret report to the New York Times. Their publishing of installments led to litigation of one of the most important prior-restraint First Amendment cases in Supreme Court history. Since the report already existed, the hardest part of informing the public was obtaining the landmark 6-3 decision clearing the Times to resume publishing.

With the precedent of the Pentagon Papers case established, Whitlock’s task was to assemble the vast amount of information under-girding his book. With six years as a foreign correspondent for the Washington Post writing about al-Qaeda and affiliates, followed by seven years as a beat reporter covering the Pentagon, he “knew Afghanistan was a mess.” (xiii) He sought the big picture that was being missed: What went wrong?

The Source Material

Understanding the sources is crucial to grasping the book’s significance. The Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR; there can be no discussion involving federal government without acronyms – hang in there) had undertaken a project called Lessons Learned. They interviewed hundreds of officials and war participants, hoping to identify mistakes for future avoidedance. Those interviewed spoke with remarkable candor, apparently assuming no public access.

SIGAR issued some dull reports from the Lessons Learned interviews, but Whitlock and the Post sued for the source material – notes, audio and transcripts. After a three-year Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) battle, the author hit the jackpot.

His second major source was George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, famous for dictating memos so numerous as to be nicknamed “snowflakes”. George Washington University’s National Security Archive sued under FOIA for the snowflakes relating to Afghanistan, which they shared with Whitlock.

A third source was a series of interviews of U.S. Embassy officials who had served in Kabul by the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. The Foreign Service officers were also blunt.

Fourth are hundreds of interviews conducted by the US Army for historical research; that stated goal again spurred the troops into raw, straightforward sharing.

Finally, the University of Virginia’s Miller Center undertook an oral-history project on the presidency of George W. Bush. Whitlock obtained transcripts of interviews with military commanders, cabinet members, and other senior officials.

This combination of documents and interviews is what Whitlock calls a secret, but unflinching, history of the war.

Beyond Mere Griping

Now, those who carry out orders often question whether people giving them know what they’re doing – sometimes with good reason. What we have here, however, is very different than any generic complaining. The charges here are specific, detailed, and damning. Further, they are leveled by an extraordinarily wide range of individuals, from famous names atop organizational charts to unnamed eyewitnesses. Some are admissions by those giving the orders.

The accounts spare no one, and it is a rough ride indeed for each of the three administrations prior to Joe Biden’s. Partisan types will find some chapters much more fun than others. Cynics will revel in them all. For the rest of us, it’s eye-opening, infuriating, and heart-breaking.

A mind boggling array of mistakes, wrong-doing and failures was enabled by the nature of the information shared as events unfolded. Reports too often comprised a stream of spin, wishful thinking, exaggeration, omission of bad news, and outright lying. A combination of misfeasance and malfeasance spread over two decades and three administrations. Along with good intentions gone awry, it was born of fear, ignorance, arrogance, hubris, illogic, stubbornness, and dishonesty.

Initial Support

Before delving into a few of the details, it’s worth noting an interesting point made by Whitlock in the Forward:
Unlike the Vietnam War, or what would happen in Iraq in 2003, support for moving against Afghanistan following 9/11 was nearly unanimous. Widespread international sympathy over that day’s carnage brought support from outside America, as well. (Whitlock wryly notes that in Iran, “hardliners stopped shouting ‘Death to America’ at weekly prayers for the first time in twenty-two years”. xii)

We knew who hijacked the planes, and where Osama bin Laden had found safe harbor. This stood in stark contrast to the supposed grounds for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution – or to the lack of tie-in between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

When the bombing of Taliban targets began in October of 2000, it was hardly controversial, then. What unfolded in the ensuing years is hard to comprehend, even in retrospect.

Early “Success”

Initial forays in October met with stiff resistance. With a new war strategy drafted by three men in four hours, however, US officials were surprised when the tide of battle suddenly turned in their favor in November. US and Northern Alliance forces seized major cities in a matter of days. Referring to October’s slow starting phase, Rumsfeld mocked references to Vietnam: “It looked like nothing was happening. Indeed, it looked like we were in a – all together now! – quagmire.” (11)

The US wasn’t sure how to take its unexpectedly quick success. Military brass favored limiting US presence both as to time and scope, given the impression that there was little left to do. Meanwhile, President Bush and his policy advisors found an ambitious program introducing American-style democracy irresistible. As White House security advisor Stephen Hadley put it, “once the Taliban was flushed, we did not want to throw that progress away.” (14) Sloppy practices, wishful thinking, objectives at cross purposes, and self-delusion crept into the mix, never to leave.

Not explicitly stated in the book, but apparent in the narrative, is that the Taliban deftly employed against US and Alliance forces a tactic roughly akin to Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope in boxing. It worked.

Missed Opportunities

Two chances for genuine success were missed in December of 2001. The more famous arose from intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in the caves and tunnels of Tora Bora, 30 miles southeast of Jalalabad. A two-week bombing campaign commenced on December 3. About 100 US commandos and CIA operatives were on the ground, with some militiamen having ties to Afghan warlords.

Why such a small force? Because Central Command had denied urgent requests for more from CIA and Army commanders who feared bin Laden would escape with al Qaeda survivors to Pakistan. Which is exactly what happened. (23-5) It would be another decade before the US would find bin Laden again.

The other opportunity was diplomatic (25-7). The United Nations facilitated a meeting in Bonn in which Afghan factions met with diplomats from the US, Europe, and Central Asia to discuss ending hostilities and Afghanistan’s future. Among the two dozen Afghan delegates were no representatives of the Taliban. That’s right: the group with whom hostilities needed to end weren’t there. This was the opposite of the mistake made nearly two decades later by Trump negotiating only with the Taliban, ending whatever hope remained for the government’s viability.

Exclusion of the Taliban doomed the accord reached in Bonn (naming Hamid Karzai interim leader and providing for a constitution and elections) on December 5 to failure. “A major mistake we made was treating the Taliban the same as al Qaeda,” according to Barnett Rubin, an American expert on Afghanistan serving the UN at Bonn. “Key Taliban leaders were interested in giving the new system a chance, but we didn’t give them a chance.” (26) Whitlock cites other experts who considered the dismissal of Taliban as inconsequential foes, needing simply to be punished, an enormous mistake.

Once the US made its move in Iraq, Afghanistan became a relative afterthought. This made righting the course even less likely. Hours before President Bush’s infamous “mission accomplished” speech about Iraq aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, Rumsfeld publicly claimed major combat had ended in Afghanistan. Even with some hedging about pockets of resistance, his statements were beyond misleading. If only. 95% of eventual casualties hadn’t yet occurred. (43-4)

Happy Talk

As the going in Afghanistan gradually got much tougher in the ensuing months and years, sunny reports of progress flowed. They came from all sides, spokespersons to presidents. Some pronouncements were carefully worded to mislead; others dripped with swagger. At times, setbacks were omitted and data altered. These practices continued unabated, sometimes veering into the absurd.

Even while staying because things got worse, then, we had a steady stream of turning the corner; degrading the insurgency; turning the tide; and being on the right road. One whopper in particular saw repeated use over the years: Heavy resistance and even increased casualties were signs of progress, actually. They were the result of our having the enemy on the run.

The commander of US and NATO forces, Army Gen. David McKiernan, may have been the first general in Afghanistan to admit publicly there were aspects of the war not going well. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sacked him in May of 2009. (114, 145-6)

The “Bad Guys”

Despite multiple significant provocations, like attacks on East African US embassies in 1998 and on the USS Cole in 2000, the US knew virtually nothing about al-Qaeda on 9/11. In a University of Virginia oral-history interview, Gates said “the fact is that we’d just been attacked by a group we didn’t know anything about.” (19) Gates was CIA director in the early ‘90s and replaced Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary in 2006. This permitted a blurring of the lines between al-Qaeda and the Taliban from the outset.

Lumping the two groups together as “bad guys” would typify a simplistic approach that plagued the American effort for its duration. (20)

Perhaps the most striking document reproduced in the book follows page 108. It’s a snowflake memo from Rumsfeld dated September 3, 2003. Its entire contents:
“I have no visibility into who the bad guys are in Afghanistan or Iraq. I read all the intel from the community and it sounds as though we know a great deal but in fact, when you push at it, you find out we haven’t got anything that is actionable.
We are woefully deficient in human intelligence.
Let’s discuss it.”
So, after four months of hostilities in Iraq and nearly two full years in Afghanistan, the US Secretary of Defense was distressed to realize he didn’t even know who the bad guys were. Let’s discuss it?

The Taliban were Afghans with local objectives. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, was an international terrorist group of Arabs whose leader, bin Laden, was in Afghanistan because he’d been expelled elsewhere. There were some similarities in extremist religious beliefs, and bin Laden’s permitted presence justified action against the Taliban, but the two groups’ goals otherwise varied. The Taliban had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, for example.

Considering the Taliban a homogeneous group was also a mistake. When Brig. Gen, James Terry asked an Afghan general to tell him about the Taliban, the reply was “Which Taliban?” Puzzled, Terry asked to learn about all types. There were three: (1) “radical terrorists”; (2) those “in it just for themselves”; and (3) “the poor and ignorant, who are simply influenced by the other two groups”. (101-2)

All along, we remained deficient in something at least as important as knowing who the enemy was: what motivated them to fight.

Oh, Whatever

The simplistic approach went well beyond conflating al Qaeda with the Taliban. It seems almost no one deployed to Afghanistan had even a basic introduction to the culture, language, norms or practices of the people.

When field artillery officer Maj. Daniel Lovett reported for Afghan training in 2005, an instructor (in cultural awareness, no less) started by saying “When you get to Iraq…” When Lovett corrected him, the reply was “Oh, Iraq, Afghanistan. It’s the same thing.” (70)

By way of unconventional warfare, the US military sometimes seeks to influence the thinking and emotions of people where the action is, by employing psychological operations, or “psy-ops”. Maj. Louis Frias deployed to Afghanistan in 2003 to lead the psy-ops effort, and prepared by reading Islam For Dummies on the plane ride.

One of the projects Frias led was to develop a comic book to convey the concept of voting. The project bogged down when diplomats at the US Embassy and military commanders all insisted on having their say on the content. Frias’s six-month tour of duty was over before anything was produced. He heard that something went into production, but had no idea about any effect. (67-8)

A couple years later, another psy-ops crew widely distributed soccer balls adorned with several images, including a verse from the Koran. Since placing holy words on a ball to be struck by foot was a sacrilegious insult, the military found itself publicly apologizing. (69)

Futile Attempts to Maintain an Army and Police

Any hope America had of ever extricating itself from Afghanistan in a manner considered successful depended on leaving behind a country that could defend itself and maintain reasonable order. This required establishment of both an army and police.

All attempts failed, with gory details of how and why throughout the book. That they would collapse at the first sign of America leaving was such a foregone conclusion that Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson demanded of Biden’s critics a detailed explanation of how the exit could have been managed without chaos and confusion.

“Please be specific”, he wrote on 8/26/21. “Did you see the Taliban waiting patiently while the US-trained Afghan army escorted U.S. citizens, other NATO nationals and our Afghan collaborators to the airport for evacuation?”

Pakistan

Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is 1500 miles of mostly rough, mountainous terrain. Controlling it was undoable. Add to that the Pakistanis’ remarkable skill in playing both sides, and you had a puzzle the US never solved in two decades.

Most dramatically, it was Pakistan where Osama bin Laden fled upon escaping Tora Bora, and where the US found and killed him years later. But fighters and the supplies they needed were back and forth in ways reminiscent of Cambodia and Vietnam, only more so.

Pakistan military ruler Pervez Musharraf appeared to cut ties with the Taliban at the behest of the US after 9/11, and positioned himself as an ally. Pakistan not only allowed America to use their land, airspace and seaports, but also turned over a number of al Qaeda figures. Some were as significant as 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh. (82)

US opinion differed on whether Pakistan could not, or rather would not, help similarly to stem the Taliban’s cross-border insurgency. A discussion recounted in the book sheds some light. US ambassador to Pakistan Ryan Crocker one day got Ashfaq Kayani (the head of Pakistan’s spy agency, ISI) to explain: “one day you’ll be gone again…you’ll be done with us, but we’re still going to be here, because we can’t actually move our country. And the last thing we want with all of our other problems is to have turned the Taliban into a mortal enemy, so, yes, we’re hedging our bets.” (86-7)

Among the “Good Guys”

The only actors who may have been worse than the Bad Guys were some of the supposed Good Guys. Chapter ten of The Afghanistan Papers is The Warlords. In renewing relationships begun as far back as CIA assistance to mujahedin fighting the Soviets in the ‘80s, the US found itself aligned with warlords so despicable as to be almost cartoonish. The stories of Addul Rashid Dostum, Sher Mohammad Akhundzada (“SMA”), and Fahim Khan, among others, must be read to be believed. (115-127)

Despite their brutality, corruption, opium production and trafficking, murder, and other mayhem, such individuals played key roles in the battle against the Taliban. So vile were they, however, that many Afghans regarded the cruel and oppressive Taliban as the lesser of two evils.

Creeps

Many kinds of creep are featured in The Afghanistan Papers. One of the most damaging is “mission creep”. Every chapter highlights another instance in a repeating cycle over the 20 years of three administrations drifting from one ill-defined objective of sorts to another.

The mission had little choice but to creep, though, because it was never adequately defined. A chapter in the book is “An Incoherent Strategy”. The quotes, relating to the later Bush years, are among the most trenchant in the book, but apply to every phase of the 20-year operation.

Indeed, we were there so long that wrong-headed policies and tactical mistakes were recycled more than once, often by officials oblivious to the prior failures.

British Lt. Gen. David Richards, who led NATO forces in 2006, said flatly in a Lessons Learned interview, “There was no coherent long-term strategy…instead we got a lot of tactics.” (105) His successor, US Army Gen. Dan McNeill also found no plan in 2007. His instructions? Kill terrorists, build the Afghan army, and don’t fracture the alliance. “I tried to get someone to define for me what winning meant, even before I went over, and nobody could,” he related to Lessons Learned. (109)

In an effort to coordinate policy and strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush appointed Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute his “war czar”. His Lessons Learned interview yielded this: “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – we didn’t know what we were doing. What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.” (110)

Those who served bravely and well, and who paid for it with their lives, their limbs, or other aspects of their physical or mental health, deserved far better. At every phase of the conflict, straight and sensible answers to questions about what they were doing, and why, were lacking. It was a frustration they shared with the superiors they asked.

The Obama Years – Showing Them the Money

A recently-elected President Obama announced a large Increase in troops to carry out counter-insurgency, but with an odd twist. There would be a strict timetable for the mission of 18 months. This attempt to appease critics of the quagmire was seen widely as an obvious mistake, benefiting the Taliban.

Accompanying the troop surge was a massive effort to strengthen the Afghan economy and government. Even while denying nation-building, the administration sent unimaginable scads of money for any conceivable kind of project, whether wanted by Afghans or not. There were so many projects, and so much money, officials struggled to keep track. Even among projects completed, many were useless for being in areas our forces could not, or would not, secure.  

Anyone looking for the stereotypical “throwing money at a problem” could hardly do better than this. The harm here goes beyond just waste. The main impact was to ratchet up Afghanistan’s already-pervasive corruption by orders of magnitude.

Among the many mind-boggling stories (unused new schools becoming Taliban bomb-making factories, etc.), one in particular lingers long after reading. After the Taliban destroyed a bridge in Laghman, eager US officials hired a local construction firm to replace it. That firm’s owner had a brother in the Taliban. “Together, they had built a thriving business: the Taliban brother blew up US projects and then unwitting Americans paid his sibling to rebuild them.” (165)

Joseph Heller had to employ creative genius in Catch 22 to satirize the insanity that can occur during war; Whitlock achieves similar effect here simply presenting what actually happened.

Amid it all, reports to the press and public remained a steady stream of happy talk, deception, flawed data, and misleading statistics. There was even a bizarre ceremony in Kabul celebrating the “end” of the war on December 28, 2014. Not only was the war not over; it wasn’t going well at all. In truth, the perfect opportunity to end it had occurred over three years earlier, when bin Laden was eliminated on May 1, 2011.

Then There Was Trump – Bombs Away

After Donald Trump took the reins, he said some things that sounded familiar – the country’s weariness with the war, a resolve to win – but he did make some changes. Most dramatic was rescinding Obama’s restrictions on airstrikes in Afghanistan. With that, the amount of munitions dropped more than tripled and the number of airstrikes doubled.

Civilian deaths had resulted from awful mistakes during prior administrations, and we’d been slow at times to acknowledge the truth and express suitable remorse. Many analyses, not just in this book, identify these episodes as a major impediment to winning Afghan hearts and minds. Trump’s barrage was at a whole new level, however. According to Brown University’s Cost of War project, Trump’s first three years doubled average annual civilian deaths from airstrikes. (246)

This approach was the greatest recruitment tool ever handed to the Taliban; their fighting numbers swelled accordingly. (247) At that point, many Afghans now considered the Taliban the least of three evils – warlords, Taliban, and Americans (and the US-supported Afghan government).

Lessons Learned?

Is there a more painful irony than the title for the interviews conducted to prevent future mistakes? Anyone old enough had to recall desperate people clinging to US helicopters leaving Vietnam. We better learn some lessons this time.

The takeaway is not the wisdom of isolationism. Ever wonder what might have happened had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? No, the world is a worse and more dangerous place when America abdicates its leadership role, especially to bad actors. Somewhere between isolationism and running helter-skelter into conflicts we don’t understand, with no idea what to do, there is plenty of room for a properly engaged United States.

An even worse takeaway would be “Whatever you do, don’t speak candidly about your public service!” Security has its place, and appropriate use of classification can protect vital interests . A recurring theme of Other Aspects, however, is this: Any public policy needing to be defended with dishonesty is fatally flawed. Any public servant lying to the public without hesitation is no public servant, and needs to find another line of work. America works best when officials behave knowing that informed citizens are interested and paying attention.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of comprehensive, high quality intelligence. Success in a complex, dangerous world demands nothing short of excellence in the field. An anti-intelligence stance, like that of the last administration, must disqualify anyone seeking the presidency.

A Stab at Some Specifics

If we are going to send soldiers off to war, or any facsimile of it where life and limb are in jeopardy, at the very least we must be willing and able to:
– identify the bad guys
– be on the side of the good guys (which requires that there be good guys, and enough of them to have any chance of sustaining after we’ve left)
– articulate a coherent objective
– set benchmarks
– have some idea what will constitute victory
– think enough of our position and conduct as to permit honest appraisal and reporting
– know what we are doing
– know enough about the people, the region, and the cultures to understand what the conflict is about
– notice, and successfully adapt to, changing conditions

A Misadventure… and Yet…

There is a generation of Afghan girls who became young women having experienced some level of education. They know they deserved it, hopefully, and yearn to put that education to good use.

Similarly, it’s too soon to say that attempts to plant seeds among Afghans aspiring to another way of life – of whatever age, gender, or background – were futile.

This brings us to the dread topic of nation building. The twenty years saw frenzies of nation-building denial interspersed with frenzies of attempted nation building. Sometimes, they overlapped. It’s easy to see a toxic mix of hubris, arrogance and ignorance in the many, sometimes spectacular failures. To be sure, all three were involved.

Yet, there was something else, too. In the face of grinding poverty and relentless hardship, there is a desire based in human decency to share what we cherish of our American lifestyle. For that, we need not apologize. Yet, all is for naught unless we are effective. If we care as much as we’d like to think we do, it’s worth investing the time, energy and resources to understand people whose life experiences differ so drastically from our own.

Never Easy

None of this is to suggest that Afghanistan should have been easy. The place and its people are as different from the US and Americans as any on the planet. Climate and terrain are harsh and unyielding. The society is still largely tribal, with the very notion of a central government (or voting, or taxes, or anything other than local authority and tribal customs) utterly foreign to most. (38-9) In many areas, warlords rule. Anywhere but in the (relatively) sizable cities, life is a hardscrabble struggle to survive. Agrarian practices can be centuries old, and poppies are the leading crop. Poverty abounds.

Even the concept of time is different in Afghanistan compared to impatient Westerners. In 2006, US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann reported on a Taliban leader warning “You have all the clocks, but we have all the time.” (95) As the headline of a piece by Karen DeYoung in the 9/4/21 Washington Post put it, “As in the battlefield, the Taliban outlasted the U.S. at the negotiating table.”

Such striking differences made it more vital, not less, to carefully study the situation, to confront and convey reality, to respect the task at hand, and to proceed with thoughtful, strategic care. Reassess, think, and if nothing else, say “Hold it! What the hell are we doing here?” if we can’t even tell who the bad guys are.

All Americans, regardless of political inclination, have much to gain from pondering the issues raised in The Afghanistan Papers – and much to lose from ignoring them. Lessons learned? We owe it to ourselves and each other, even as Vladimir Putin now prepares to do what thuggish dictators so often do to divert attention from their failures.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

Integrity

For painfully obvious reasons, Other Aspects has addressed the topic of Dishonesty often and in some depth. Entering the New Year called for a more aspirational theme.

A reader recently brought to my attention the commencement address of legendary physicist and Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman to the Cal Tech class of 1974. I am indebted to both the reader and to Feynman (5/11/18 – 2/15/88).

Crazy Ideas

Feynman starts by mentioning “crazy ideas” from the Middle Ages, then describes history’s gradual discovery of a method for separating ideas: to “try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it.  This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age.”

Despite such progress, Feynman notes, they were still awash in crazy ideas, so many in fact that he finds them overwhelming to contemplate. The speech is fun reading for the wacky examples he gives, ranging from quiet little interactions with strangers to then-famous people and schools of thought. When such movements find many adherents and are said to be scientific, however, Feynman feels the need to “look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science.” These he dubs Cargo Cult Science.

Cargo Cult Science

Feynman’s name for junk science came from the behavior of certain people in the South Seas. Having seen airplanes land during the War loaded with desired provisions, they sought to have that happen again. So they build runways, and burn fires along them for illumination, with a man stationed in a hut wearing a wooden contraption resembling headphones. And they wait for airplanes that never land.

“They’re doing everything right,” Feynman explains. “The form is perfect.  It looks exactly the way it looked before.  But it doesn’t work.  No airplanes land.  So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.”

The Utter Honesty of Scientific Integrity

So what’s missing? Well, it’s not something like making the supposed headphones look more realistic. What’s missing is the central point he has for the graduates:

“[T]here is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science.  It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards.
For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”

What’s Required

Feynman elaborates on what scientific integrity, his “utter honesty” requires: “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.  You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.  If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.”

Also, one who decides to test a theory must publish the results “whichever way it comes out.  If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good.  We must publish both kinds of result.” If you do not publish results considered unexpected by yourself, or unfavorable to someone’s commercial interests, “you’re not giving scientific advice.  You’re being used.”

Finally, “In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.” This is our best shot at getting things right.

An example given of how we tend to fool ourselves is how long it took to discover that Millikan had under-measured the charge on an electron. At least for a while, subsequent studies simply dismissed measurements “too much” higher than Millikan’s, while favoring results closer to his.

Takeaways of Lasting Value

Feynman’s advice to these new scientists: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.  So you have to be very careful about that.  After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists.”

The responsibility is not only to other scientists, by the way. Indeed this “extra type of integrity”, this “bending over backwards” to point out potential weak spots in one’s own approach, is at least as important elsewhere. One’s scientific expertise is not to be abused to fool others less equipped to fend for themselves.

Not Limited to Science

Notwithstanding any number of lawyer jokes, Law is another field that values, in fact insists upon, this sort of integrity. Following the Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPCs”) requires of lawyers conduct well beyond merely not lying.

Thus, RPC 3.3 not only forbids a lawyer from making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, but also from:

  1. Failing to correct a false statement of fact or law the lawyer previously made before grasping the falsity
  2. Failing to disclose legal authority known to be directly adverse to that lawyer’s client’s position, even if, and especially when, not cited by the opposition and
  3. Offering evidence (testimony by witnesses or documents) known by the lawyer to be false.

Points 2 and 3 might surprise those unfamiliar with Legal Ethics, given the lawyer’s near-absolute duty of loyalty to the client. While very few considerations outweigh fealty to the client, the integrity of the judicial process is one of them.

There’s More

So, actually, there’s more. Lawyers must:
a) take “reasonable remedial measures” if their witnesses’ testimony is known to be false or if a person is engaging in fraudulent or criminal conduct in the case and
b) withdraw from representing a client who demands illegal or unethical behavior by the lawyer (RPC 1.16).

Meanwhile, under other Rules, lawyers must not:
a) bring a case unless it has some basis in law and fact that is not frivolous
b) obstruct another party’s access to evidence
c) alter, destroy or conceal potential evidence
d) falsify evidence or assist a witness to testify falsely
e) take frivolous positions in the information-sharing process known as “discovery” or
f) make reference in trial to matters that are either irrelevant or not admissible under the law.

Note that these and many other rules require balancing with a host of duties toward the client. Less than honorable clients often place their lawyers in positions of tremendous stress sorting out the right thing to do in difficult circumstances. Unsurprisingly, practicing lawyers suffer depression and substance abuse at rates well above average.

Attention, Cynics

Can scientists keep both the grant money and some of their integrity? Will lawyers retain their clients while doing just enough to avoid disbarment? No, the point here is not to identify the poorest conduct one can employ and nevertheless continue practicing the profession.

Feynman is clearly correct in pointing out the jeopardy. In cutting ethical corners, indeed in any conduct short of scientific integrity, wrongdoers “are destroying—possibly—the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing.”

New Jersey’s landmark legal ethics case, In Re Wilson, gets at similar concerns. In disbarring the lawyer, Chief Justice Wilentz considered clients’ willingness to allow lawyers to handle their money in transactions: “[T]he client permits it because he trusts the lawyer. It is a trust built on centuries of honesty and faithfulness. Sometimes it is reinforced by personal knowledge of a particular lawyer’s integrity or a firm’s reputation. The underlying faith, however, is in the legal profession, the bar as an institution. No other explanation can account for clients’ customary willingness to entrust their funds to relative strangers simply because they are lawyers.”

The fundamental building block of our freedoms and democracy is the rule of law, and resulting trust in the independent system of justice. AND much of the progress we’ve made emerging from the primordial ooze has been owing to the utter honesty of science. In each of these realms, all we cherish collapses and disappears if not for the integrity of the practitioners and the processes.

It’s hard not to notice that those who peddle lies for fun and enormous profit despise and fear both real science and the courts. Nothing new, there.

This is no anti-theism rant, by the way. The Eighth Commandment came down on the tablet for a reason. The God to whom I pray in my better moments is pleased when we stumble into shards of comprehension about His creation, and very displeased when phonies foment ignorance, idiocy, and harm in His name.

These Days

If Feynman thought his times, or even the Middle Ages, were fraught with crazy ideas, he should have seen the last several years. Would we have some cults for him! At least people back then had the excuse that they were living in the Middle Ages, even if they had no way of realizing it. What excuse have we?

Well, for one thing, it is no less tempting than ever to fool ourselves. We want, need, to be proven right. When the evidence is to the contrary, there must be something wrong with the evidence. It can’t be we, or our beliefs, that are wrong.

Still. One would expect thinking persons to be not only resistant to, but offended by and furious with, attempts to fool them. Yet, the contrary seems more like what’s happening with astonishing numbers of fellow citizens. They want, sometimes desperately, to be fooled in ways that bring them comfort.

For them, sustaining and promoting error is preferable to “losing” an argument. This is so even where the error does terrible damage. No amount of harm can outweigh the unbearable shame of admitting one was simply wrong about something. I must win; you must lose. My numbers cannot suffer.

Individual Resolve – Shared Benefit

As a people, we’ve been doing the Limbo (“How LOW can you GO?!” See post of 1/25/19) far too long. The result is real, substantial harm. Can we do the hard work of raising the bar back up from near the ground, where the current crazy ideas have placed it?

Poking through various choices to be among this New Year’s resolutions, we could do a lot worse, and could scarcely do better, than this:

Double down on integrity – the kind Feynman was addressing years ago: utter honesty, that bending over backwards – in living our lives. Resist the ever-present temptation to fool ourselves, or to submit to being fooled.

Stopping the outright lying in its tracks is a start; it’s necessary, but not enough. What Feynman championed to young scientists – full disclosure, candid consideration of ideas on the merits, relentless pursuit of truth and discernment – that’s the ticket. Consider again his sentence: “After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists.” He means avoiding the inadvertent misleading of others. It assumes no intent to deceive. This is a world-view, a way of life.

We’ll find that just as dishonesty’s harm begins with the self and always spreads, so does integrity ennoble first from within.

There will always be crazy ideas available, and no one easier to fool than ourselves with lazy or corrupt acceptance of self-serving falsehoods. What we demand of ourselves – and then of each other – determines who we are and what we become.

Happy New Year.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong