Posted on

Personal Choice

When asked why they have not been vaccinated against COVID, many people, in all walks of life, from the famous to the person in the street, have been answering “It’s a personal choice.”

The notion that this explains anything is peculiar, to put it nicely.

No Kidding

Everything we do, or don’t do, results from a personal choice.

The choices we make in big decisions and small define who we are and determine the impact we have on all around us. The accumulation of countless personal choices forms the society we become.

Judgment

One implicit argument in the “personal choice” explanation is that a course of action being my choice somehow precludes others from assessing or evaluating my conduct.

Well, no. Given human nature, actually, we can’t help it. We observe, we consider, we judge. If I am such a tough guy that I refuse to wear a seat belt in a car, you are free to consider me foolish.

Not only do we judge our own behavior and each other’s, we should. It’s the only way to learn and to improve. To the extent human beings are at the top of the order of things on the planet, it is largely due to our abilities to observe, to discern what matters, to analyze, to solve problems, and to communicate.

The benefit  of judging depends on doing so properly, however. The judging of others that deserves condemnation is the kind that is flawed in numerous ways: invalid assumptions, baseless “facts”, flawed reasoning, missing context. Among the worst assumptions, of course, is not judging at all, but pre-judging: prejudice based on any of the various, odious “isms”. Our insatiable need for Us vs. Them (post of 2/19/19) so often leads us astray.

There’s another big mistake that gives judging a bad name. Attempting to judge a person’s worth, which is incalculable, is simply beyond us. Contrast that with sound judgment of a person’s behavior (including our own), which is advantageous, and sometimes necessary.

Consequences

Similarly, those invoking “personal choice” as a defense of their behavior are seeking refuge from the consequences of choices they’ve made.

Anyone choosing to sky dive without a parachute has made a disastrous personal decision; once outside the plane, the laws of physics determine the consequences.

Stop signs and red lights are impingements on our freedom. Running them is a personal choice. The consequences of doing so are too often tragic. Trying to prevent those tragedies by enforcing stop signs and red lights is a public policy choice.

Whether to order chocolate, vanilla or mocha chip ice cream is a personal choice with consequences that are benign and limited to the person doing the choosing.

Those refusing to be vaccinated (a) put themselves at much greater risk of catching COVID; (b) make severe illness, hospitalization and even death much more likely if they do catch it; (c) put everyone they contact, from strangers to loved ones, at greater risk; and (d) do their part to keep the virus going, and make the desired herd immunity ever more elusive.

As bad choices go, better someone run a red light than refuse the vaccine. Sky diving without a parachute is worse than skipping the vaccine – at least for them, maybe not so much for the rest of us.

As hospital beds and critical care units fill yet again, this time with obviously preventable cases, exhausted health care workers are beside themselves with the most justifiable fury imaginable. Here we go again, and for what? How many patients must they see suffer and die, victims of a supposed hoax? When we finally get out of this, our next health crisis will be PTSD for our health care workers.

Talk about “unfair”.

“Freedom” Only to the Misguided

If vaccine hostility seems reminiscent of people refusing to socially distance themselves or wear face coverings as resisting infringement of personal freedoms, that’s because it is.

So, let me get this straight: The signers of the Declaration of Independence mostly died young so you could have the freedom to deliberately spread a pandemic? You have a Constitutional right to keep a deadly virus going while it develops variants – perhaps one day, a strain for which we have no answer and no defense whatever? Note that former CDC Director Robert Redfield is predicting a worse variant by the fall.

So, yeah, we can do it; we can exercise our freedoms to make things even worse. Too many are. But why?

The Delta is more than bad enough, by the way. Critically ill unvaccinated adults are joined in this new wave of patients by children, lots of them, who have no vaccine to take yet and are getting very sick. Not only is Delta the most contagious virus in memory; it picks on our kids. It’s also producing more severe illness than prior variants.

Leave it to freedom-loving legislators and governors like those in Florida, to pass and sign statutes telling cruise companies that they may not conduct their business in a way that protects their customers. No word on whether sky-dive operators are allowed to require parachutes in Florida. US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams recently issued a preliminary ruling allowing Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings to enforce vaccination requirements when they resume port operations in Miami on August 15.

A Special Case of Hesitance

There is a particular source of vaccine hesitance worth mentioning. Black Americans harkening back to awful healthcare betrayals in the past – the most infamous being the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis – may well have lingering mistrust of any initiative in the realm of health.

At this point – with hundreds of millions successfully protected and virtually everyone in ICU unvaccinated – one can only hope sufficient evidence is in. It’s neither the federal government nor the doctors or health officials doing all the current lying. They’re busy trying to save lives. This post mourns people quoting the current lies with their dying breaths. There’s no need to be among them.

A Moment of Clarity

We can and should have robust discussions, including disagreements, about which personal choices are good ones and bad, and what public policy to adopt in response to various behaviors.

Amid current debate on what should be mandated for our own good, however, certain facts are clear:

This is the deadliest pandemic in a century. It spreads by people breathing on each other.

The outrage here is that we seemingly do need government officials to tell us to keep a safe distance, wear a face covering, and take the vaccine. Why? How is that possible? It should be insulting to our intelligence that they even have to mention such measures. Doing them should be a given for nearly everyone. Yet leaders who “get it” must beg, plead, and bribe, often to no avail? What the hell is wrong with us?

A good friend (who happens to be a staunch conservative) told me a disheartening story about a friend of his. This fellow flatly refused to wear a mask when he learned its main purpose was to protect others, rather than himself. “I don’t care about others,” he said matter-of-factly.

It was a stunning revelation from someone my friend thought he knew fairly well. This man had manifested symptoms of the one ailment ravaging us that is more dangerous than the coronavirus. His self-diagnosis was spot-on.

Ken Bossong

© 2021 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

There’s Much to Discover in Latest Lawsuit

Papers and newscasts mentioned that former President Donald Trump filed class action lawsuits Wednesday against Facebook, Twitter and Google over their suspensions of his accounts.

Three thoughts immediately came to mind; one in particular persists.

Thought #1: The First Amendment

The first, the suit’s lack of merit, has been mentioned widely elsewhere, citing various experts. As Paul Barrett, deputy director of NYU’s Center for Business and Human Rights was quoted in the Washington Post, Trump has the First Amendment “exactly wrong”. Facebook and Twitter have a First Amendment right to “determine which speech their platforms project and amplify – and that includes excluding speakers who incite violence…”

Indeed, the interesting question is whether, as many argue, such platforms have a duty to exclude such speech as crossing the line from speech into harmful conduct.

Thought #2: Irony

This was an offshoot of the first: the obvious irony of this purported conservative beseeching the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government to tell private companies how to run their businesses. (They must provide him accounts?) At least these defendants are large, powerful entities that can take care of themselves, compared to the countless individuals and small businesses ruined by dealings with him over decades.

As pointed out in prior posts, the Donald is “conservative” only when – and to the extent – it serves his immediate, personal interests. Any notion of his being a champion of the First Amendment is simply laughable.

Thought #3: Imagine the Discovery

But, most of all, the overriding thought was: Oh, how I would love to do discovery in defending these lawsuits! Lawyers for the defendants must be salivating at the prospect. They, along with prosecutors and investigators waiting in the wings, might almost hope the cases aren’t summarily tossed like the 60+ frivolous election cases. After all, this could be fun.

A Little Background

Before they go to trial, parties in legal cases both reveal and seek information reasonably available about the case they’re in. That applies to both the facts and legal arguments. The process for doing so is called “discovery”. Robust discovery is encouraged and often required.

It’s good for TV and movies to have last-minute “OMG!” surprises at trial. (Hey there, fans of Perry Mason.) It’s good public policy, however, to have parties better understand their opponents’ cases – and their own – earlier. Among the advantages of clarifying legal and factual issues up front are increasing the chances of (a) settling the case and (b) having a focused trial result in justice when the suit can’t settle.

Important point: We value discovery so highly that its scope is very broad. Generally, you don’t have to prove information would be admissible at trial in order to obtain it in discovery, for example.

Typically, all three methods of pre-trial discovery are under oath: interrogatories – where parties answer each other’s sets of questions; depositions – where witnesses testify; and (my favorite) requests for admissions – where parties must either admit or deny assertions made by the other party.

So…

It follows that anything arguably relevant is fair game for development via discovery. There are some very interesting items of relevance to the suspending of these accounts, given the events of January 6. Surrounding, but not necessarily limited to, January 6.

An obvious defense – perhaps the obvious defense – available in these lawsuits is that the plaintiff and his followers were misusing the defendants’ platforms to engage in dangerous, criminal, even seditious, conduct. The insurrection, horrendous in itself, is also both culmination of prior activity and precursor to future threats. (What exactly is to happen, by the way, when DT is NOT restored to the presidency in August?)

So, prepare those interrogatories, draft requests for admissions, and by all means schedule multiple depositions. And remind everyone that perjury is still a crime worth prosecuting.

Why’d He Do It?

This plaintiff has employed diversionary tactics often in the past. When something negative is brewing, outrageous statements and actions meant to distract are automatic. With various state and federal prosecutors poring over records, the organization being indicted, and Rudy Giuliani’s law license being suspended in New York, the seriously negative is just beginning to percolate. Perhaps he thought a pre-emptive strike in which he portrays himself as a victim might help.

On the other hand, maybe he just wanted his bullhorn back. He isn’t the lead story much anymore. It’s awful.

Finally, it may just be his latest fund raising scam.

Regardless, he may have been better off this time staying away from courtrooms and litigation. He’s going to be seeing more of each than he’d like, some on the criminal side, soon enough.

Ken Bossong

© 2021 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

March 11, and Since (We Abide)

Emerging With Perspective and Resolve

Reflection seems a natural reaction to the process of emerging, however fitfully, from the pandemic. Two areas of reflection persist because they produce sheer wonder – the appalling and the cherished. The first shouldn’t matter, but unfortunately does; the second is what matters most, but can be elusive.

I thought closing the country was a bit of an over-reaction to my 68th birthday. It is fair to say, though, that no one will ever forget my 69th year. I certainly won’t.

Yes, the country shut down on March 11, 2020. That’s the date the NBA halted operations – in at least one instance, in the middle of a game. When billionaire owners tell millionaire employees (players) to stop generating income, the response is “Whoa! This has to be serious.” In that sense, the NBA did us all a favor.

What a Year!

As crazy as the last few years leading up to my 68th birthday were, I still did not foresee some of what I saw, heard, and experienced between then and my 69th this past March 11. Among the dozens of things I may never get over are these sentiments, in no particular order, some COVID-related and some not, whether actually articulated or inherent in behavior:

COVID-19 is just another flu, if it exists at all.

I don’t care what anyone says; I’m going to do whatever I want, however I want, whenever I want. The whole thing is a hoax and an excuse to take away our freedoms. I won’t keep my distance and it’s un-American to wear a mask.

Hang Mike Pence!

[At times when infection rates and deaths were down] Distancing, delaying large gatherings, and mask wearing seem to be working. Let’s stop doing them.

The election was stolen.

COVID doesn’t worry me at all – but the vaccine, now that scares the hell out of me.

Black lives matter?! How dare you!

The “Chinese virus”, etc.

Wait. What?

Let’s pause for a moment on that last one. Isn’t “Kung flu” just a lame attempt at humor? Wish it were so, but the problem is where racist tropes inevitably lead. (And, by the way, we all know where they lead. As is well documented, it’s nothing new.) Consider: Because COVID 19 is believed (but not definitively known, mind you) to have originated in Wuhan, China, neighbors of Asian descent – any Asian descent – deserve to be not just vilified but physically attacked, even murdered? Yeah, it’s a shame people just can’t take a joke when they’re pummeled senseless, or bleeding out in the street or the ER.

Meanwhile, for all the attackers know, the attackees’ families have been making positive contributions to America far longer than their own families have even been here.

The big picture is a seemingly insatiable need for Us vs. Them (see post of 2/19/19). Any excuse to divide people will do. But no divider works as well as race.

When the UK variant was established as the most contagious and the most deadly strain, did random, vicious attacks start on people of Anglo descent? (“Are you Geoffrey Smythe?” “Yes I am. Why?” POW!)

Then There’s the Scope and Scale of It All

It’s bad enough to contemplate the sheer idiocy of what some believe. I’ve always consoled myself with the thought that the truly crazy, or genuinely evil, stuff is confined to relatively small lunatic fringes. The worst part of my 69th year – what I really can’t get over – is the dawning realization that I’ve been deluding myself.

The stunning, undeniable truth is that various groupings of millions of people believe all of the above, and more. No matter how far-fetched the story, how despicable the lie, or how obvious the falsehood, millions are willing, indeed eager, to embrace it.

The tossing aside of common sense, basic principles and core values this readily and on this scale reveals something ugly and leaves us in dangerous territory. It’s not a majority of us, but it is well beyond satirically amusing. What are people lacking in their lives? Do they need a twenty-first century “Il Duce” to tell them what to think and feel? To create, and then “solve” their problems?

Harmful lunacy wasn’t confined to the year between my birthdays, of course. Recently, an Ohio physician testified to the effect that (a) people receiving vaccine shots have been “magnetized”; (b) “there is some sort of interface…between what’s being injected and all of the 5G towers”; and (c) the vaccines have caused thousands of deaths. Rather than suggesting the doctor get the help she needs and apologizing for the hearing, an Ohio state representative gushingly thanked this Dr. Tenpenny for such expert testimony before the Ohio House Health Committee.

And Yet, Even Amid Infuriating Insanity…

I abide. We abide, as does the precious legacy of everyone we’ve lost. And we have all lost people who matter a lot. (It hasn’t all been COVID, of course. The pandemic did not supplant the normal hazards and perils of life; it piled on. Heart disease, cancer, mental illness, and accidents did not get the memo that only coronavirus could take our loved ones.)

Amid the heartbreak and pain of loss, it dawns on us: the more the person lost meant to us, the more we miss them – and the luckier we were to have had them in the first place. This is one of the inevitable, inescapable ironies of life. It may not be that the good always die young, but they do always die too young.

Perspective

A card from a good friend this year included a reprint of “For Your Birthday” by John O’Donohue. While recommended in its entirety, these lines particularly resonate:

Praised be your father and mother,
Who loved you before you were,
And trusted to call you here
With no idea who you would be.

Blessed be those who have loved you
Into becoming who you were meant to be,
Blessed be those who have crossed your life
With dark gifts of hurt and loss
That have helped to school your mind
In the art of disappointment.

When desolation surrounded you,
Blessed be those who looked for you
And found you, their kind hands
Urgent to open a blue window
In the grey wall formed around you.

Blessed be the gifts you never notice…

Consider how we love a great view. It’s as humbling as it is thrilling to gaze out upon an ocean, the Grand Canyon, a snow-capped mountain, or a shimmering lake. Awe at such beauty, the forces of nature, and the scope of it all provides the gift of perspective. We are but a speck in the world; our earth a speck in the galaxy; and our galaxy a speck in the universe. Inflated self-importance quickly fades in that context.

Then consider: Empathy, selflessness, courage, understanding, relentless effort despite adversity, a kind word or gesture – to experience these is to have one’s breath taken away as surely as by the most spectacular view. These too provide perspective – of our true significance. To care, to serve, to cherish, to love and be loved: this is to matter, to be truly human.

In this crazy year-plus, the goodness within us also surged to the surface in countless examples large and small.

Happy Birthday, Baby

Yes, we abide, but we’ve been pounded with constant reminders of our frailty and mortality. The impossible-to-comprehend number of atoms that comprise our body, along with whatever the “stuff” that forms our mind, character, conscience and soul, remain magically intertwined. It’s hard not to notice, though, that a fair amount of the hodge-podge called me doesn’t work quite as efficiently or crisply as it once did. A quick, mundane story illustrates.

Not long ago I was shooting baskets on an outdoor neighborhood court I hadn’t used before. Apparently someone had installed new nets that were still tight. After a shot actually went in, the ball got caught in the bottom of the net. Unbelievably, two or three jumps to retrieve the ball were unsuccessful. Understand that the ball was caught not between the rim and the backboard, but in the bottom of the net. Ruefully recalling a time when I could grab the rim any time I pleased, I fetched a stick. I’d love to tell you it was a short stick.

Looking Back, Assessing, Resolving, Pursuing

On March 14, 2020, three days after the country shut down on my 68th birthday, I published the post “Opening Up While Shutting Down”. So, did I take my own advice and use the time afforded by the shut down for introspection and self-improvement? Well, [clearing my throat] – let’s call it a mixed bag.

One of my frustrating quirks/faults is inefficiency with time, ironically enough. I underestimate the time required to do things, I lavish time on items unworthy of the attention, and so forth. (This is where anyone knowing me gets to smirk at the understatement employed here.) I am too slow doing things, like publishing posts.

Thinking about wonderful people gone too young and too soon, though, it’s finally occurring to me: I have a hell of a nerve. As one blessed to still be here and capable of doing some good, I owe it to them and to myself to do the best I can with what I can control, in whatever time is allotted me. We’ll see how that goes.

One of my favorite law professors, David J. K. Granfield, O.S.B., liked to say that every person has a dignity and a destiny. His point was that the Rule of Law, wisely used, both recognizes such dignity and fosters each person’s quest to fulfill their destiny. His wisdom applies to not just how we govern ourselves, but how we live.

Yes there are lies to confront, but while we’re at it, there are truth and beauty to embrace. The trick is not merely to survive the year in question. The trick’s in remaining truly alive. Genuine thriving is in the striving, even after mistakes. Especially after mistakes, lapses and failings.

If I have any sense at all, I will take none of the good for granted, seek chances to contribute, and resist temptations to do harm. Love and be grateful to be loved – by all I’ve been blessed to have and to have known in my life.

Oh, and revel in the pleasure of shooting baskets, rather than bemoan the missing vertical leap.

We matter, alright; every one of us, all the time. What we believe, what we think, what we say, what we do.

Ken Bossong

© 2021 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Reflections on a JAM – and the Jam We’re In

Art tends to both reflect and affect the cultural milieu in which it’s created. That seems especially so in the case of Jazz music.

April is designated Jazz Appreciation Month (JAM). Reflecting on that during this April revealed few aspects of Jazz history more worthy of appreciation than its significant role in Civil Rights. This is in homage to just a few of the most notable highlights – out of countless works worthy of mention.

Billie Holiday – “Strange Fruit”

It has been argued that the recording on April 30, 1939 and subsequent release of this song was the first act of America’s Civil Rights movement. Indeed, an entire book was written to make the point – Strange Fruit: Billie Holiday and the Biography of a Song by David Margolick. (Echo Press, 2001. It is also found as Strange Fruit: Billie Holiday, Cafe Society, and an Early Cry for Civil Rights. Running Press, 2000.)

The details vary with who’s telling the story, but one account of the song’s creation is that the incomparable Lady Day was accompanied by Frankie Newton’s band at Café Society in Greenwich Village when a fan approached her with a poem he had written excoriating lynchings. The song is credited to a “Lewis Allan”; his real name was Abel Meeropol, an English teacher from the Bronx. Holiday and Newton’s pianist, Sonny White, worked out a melody and the rest is history.

It’s better, though, to read the book. It presents as more likely that Meeropol created the melody as well, and had it performed publicly a few times before it found its way to Billie. Sonny White did create the recording’s piano intro. Milt Gabler’s Commodore recorded the song when Columbia found it too hot to handle.

If you have ever heard Billie Holiday’s original rendition, you’ve likely never forgotten it. If you haven’t, as with any piece mentioned here, you owe it to yourself. She uses understatement (soft, even tones and precise diction) for one of the most effective presentations of smoldering rage ever captured. One can only imagine experiencing it live. Most accounts speak of stunned, total silence following the song’s harrowing conclusion – giving way eventually to a groundswell of applause.  It was Time Magazine’s Song of the Century.

Yusef Lateef – “Juba Juba”

The album The Blue Yusef Lateef (Atlantic 1508) contains this striking piece that manages to capture a vast swath of American music in 4:20. Based on the field holler/work song format and inspired by a prison song, the performance features wailing blues harmonica and Lateef’s masterful jazz flute. Cissy Houston’s Sweet Inspirations frame the proceedings with a gorgeous spiritual-infused vocal background. The only actual word they sing is “freedom”.

Lateef’s liner notes dedicate the piece to nineteenth-century dancer William Henry Lane, known as Juba. The art of Pattin’ Juba (also called Hambone) involved clapping hands or slapping them on thighs, knees, or ribs for complex rhythmic patterns to accompany dance. Juba was an ingenious African-American form utilizing the human body as percussive instrument.

For the listener, though, the piece needs no explanation.

Duke Ellington – “Come Sunday”

The centerpiece of Ellington’s momentous suite Black, Brown and Beige is this beloved hymn-like ballad that was the forerunner to Duke’s celebrated “sacred concerts”. Apart from rehearsal performance, the premiere was in Carnegie Hall on January 23, 1943. While words weren’t necessary to convey the meaning, Duke added lyrics later. The refrain: “Ooh Lord, dear Lord above/ God almighty, God of love/ Please look down, and see my people through.”  

The February 1958 version featuring Mahalia Jackson on Columbia (CK65566) is especially recommended.

Nina Simone – “Mississippi Goddam”

For the gifted, classically-trained pianist Eunice Kathleen Waymon, a career as a concert pianist was foreclosed before having a chance to commence. (Need we say why?) This gave the world the one-and-only singer/pianist Nina Simone. Any number of her recordings could be mentioned here, of course, but no such list would be complete without “Mississippi Goddam”. (The song’s title is usually spelled without the “n”.)

Simone recorded it often and was incapable of a poor performance. A special treat is available, however: you can watch her perform it live in Holland in 1965 on her Jazz Icons DVD. Whatever version is available, though, the most striking aspect is one of contrast.

If one were to listen casually, paying no attention to the lyrics, the impression would be of an irresistibly jaunty, even catchy, pop tune. Just reading the lyrics, however, leaves the unmistakable impression of exasperated fury. Paying attention to the integrated performance rewards the careful listener with the compelling experience of art.

Charles Mingus – “Fables of Faubus” and “Meditations on Integration”

Composer, arranger and bassist extraordinaire, Mingus is another artist for whom many brilliant works could be cited. Let’s do two.

The trauma surrounding the integration of Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957 inspired “Fables of Faubus”. It is available as an instrumental, as on the Columbia album Mingus, Ah, Um. The version you definitely want to hear, however, is from 1960 on Barnaby Candid Series Z 30561, Charles Mingus Presents the Charles Mingus Quartet. Here you get the benefit of the “vocals” between Mingus and drummer Danny Richmond as they heap invective on Arkansas governor Orval Faubus and other deserving targets. Eric Dolphy’s scathing alto sax puts finishing touches on a classic satirical put-down.

It is said Mingus considered the band he took on tour to Europe in 1964 his greatest ever. You’ll get no argument here. Even considering the formidable competition other groups present, Eric Dolphy (as, bc, and f), Clifford Jordan (ts), Jaki Byard (p), and the ever-present Dannie Richmond (d) created astounding fireworks with Mingus’s bass, apparently every night. (Johnny Coles (t) was sidelined by illness not long into the tour.) Luckily, this group was both recorded (Prestige 34001) and filmed (Jazz Icons DVD).

From this tour emerged one of Mingus’s masterpieces, the complex and beautiful “Meditations on Integration”. The DVD has three different versions. With improvisers of this caliber, each version has much to commend it. The tour-de-force recorded in Belgium, however, is astounding. Dolphy is at his incomparable best on both bass clarinet and flute; Byard takes us on a tour of 20th Century piano form Harlem stride to swing to bebop and beyond; and Jordan does some serious testifying on tenor. The band is telepathic in response to each other’s inventions; seeing creativity on this level with such skill and passion is a thrill.

John Coltrane – “Alabama” (Live at Birdland and Jazz Casual)

Musicians and fans alike eagerly awaited each recording of Coltrane’s Classic Quartet (McCoy Tyner, Jimmy Garrison, Elvin Jones); Live At Birdland (Impulse A-50) was no different. The incendiary “Afro-Blue” was thrilling, but the haunting “Alabama” was the perfect example of no-lyrics-necessary.

One of the most heinous acts of the 1960s was the bombing by Klan cowards of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham on September 15, 1963. Set to maximize harm on a Sunday morning, the bomb injured many and killed four little girls – Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley.

Even on first listening, there can be no doubt what “Alabama” is, and what it means.

Luckily, this too has a version to be viewed. On December 7, 1963, ‘Trane’s Quartet appeared on Jazz critic Ralph Gleason’s TV show, Jazz Casual. The DVD features “Afro-Blue”, “Alabama”, and “Impressions”.

Max Roach – “The Dream/It’s Time”, “Mendacity”; and We Insist! Freedom Now Suite (entire album)

Chattahoochee Red (Columbia FC 37376) is not one of master drummer Max Roach’s most famous albums, but it features the two-part “The Dream/It’s Time”. The piece opens with an amazing duet of sorts: Max drumming accompaniment to Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. It then morphs into “It’s Time”, the title track from a marvelous Roach record on Impulse (A-16).

Another Impulse album (A-8), and one of his best, Percussion Bitter Sweet, gives us Max’s celebrated tribute to Marcus Garvey, “Garvey’s Ghost” and “Mendacity”, a send-up of the dishonesty that is inevitably built into systemic racism. Each cut highlights the remarkable vocalist Abbey Lincoln, who had rejected record producers’ attempts to rely on her physical beauty to sell comfortably popular music.

Then there is We Insist! Freedom Now Suite, originally recorded on Candid in 1960 and re-released by Columbia (JC 36390) twenty years later. Abbey Lincoln is featured throughout an album that took all-in commitment from the leader and each musician to achieve.

Start with “Driva’ Man” as it invokes history’s harsh realities, then the elegant and hopeful “Freedom Day”, before proceeding (if you dare) to “Tryptich: Prayer/Protest/Peace”. On the latter’s challenging journey, Lincoln’s wordless vocals pair with Roach’s drums. How challenging is it? The middle section is the primal scream of these works; it’s hard to imagine Abbey did not harm her vocal chords conveying such rage. She is back to chant the names of African tribes in “All Africa”, which transitions into “Tears for Johannesburg”, and the close.

Conclusion: What a JAM!

About a century after passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, it took real courage in addition to unmatched skill to record the works mentioned here. Such music (and much else like it) clearly made inroads. Thus the unforgivable Jim Crow era was interrupted by occasional, sporadic events encompassing or resembling progress, like Brown v. Board of Education, and passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

I have marked anniversaries of the Supreme Court decision in Brown with presentations that use these and other musical triumphs. The presentation is called “With All Deliberate Speed”, which was how the Court directed that Brown be implemented in the 1955 follow-up case Brown II. Since there is still de facto segregation in many areas’ schools, despite some progress, we can see how that’s gone. It’s been deliberate, alright.

Yet, another half century has passed and we are relieved (!) that a murder committed in plain view, and recorded for all to see, actually results in a conviction. A political party loses the Presidency and the Senate, and concludes the lesson to be learned is not the need to earn back the voters’ trust and support, but the need to suppress votes.

We’ve been in a major “jam” of our own making for decades, indeed for centuries. It is the sheer, destructive insanity of racism.

Jazz Appreciation Month 2021 provided a perfect opportunity to reflect on all this. I kept coming back to perhaps my favorite song of all from this period, “Retribution “, from one of Abbey Lincoln’s two greatest albums as a leader, Straight Ahead. (The title track is almost as good, by the way: “Straight ahead, the road keeps winding…”)

Nothing replaces hearing it, of course – “Give me…NOTHING” – but Abbey’s “Retribution” lyrics perfectly capture the proper perspective:

Never was a child
Living life since I was ten
Heard every story told
Been everywhere but in
And I ain’t disillusioned
Always knew confusion’s story

Don’t want no silver spoon
Ain’t asking for the moon
Give me nothing
Don’t want no favors done
Just let the retribution
Match the contribution, baby

No street that’s paved with gold
Don’t need no hand to hold
Hand me nothing
Don’t want no sad song sung
Just let the retribution
Match the contribution, baby

Suggesting “It’s Time!” branded Max Roach a daring radical in 1962. In truth, it was ridiculously, appallingly past time even then – and that was 59 years ago.

For God’s sake.

Ken Bossong

© 2021 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

After a Glimpse Into the Abyss, It’s Truth or Bust

If I had written seven to ten years ago a satire depicting what has actually happened in the last five years, it would have been universally dismissed as too outlandish, and too dark to be funny. That could never happen here.

Now that it has happened, and threatens to continue, we the people have work to do.

Of all the assaults on societal norms in the last four years, the worst (and that’s saying something) is probably the assault on truth. We have been awash in a never-ending torrent of every kind of dishonesty.

This is no accident, or unfortunate byproduct of carelessness. It is a deliberate and appallingly effective strategy. Even worse than the volume and the outrageousness of the lies is the liars’ desired outcome: convincing people – lots of people, as many as possible – that square is round if they say so.

It’s not just about fooling people, then; it’s getting them to submit to the notion that the difference between true and false either doesn’t matter or doesn’t exist.

That’s where we are teetering, it seems, with millions of Americans. That matters, tremendously. So much does it matter that (other than combating the pandemic) our top priority as a nation should be committing to truthfulness – all the time, every one of us, even when it hurts. Especially when it hurts. In big things and in small.

What To Do Right Now on a National Level

Address Compellingly the Most Destructive Lies Circulating

At the top of the list is the apparent belief of millions of Americans in various ways that “the election was stolen.” It’s not enough to just call these beliefs “debunked” or “discredited”, though they certainly are both. Such blithe and passing characterizations assume that the facts are self-evident. That assumption is not serving us well as a nation.

For one thing, it’s condescending. For another, those holding such beliefs assume the “other side” is lying. People willing to steal an election would be willing to lie about it, they might suppose. It behooves us to have inarguable facts available to every American of good faith interested in the truth. Those too far gone to care what’s true are not the target audience here.

There seem to be five or six of these myths that are particularly widespread. Let’s consider two examples.

More Votes than Voters

One we keep hearing is that 200,000 more people voted in Pennsylvania than were registered to vote. Donald Trump’s tweeted version was that there were “205,000 more votes than voters.” I gather this is not only demonstrably false, but a misrepresentation of the original falsehood.

It seems Pennsylvania State Rep. Frank Ryan issued a release saying the Department of State have 202,377 more people voting at all (including 170,830 more voting for President) than a system called SURE had reported from voting in all the counties combined. The PA Department of State pointed out that Ryan had accessed incomplete information from SURE, before a number of counties had entered final data. That’s all there is to it, apparently.

In saner times, such an embarrassing misrepresentation would be withdrawn with a sheepish apology. That it hasn’t and continues to be repeated means we need a respected, non-partisan entity to destroy this lie in clear, unmistakable detail. Then publish and widely disseminate the analysis with similarly undeniable truth on other 2020-election-stolen whoppers.

The Old “Dead People Voted” Thing

Another widespread myth is the notion that tens of thousands of dead people voted. No, they didn’t. It still seems there is precisely one known case where a man had his long-dead mother vote in Pennsylvania (and he had her vote for Trump, no less). From Trump’s infamous January 2 phone call to Georgia’s (Republican) Secretary of State we know he was told directly that the number of dead people voting cases there was two. Yes, two.

There is no reason to believe any appreciable number of “dead people voted” in this election anywhere. So, we need that apolitical entity to gather all the information for each of the swing states.

Explain Clearly the Significance of the Dismissed Lawsuits

How Courts Work

Start with a reminder on how the courts work. The Judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law, and then applies it to the facts found in deciding specific disputes. A party must prove a case in order to win it. Courts are where rumors, lies, and unsupported assertions go to die. Lawsuits seeking to overturn an election understandably have a significant burden to present compelling proof.

To grasp these election cases’ results, it helps to consider stages at which a case might fail. One can lose at trial, whether by judge or jury. Before that, there is summary judgment where one side convinces a judge that even if every allegation of the other side were believed, they still cannot win. Even before that, there is simple dismissal in many jurisdictions, where the court just throws out the case because there’s nothing there.

As might be expected, judges do not enjoy being reversed on appeal. If there’s any chance a case has merit, they’ll deny summary judgment to allow the finders of fact to figure it out at trial, with the rules of evidence in effect. Judges are even more reluctant to simply dismiss.

What Happened to the 60+ Cases

Of the over 60 cases filed contesting 2020 election results, it seems one motion was won. It involved the interpretation of a technical aspect of a law in Pennsylvania. The result had no practical effect on the outcome in Pennsylvania. Every other case lost.

Important to note: these cases did not just lose. Exasperated and incredulous judges summarily tossed them out as frivolous. THERE IS, LITERALLY, NO REASON TO BELIEVE THE 2020 ELECTION WAS STOLEN. NONE.

Again, a reputable entity with no axe to grind would help here. Get into details on some of the cases. That might include: how there weren’t even sensible allegations, much less any proof, in some cases; when supposed witnesses refused to come forth under oath; whether anyone is facing charges of perjury;  and if lawyers are facing ethics charges for filing frivolous pleadings, false affidavits, or anything in bad faith. Even if neither disciplined nor sanctioned, by the way, lawyers ruin their reputations filing rubbish in court.

Donald Trump was outraged that his appointing of judges did not make them his stooges. What we’ve been through should end any doubt about the critical importance of a truly independent judiciary.

What to Do Right Now on a Personal Level

In short: (1) hold ourselves to the highest standards of scrupulousness; and (2) refuse, however nicely, to accept known falsehoods from others.

Sending Information

Be scrupulous in what each of us says or sends. That includes care with important details, checking before forwarding or repeating; being skeptical of facts that don’t sound right; avoiding spin and exaggeration of facts either positive to one’s position or negative to others’; and exploring and admitting facts counter to our position.

That last one is interesting. Thomas Aquinas urged advocates to build up the opponent’s position before taking it apart, rather than denying any merit. It was good advice. Meanwhile, finding ourselves tempted to bend the truth in support of our position dictates considering what’s wrong with our position.

Receiving Information

Even as we hold ourselves accountable for telling the truth, so must we hold others, however nicely. The receiving end of false information has its own important challenges. Experience makes one a big fan of diplomacy, even while admitting it’s sometimes hard not to feel exasperation. As hard as it can be, a tactful, respectful, calm presentation of fact and perspective works best.

The question here is whether we’re engaging with another to get something off our chest, or to persuade. It is generally not effective to yell “That’s [expletive], you [expletive]ing [expletive]!!!” So if we’re looking to actually accomplish something, it’s take a deep breath and think about what we know that makes the information false, or where we can find a trustworthy, compelling answer.

To be clear, the approach suggested here is toward people of good will who have been conned. Those in high places who’ve been knowingly spreading such destructive lies are entirely different. Hold them to account, call them any name they deserve, and vote them out.

Humility’s Role

Unless you’re very different than I, you’ve been wrong more than a couple of times. And you’ve been “had” a few times as well. (See post of November 19, 2020.) It is neither fun nor easy to admit; sometimes it takes a while. The process of getting over being conned is somewhat similar to grieving, especially when we trusted, cared about, or held in high esteem the person or group who misled us. The stages can include slow realization, denial, anger, and embarrassment bordering on shame.

A dose of humility can help summon the patience it takes to give folks we care about the space they need to get over being conned. As essential as it is to counter falsehoods, it’s just as important to do so effectively – respectfully and with the truth.

Summary

It’s hard to believe we must exhort each other this way, but the saying is true: Honesty really is the best policy. And it’s anything but naiveté. We’ve seen where it brings us when we slip from spin to less than the whole truth, to little lies, to constant lies, to big lies, to constant Big Lies.

We can’t have it. None of it is acceptable, especially from persons in positions of trust, and from media outlets presenting themselves as “News”.

The Election of 2020 was actually a triumph of American democracy. In the midst of the worst pandemic in 100 years, more Americans than ever voted in the cleanest election it is possible to conduct in the real world. Voter suppression may have had an impact on the margins of the outcome, but it didn’t work regarding the outcome. Even the farcical hindering of the Post Office didn’t work. Extraordinary.

Yet, a series of endlessly repeated lies by the election’s loser, and his supporters, created an opening for our country’s enemies to dismiss our way of life as a pitiful sham. The culmination, at least so far, was on January 6, of course. Talk about un-American activity! It was planned and calculated to do us the most harm possible. It was also the last thing a new President needed.

As previously posted (again, post of November 19), Joe Biden, the Congress, federal and state prosecutors, ethics officials, and we citizens all must do our jobs.

After a glimpse into the abyss, it’s Truth or Bust. Demanding truth is not a luxury. Real patriotism requires nothing less.

Ken Bossong

© 2021 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

This Should Be Interesting

Is You Is or Is you Ain’t?

For four years, most congressional Republicans have enabled and abetted Donald Trump’s criminal enterprise in the White House. Presumably, many of them were hoping to seek plausible deniability with “What was I to do? He was a President from my party!” after Trump was gone.

Thanks to the Mo Brooks, the Josh Hawleys, and the Ted Cruzes of the world, slipping quietly back into the ooze is no longer an option. (Oh, there’s a swamp in Washington, alright, but it consists not of talented, hardworking career public servants.) These guys seek to turn Wednesday’s joint-session formality of certifying Electoral College votes into the election reversal that it cannot be. Just when you thought nothing could be more embarrassing than all those utterly frivolous lawsuits…

This forces Republicans to take a stand, with the world watching. Mitch McConnell tried to stave this off, since it is a nightmare for the likes of him.

All will, in effect, declare whether they are members of the Republican Party or of the apparently newly-minted Trump Fascist Party. (Thank you, author Dick Hermann.) So, GOP or TFP? Will you begin the daunting process of reclaiming and restoring the party of Lincoln? Or will you try to vitiate the votes of millions of Americans, based on nothing, in a fruitless attempt to curry favor with a nihilist?

Treachery and Foolishness and Hypocrisy – Oh, My!

Members of Congress all know that Biden won the election, since there is literally no reason to believe otherwise. They know this was the cleanest election that can be had in the real world. Last I heard, there was precisely one case of a “dead person voting” actually proven. Some doofus in Pennsylvania acted to have his long-dead mother vote. For Trump.

The ones still trying to have it both ways must be incapable of shame for saying “It’s not ME, but all the people who believe this election was stolen. I’ve gotta represent them.” This is a weird combination of transparent hypocrisy and a boast about convincing many people of Trump’s stolen election lie. Feigning concern over non-existent voter fraud in order to attempt negating real votes is a special kind of treachery.

Another of Trump’s favorite Big Lies (the tactic itself a fascist favorite) is that a free press is “the enemy of the people”. He thus manages to emulate both Stalin and Goebbels, among others of history’s worst actors. On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, some real enemies of the people get to self-identify and join their hero in his march to infamy.

That act is absolutely disqualifying for future public service of any kind, at any level.

Meanwhile, one is left to hope the two-hour debates in each house of Congress will include a few true patriots rising to defend our country and its Constitution in words that resonate for years to come.

Tens of millions of us are watching. We will not forget and we will use our votes accordingly – for years to come.

Ken Bossong

© 2021 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Earl Hooker (1929-1970)

Other Aspects Names First Winner of its Zebedee Award: the Greatest Guitarist All Should Know

Some artists are so far ahead of their time that the world isn’t ready for their genius. Some are their own worst enemies. Others are simply unlucky. Racism can raise its ugly head. Sometimes it’s a combination of factors. Whatever the cause, though, too many truly great musicians live, create, and die in relative obscurity.

One goal of this blog is to shine a light on musicians who are not as known or appreciated as they should be. There are at least two reasons. (1) The musicians deserve wider recognition, usually both for their brilliance and their importance as artists. (2) Listeners deserve to have their lives enriched by hearing them.

Henceforth, Other Aspects will recognize special, underappreciated musicians with its soon-to-be-coveted Zebedee Award (the “Zeb”, for short).

The first Zeb goes to the blues guitarist after whom it is named: Earl Zebedee Hooker. If you’ve never heard of him, do yourself a favor and dig in. If you play the guitar, or love listening to someone who really can, you are in for a treat.

Guitar Wizard

Virtuosity

Whatever one’s favorite manifestation of virtuosity on the guitar – sheer speed, tone, swing, timing, taste, or inventive improvisation – it’s in ample supply with Hooker. From exhilarating single-note runs to impeccable accompaniment, delights come at the listener from all angles, no matter the setting or the song.

That taste element is worth emphasizing. With his chops, it must have been tempting to use everything in his arsenal to just blister any musician around him. That never happens. Whether leader or sideman on a given date, Earl made everything being played and everyone around him better – even as he dazzled. He also made it seem easy.

Versatility

Hooker was a bluesman through and through, but there seems nothing he couldn’t play, and well. On the list of the great Blues guitarists, no one can match Earl’s amazing versatility. Jazz, rock, country and western –all could be featured in improvised bursts or sustained throughout a piece. That last genre is neither a misprint nor just thrown onto the list, by the way. If the Blues scene were slow, Earl Hooker would just gig with a band playing (as the joke goes) country OR western.

Bottleneck/Slide

Like all other guitarists, Earl was influenced by T-Bone Walker and B.B. King. Unlike many of his generation, though, B.B. was not his principal mentor. That distinction goes to the much less famous Robert Nighthawk, especially with regard to bottlenecking. As country blues morphed into urban, the technique of bottlenecking wasn’t dropped, but changed.

Metal slides replaced broken or sawed off necks of glass bottles on the finger, but the big change was the eerie sustain possible with electrical amplification. Muddy Waters and Elmore James created unmistakably personal sounds with the slide, even while bringing the essence of masters like Blind Willie Johnson, Son House, and Robert Johnson to the city.

Nighthawk, an interesting character in his own right, seems to have created a lithe approach more out of Tampa Red’s influence. He certainly took the young Earl Hooker under his wing; Hooker’s talent and skill would take Nighthawk’s approach to unimagined heights. One key was the use of a smaller slide to allow rapid alternating between it and regular fretting – even within the same note. While Elmore often created his majestic sound by sliding chords, Earl was just as inclined to use it on individual notes.

Other Devices

No purist he, Hooker was on the cutting edge of technical advances as they became available. Echo, delay, and especially the wah-wah pedal were eagerly embraced. As much as Earl loved his gizmos, though, he insisted they be musical instruments- not just gimmicks. He demanded of himself both mastery and integration of the toys into his approach to music before subjecting the public to the new sound. Once mastered, though, each tool was instantly available to Hooker.

Vocalist

Earl Hooker as a singer is an oddly complicated topic. The easy facts to relate are that he didn’t sing much, and the lack of vocals almost certainly were an impediment to stardom. Some say he couldn’t sing, yet there are recorded examples that range from effective to rather good.

So, is it that Earl couldn’t, or simply didn’t, sing much? The topic is addressed in Danchin’s biography, and it does seem that Hooker both did not like to sing and simply loved to play guitar – his real voice. Interestingly, Hooker was remarkably adept at making his guitar sound like a human voice, even to the point of simulating words.

In an interview with the founder of Arhoolie records, Chris Strachwitz, Earl uses the word “ashamed” in reference to his singing. He seems to be referring to a lack of strength and wind, which would result from his lifelong battle with tuberculosis. Another possible factor is a trait he shared with his cousin John Lee Hooker – a fairly pronounced stutter when speaking. Though not evident in Earl’s recorded vocals, it may have contributed to his reluctance to sing.

In any event, there was no telling who besides Earl might be handling the vocal on an Earl Hooker record – from A. C. Reed, Lillian Offitt, Harold Tidwell, and Junior Wells in the earlier years to Andrew “Voice” Odom, Johnny “Big Moose” Walker. Toward the end, as we’ll see, ABC Bluesway had the good sense to have Earl play lead guitar on a series of great albums featuring well-known singers. While Earl was a better singer than he thought he was, finding singers willing to work with a guitarist of Hooker’s ability was not a problem.

Relative Obscurity

Earl Hooker’s too-short life is packed with contradictions and unique aspects; even his obscurity is unique. While true that, during his life as now, few music fans could tell you who he is, there were many small pockets of devoted fans all over the country. Those who got to see this itinerant bluesman perform live in small clubs and juke joints wouldn’t forget his electrifying performances and couldn’t wait until he got back to their town.

Earl was a superstar mainly to other musicians. Their regard for Hooker’s artistry was the impetus for a full-fledged biography, Earl Hooker, Blues Master, by Sebastian Danchin (2001, University Press of Mississippi). The Blues Music Hall of Fame named the book its 2020 Classic of Blues Literature – and deservedly so, for the exhaustive research, documentation, insights, and quality writing. The book’s subject was a 2016 HOF inductee.

If you haven’t heard Earl, but his last name sounds familiar, that is probably because of his much more famous second cousin, the iconic John Lee Hooker. One doesn’t have to be a Blues aficionado to know who he is. Before moving on from John Lee, however, let’s say this: If you know him just for his guitar boogies, you’ve missed the best parts. Go back to earlier stuff, where he was one of the essential bridges between rural and urban blues, and one of the most moving primal forces ever to sing the Blues.

Born near Clarksdale, Mississippi probably (though not certainly) on January 15, 1929, Earl Hooker moved with his parents to Chicago sometime in 1930. Thus, he was born into Jim Crow America and was part of the great migration from the Delta to the urban North.

He started playing guitar as a kid. Spectacularly disinterested in schooling, an eleven to twelve year old Earl would dodge truant officers while playing for change with his buddies on Southside street corners. One of those friends was Ellas McDaniel, later known as rock pioneer Bo Diddley. By later in his teens, he was traveling and playing all over the South and Midwest. Except as limited by the tuberculosis that eventually would take him, Earl Hooker was the urban version of the itinerant bluesman for the rest of his life.

Character-and-a-Half

Playing For the Door

Those who knew Earl loved him, except when they wanted to kill him. Hooker was a piece of work, alright, and in several different, exasperating ways. While very few could stay mad at him indefinitely, there can be little doubt that Hooker’s eccentricities and flaws hurt him over the long haul.

Of course, the life of an itinerant musician, especially a Black blues man in the ‘50s and ‘60s, was no walk in the park under the best circumstances. A favorite story in Danchin’s biography involves the common practice of a traveling band “playing for the door”. This meant the club made what it could on food and drink, while the band got paid what was collected at the entrance door in cover charges. In the Social-Darwinism world of the music circuit, club owners had every incentive to understate the cover charges collected.

One night, after playing to a packed house all night in Lake Charles, Louisiana, the owner told Earl he didn’t have much coming. When Earl told him he had seen the SRO crowd in the club, the owner dismissed him with “You were playing for the door, and this is all we got at the door.” So, Hooker and others in the band took the club’s door off its hinges and put it in their bus. “Hey, what you all doin’?!” “We just played for the door”, Hooker replied, “and now it’s mine.” More appropriate negotiations ensued.

Other Misadventures

As funny as the story is, it is no less dismaying to learn that Earl would turn around and do exactly the same thing to his sidemen. He was notorious for underpaying his band. Earl owned the band’s limo or bus and did all the driving, which made it difficult for band members to quit in the middle of a road trip. Some quit anyway and used what was left of their money (or earned some if there wasn’t enough) for bus fare home.  Apart from a few mainstays in the band who did better, there was constant turnover. Earl just recruited talented but less experienced and more naïve young talent.

Yet, Earl Hooker was also renowned for generously sharing his time and expertise with young musicians, including tips on how to play and how to cope. Earl may have brought more good young talent to Chicago, and into the Blues, than anyone.

When he recruited singers who sounded like someone with hit records, Earl encouraged them to call themselves a name reminiscent of the more famous singer. His tenor sax man Aaron Corthen sounded a lot like Jimmy Reed (dozens of hits for Vee-Jay records) when he sang. So Earl had him change his name to A. C. Reed, suggesting without saying that he was Jimmy’s younger brother. Soon there were Little [Famous Singer]s or [Famous Singer] Juniors all over the place.

Sometimes Earl had his newfound talents pretend to actually be the star. Once singer Ricky Allen, who had had a few hits with Earl, booked a gig only to learn he was competing with himself. Hooker was playing right down the street featuring singer “Ricky Allen”.

The book mentions another bad habit, previously unknown to me, that undoubtedly hurt Hooker over time: helping himself to stuff, including equipment. If a club owner notices a microphone missing after you’ve played, how likely is he to book you in the future?

As for the women and children in his life: Let’s just say Earl’s funeral was chaotic, adding to the distress of Bertha, Earl’s wife of seven years. Bertha, whose favorable portrayal in Danchin’s bio rings true, maintained her Catron home in southern Missouri. It was Earl’s other home base, but his legal residence remained his mother’s place in Chicago. Yet, whatever his ramblings had been, Earl was a loving, caring and generous husband to Bertha and her two children from a previous marriage – when he was there.

Recordings

The quantity is not what it should have been, but Earl took care of the quality. It’s helpful to divide Hooker’s recording career into three segments.

The first, consisting of most of his career from the Fifties into the early Sixties, saw sporadic recording of singles on small labels like King, Argo, States, Bea & Baby, Chief, Age, and Mel-Lon. The last three of these labels were owned and run by Mel London.

Acting on a tip from Buddy Guy that Hooker was the Chicago guitarist to record next, Chris Strachwitz signed Earl on the spot for his Arhoolie label after seeing him at the White Rose in Chicago on November 9, 1968. The resulting records are the second segment.

A third phase of Hooker’s recording career came about when cousin John Lee used Earl’s group as his band for a few engagements in California and then a recording session for ABC Bluesway. Producer Ed Michel quickly signed Earl for future recordings.

Early Stuff/Mel London

Most of Earl’s best early stuff was done for Mel London. He was a musician and talented song-writer (Junior Wells’ first two hits “Little By Little” and “Messin’ With the Kid”). That, combined with decency and attention to detail, allowed Earl to flourish. Classic instrumentals like “Blue Guitar”, “Universal Rock”, “Blues in D Natural” and “Rockin’ Wild” will be featured in any compilation of this material one can find.

Then there’s the soaring “Calling All Blues”, one of the masterpieces of instrumental blues. Earl’s slide guitar and Junior Wells’ chromatic harmonica push each other to astounding heights. (Yes, Junior did go from one of the all-time great guitarists, Earl, to another, Buddy Guy. See the 5/10/20 post “Dynamic Musical Duos”.)

Some of the singles feature fine vocals by saxophonist A. C. Reed (“This Little Voice”, “Lotta Lovin’”), drummer Harold Tidwell (“Swear to Tell the Truth” also featuring Big Moose Walker’s early electric piano), and Lillian Offitt (“Oh Mama”, “Will My Man Be Home Tonight”). That last is notable for two things: (1) Offitt’s vocal includes an ill-advised (to these  ears) crying sequence that manages not to ruin a good song; and (2) The tune’s melody became a favorite warm-up instrumental, called “I Wonder Why”, for other great guitarists like Otis Rush.

The instrumental “Blue Guitar” later became a vocal when Muddy Waters took the entire performance and dubbed a vocal, “You Shook Me”, over it. There are a few oddities in the early stuff, like” Apache War Dance” and “Galloping Horses, A Lazy Mule”, but even these are salvaged somewhat by Earl’s guitar.

Arhoolie

There were three LPs – Two Bugs and a Roach, Hooker And Steve, and Earl Hooker, His First and Last Recordings. They more-or-less became two CDs – Two Bugs and a Roach, with some of his first recordings added and The Moon Is Rising, which is the Hooker And Steve LP, with some of his last recordings. The recommendation here is for both CDs.

The first Arhoolie, Two Bugs and a Roach, is essential, the album to get if you’re only getting one. The CD features three (!) very good vocals by Earl: his superb redo of Robert Blackhawk’s “Anna Lee”, “You Don’t Want Me”, and an early “I’m Going Down the Line” from 1953. Other highlights include the title track (discussed below), harmonica great Carey Bell’s first appearance on record, a vocal by Andrew Odom, and the steel guitar of Fred Roulette, (blending beautifully with Earl’s guitar stylings).

Then there’s “Wah Wah Blues” – masterful almost beyond description, it is the epitome of turning what could be a gimmick into beautiful music. Jimi Hendrix took the pedal in a different direction to enormous success, but there can be little doubt where his inspiration arose.

The second Arhoolie starts with another lengthy cover of a Blackhawk number that gives the CD its name; it’s nearly as good as “Anna Lee”. While still mostly quite good, the LP is no match for Two Bugs and a Roach, but the CD The Moon Is Rising is hugely enhanced by the add-ons. These consist of four improvisations by Earl recorded live by Hooker’s friend Dick Shurman in Chicago clubs – “Dust My Broom”, “Frosty”, “Can’t Hold Out Much Longer”, and “Swingin’ at Theresa’s”. This is the closest we will ever come to experiencing Earl Hooker in the setting he loved best: just playing for the people in a club he liked. It’s tempting to put these cuts on continuous loop and listen indefinitely.

The ABC Bluesway Series

Thank goodness John Lee Hooker brought Earl and his guys to the recording session. Understandably delighted with the album featuring the Hooker cousins, If You Miss ‘Im…I Got ‘Im, producer Ed Michel signed Earl and the band. It turned into a marvelous series of six more albums featuring Earl:

  1. Earl Hooker, Don’t Have To Worry (recorded same day as John Lee’s album, 5/29/69)
  2. Andrew “Voice” Odom, Farther On Down The Road (6/4/69)
  3. Johnny Big Moose Walker, Rambling Woman (6/9/69)
  4. Jimmy Witherspoon, Hunh! (9/15/69)
  5. Charles Brown, Legend (9/16/69)
  6. Brownie McGhee & Sonny Terry with Earl Hooker, I Couldn’t Believe My Eyes (9/24/69)

So, the first three headlined Earl and two of his band members, who were also two of his best friends and collaborators over the years. The last three had Earl playing lead guitar for world-famous Blues singers with good supporting casts. Earl is superb on all. Any fan of Witherspoon, Brown, or Sonny & Brownie must hear albums 4, 5, and 6 respectively. They, along with albums 1 and 2 and the John Lee are recommended without reservation.

There are two aspects of Walker’s album #3 worth mentioning. Terrific over the years on both piano and organ, Big Moose’s vocals are, to me, uneven. With the right vehicle (“Would You Baby”), he’s effective. Otherwise, it seems a reach.  The record’s other acquired taste is Otis Hale’s tenor sax. It is electrified, with a wah-wah pedal that is used incessantly. Though fun in spots, sublime it is not.

Here are a few thoughts on the other albums. #1 would be another good place to start exploring Earl Hooker, with two good vocals by Earl, three by Odom, and great instrumentals, including a “Universal Rock” even better than the original. #5’s critical acclaim was richly deserved. Re-creations of Charles Brown’s classics “Drifting Blues”, Black Night”, and “Merry Christmas Baby” are the highlights. Andrew Odom was nobody’s junior as a fine blues singer, as #2 attests, even if Hooker called him “B.B. King, Jr.”  Earl is incredible supporting his favorite singer, including one of the best versions ever of T-Bone Walker’s anthem, “Stormy Monday”.

Finally, there’s #6, Earl’s last studio recording. From the bio, Ed Michel and Danchin apparently both considered the pairing of Terry and McGhee with urban bluesmen disappointing – “the mixing of these various ingredients sounds pointless because the musicians fail to adjust themselves to the situation” (p. 300). I couldn’t disagree more. It’s a wonderful album, well worthy of anyone’s attention. The playing, the singing, and the songs themselves are all top-notch. A few of the songs, including the title track and “Tell Me Why”, are sadly and startlingly relevant to this day.

Video

There is very little video of Earl Hooker, unfortunately. What little exists all seems to come from the American Folk Blues Festival tour in 1969. This is Volume 2 of a DVD series, all of which is priceless for capturing blues legends performing for appreciative European audiences in the ‘60s. Earl’s individual on-stage performances are limited to two instrumentals. Backstage snippets, including him entertaining the entourage with Ernest Tubbs’ “Walking The Floor Over You”, give a glimpse of Earl’s persona.

That TB Bug

One should not have to die of TB in 1970, but Earl Hooker did. Whether he simply wouldn’t or just couldn’t, Earl Hooker certainly didn’t take care of himself. He traveled, worked, and played himself to exhaustion – stopping only when he had to be admitted to the hospital. Then he’d leave medical care too soon and start the cycle all over again.

In addition to Earl’s typically stellar playing, the title track from Two Bugs and a Roach features a spoken interplay between Hooker and Andrew “Voice” Odom. Odom opens, asking Earl where he’s been so long. 1919 West Taylor, Hooker replies, giving the State TB Hospital’s address where he’d been confined for months. He’d been messing around with Dr. Newhouse; he had to get rid of that TB Bug. How’d he do that? By hittin’ it something like this! Then Earl launches into a rip roaring guitar solo.

The humor in this exchange is more literally of a “whistling past the graveyard” nature than anyone would have wanted for Earl. He played, and lived, like someone well aware of how finite one’s life is. It was recorded on November 16, 1968; TB took Earl Hooker on April 21, 1970. He did indeed attack life’s difficulties by hitting it on his guitar.

Coda

Without Mel London, Chris Strachwitz, and Ed Michel, we’d have little but stories to celebrate. Thanks to them, we get to revel in a singular man’s gifts. At one time or another, a very long list of the greatest guitarists has called Earl Hooker the best electric guitarist of his generation, or ever. Enjoy!

In a season for the blessings of Hope and aspirations for Peace that is darker than usual, there’s this: Amid our faults, limitations and idiosyncrasies, the glory is in the striving. Whatever unique gifts and flaws are ours, how special what’s possible can be.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Now What?! A Suggested Approach to Pre-Inaugural Angst

The pandemic rages on with more victims than ever. The President of the United States cares only about convincing as many of his followers as possible that the recent election was stolen, while knowing it was not. OMG, what crazy, stupid, lawless thing will the President do next? If we find ourselves anxiously fretting over this, the Donald has us right where he wants us.

OK, so how is one to react to the latest assault on our country’s democracy? Matter-of-factly. The time has come to stop rewarding Donald Trump and his followers with howls of outrage, however deserved. With the possible exception of the inherent pleasure they derive from wrongdoing, nothing pleases Trump or a true Trumpster more than the apoplexy they elicit with bad behavior.

So, it’s not “You make me so mad I can’t sleep!” Rather, it’s time to shrug and say, “We expected nothing but the worst possible behavior from you, Mr. President. Someone willing to obstruct justice as you have is certainly going to obstruct a transition. Hire your movers and the best criminal defense team you can find. Pitch a reality TV show. Please excuse us, though; we have a lot to do, repairing the damage you’ve done to this country.”

We Saw This Coming, Right?

We were expecting, maybe, bowing to the will of the people? A gracious acceptance of obvious reality? Cooperative transfer of power in the nation’s best interests? An end, or even slowdown, to the barrage of lies? Doing the right thing?

We thought that after the election Donald Trump would urge all Americans to take reasonable measures to protect themselves and each other? Tamp down the politicization of the pandemic? Do something that actually would help the economy?

This Republican “leadership” (excuse the expression) was going to rein in Donald Trump? They were going to say harming the country with lies demeaning its democracy was going too far? They’re going to get interested in saving lives after a quarter-million lost?

C’mon. Seriously?  

This is not to suggest that dishonesty does not matter; quite the contrary. Honest, experienced election officials – Republican, Democratic, and Independent – are receiving death threats for doing their jobs and telling the truth. Exhausted health workers report patients using their dying breaths to deny the virus killing them.

The most famous current report comes from South Dakota, where nearly a half million bikers sneered at science with a super-spreader event in Sturgis. There is no doubt why the Upper Midwest became one of the nation’s hotspots this fall. Unmasked and undistanced partiers went home to every state, and, combined with smaller but similarly foolish gatherings everywhere, have made the whole country a hot spot again. Dishonesty matters, alright, especially when believed.

A Few Undeniable Facts – Election

By all accounts, regardless of political persuasion, 2020 was the cleanest election anyone can remember. That stands to reason, since everyone knew it would be the most scrutinized election ever. Elections generally are clean; our system works. But the chance of getting away with election fraud in this one was closer to zero than ever.

Joe Biden won. His 306 electoral college votes were the same number garnered by Trump in 2016. For four years we’ve been hearing from the Donald that this was a “landslide”, despite losing the popular vote by around 2.9 million votes. In contrast, Biden’s 306 electoral votes in 2020 saw a corresponding popular vote victory of over 5.5 million. It’s a clear, solid win.

Any assertion to the contrary is not only incorrect, but a knowing lie. Everyone with access to the facts knows this election was clean. To suggest it was stolen is a slander against our country, and all those who work hard and well on its elections.

Overturning any election in court requires compelling proof. In cases filed against this election, forget about proving anything – what’s being alleged is incoherent. If any specific fact is asserted, it turns out not only false but often the opposite of the truth. The suits filed aren’t just losers; they are frivolous.

Yes, He Knows

By the way, of course Trump knows he lost. He knew he was cooked when Biden won the South Carolina primary and then did so well on Super Tuesday. Why else would he be furious with Elizabeth Warren for not pulling out of the race and backing Sanders? Trump knew he’d have a chance against Bernie. Why else did he pursue that idiocy in the Ukraine before Biden was even the nominee?

If he knows he lost, why this behavior now? The easy answer is he’s just being the Donald. It’s no mere sore-loser petulance, however. The sad truth seems to include: (1) This keeps him the lead story, even as a lame duck, as long as possible. (2) Whatever can be done to hurt Biden, he’ll do. (3) He enjoys harming people in general, and our country and its core values in particular. (4) There are a few more items on the to-do list Vladimir gave him. (5) He is helping himself to one last fleecing of his adoring followers. As has been reported elsewhere, the small print in the current fundraising indicates that little or no money raised actually funds the baseless lawsuits.

A Few Undeniable Facts – Pandemic

COVID-19 is not just another flu. It is more contagious, more stealthy, and much more deadly. Its presence in a person days before symptoms manifest means that people unknowingly spread the virus everywhere, unless they take measures.

Transmission of COVID-19 is by personal contact, specifically most often by respiratory droplets. How long they linger, and under what circumstances, are still not fully understood. It’s easy to understand, though, that people breathing on each other spreads the coronavirus. Keeping a distance of about six feet, and knocking down droplets with masks, obviously help. So do circulating clean air, cleaning surfaces, and avoiding crowds.

At any time in our history other than the Trump Era, denying any of the above would have been regarded universally as sheer lunacy. Yet, one mask seen at a farm stand said “This Is What Tyranny Looks Like!” No. This is what common sense looks like.

The message from the White House has been “Ignore those fins of the great white shark. Everyone in the ocean!” (Indeed, not to beat the point to death, but the presidential response to COVID since March has been a real-world, large-scale rendition of the film Jaws, complete with mayor telling citizens to ignore the experts for fear of slowing an economy.)

The Need for Consequences

The expression is “No good deed goes unpunished.” The only thing worse than good deeds being punished, though, is bad deeds going unpunished. The wrongdoing recently, like that of the last four years, has been so voluminous and so serious as to require consequences. Otherwise, there will be no credible deterrent to future crimes and unethical behavior in high places. Don’t go after little stuff, but don’t ignore really bad stuff, either.

This is not for Joe Biden’s attention, by the way. He has even more important things to do. At every level, state and federal, we have good people who have made it their lives’ work to respond to bad behavior. Unfettered, these experts can be trusted to just do their jobs in various realms.

The Civil Case Realm

It is entirely appropriate in most jurisdictions to request both attorneys’ fees and sanctions in response to frivolous litigation. Without a shred of evidence, the suits being filed by or on behalf of Donald Trump are the epitome of frivolous. Every pleading in response to this nonsense should contain requests for sanctions and attorneys’ fees. It’s bad enough that gullible Trump supporters send their money in for this “cause”, only to have all or most of it diverted. Why should taxpayers have to fund the defense?

It is worth remembering that certain doctrines of law, like fraud and the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, operate in both the civil and criminal arenas.

One other thought: How about a writ of mandamus against public servants who refuse to do their job in critical areas? This tends to come up when dedicated professionals are fired in favor of political hacks and donors. There are very good reasons for the Hatch Act and for political appointees to be greatly outnumbered in the public workforce.

The Ethical Realm

It is unethical for any lawyer to file pleadings lacking any merit. (RPC 3.1: A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, nor assert or controvert an issue therein unless the lawyer knows or reasonably believes that there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.)

It is separately and especially unethical to do so knowingly. (RPC 3.3: A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting an illegal, criminal or fraudulent act by the client… (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false… or (5) fail to disclose to the tribunal a material fact knowing that the omission is reasonably certain to mislead the tribunal…)

Attorney Ethics prosecutors, often called Bar Counsel, should prepare themselves for a wave of cases. The Rules of Professional Conduct are not limited to those in private practice, by the way; they apply to all licensed lawyers.

Lawyers aren’t the only ones with ethics standards. Other professions, like medicine, have them. All three branches of the federal government have offices to ensure ethical conduct. While Trump and congressional Republicans each consider whether there is any act whatever Trump could do that would draw condemnation, here’s a link to the Office of Congressional Ethics: https://oce.house.gov/learn/citizen-s-guide

The Criminal Realm

The enormity in volume, scope, and severity of the crimes committed by and on behalf of Donald Trump boggles the mind. And that’s just what we already know. History will teach that our President Law ‘n’ Order broke more laws than any other ever, perhaps more than all others combined.

Crimes (like perjury, fraud, treason) each have elements that must be proven. They either happened or they didn’t. They either can or cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The topic of pardons would justify its own post. Suffice it to say (as I have been for a couple years) that on his way out, Trump will

  • Pardon a long list of bad actors who committed crimes at his behest or for his benefit and
  • Either resign and have Pence pardon him, or pardon himself – or both

Donald Trump may find one last constitutional crisis irresistible, so brace yourself for that self-pardon thing. I’m not aware of anything definitive on whether a president can do it, but there’s this from a memorandum opinion written in the time of Nixon out of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel:

“Pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the ‘Power to grant…Pardons for Offenses against the United States…’ is vested in the President. This raises the question whether the President can pardon himself. Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, it would seem that the question should be answered in the negative.”

As to Vice President Pence: he is not in Jerry Ford’s position; Trump is not in Richard Nixon’s position; and someday maybe we’ll count the number of Trumpian scandals that dwarf Watergate. Depending on how far Trump is willing to go with his treachery before January 20, the 25th Amendment, Section 4, might be the more to the point than Article II.

Finally, I’ve seen a suggestion that Biden should pardon Trump. I don’t think he should, and I don’t think he will.

A Quick Story

As an undergrad a long time ago at Rutgers, I bought an advance general admission ticket to a concert. I was excited because it was my first chance to see Archie Shepp, then as now one of my favorite tenor saxophonists. Excited enough was I to not pay attention as I approached the outside doors. Someone stuck out his hand and I handed him my ticket. While peering inside the lobby, I didn’t notice at first that the stub wasn’t given back to me. I looked back and the guy was gone, with my ticket.

At first, I was puzzled. Looking back inside the lobby, I realized they were actually taking tickets at the doors from the lobby into the venue. The ticket was gone, I couldn’t prove anything or identify the guy, and I couldn’t afford another ticket. I was almost as angry at myself as the thief. How could I have been so stupid? I hated the feeling of being “had”. (Indeed, until now, I haven’t told this story to very many people.)

It’s happened to most of us, one way or another, and we all hate the feeling of having been had. For at least two reasons, we don’t want to believe that’s what has happened. First, someone did something wrong to us. Second, we feel really foolish.

Millions have been had by Donald Trump. Some will never realize it; some will realize it, but never admit it. Some have realized it, or are beginning to realize it, already; for others it will take a while. It’s never easy, and it hurts. He’s quite the con man.

All cons are not the same, but it does feel better to learn from it and let it go. I’ve enjoyed many great events at Rutgers over the years. I’ve also seen Archie Shepp play three times now, worn out some of his albums, and loved every second of it.

So…

True and False.
Good and Bad.
Right and Wrong.

My parents taught me all about these concepts – which was which, and why the distinctions between them always matter. I’m eternally grateful. It’s time to fix the mess we’re in, preferably together. We’ve never needed these, our first principles and the building blocks of society, more.

To be effective, it’s better to skip the snark and the vitriol, but we must insist on fairness, and answer every lie with the truth. Investigate all wrongdoing, wherever the truth takes us. Prosecute proven crimes. Discipline breaches of Ethics. Do all this not out of spite or revenge, but simple justice. We can’t afford not to do it.

Matter-of-factly.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

It’s Mueller Time, Now More Than Ever

The Mueller Report has grown in importance, not diminished, ever since it was published in March 2019. All that’s needed to grasp its crucial takeaways and the Big Question it presents is keeping in mind three key points.

I. Background For Understanding The Report

The Mueller Report was the most misunderstood big story of 2019. Its official title, Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, is hardly catchy, but the Mueller Report never was the non-event it was portrayed to be. Given what’s transpired since its release and the looming election, it is more relevant (and understanding it is more important) than ever.

People just didn’t get major aspects of the Report. Attorney General Barr’s misrepresentation of its contents before its release contributed mightily to confusion and misperception, as intended. Indeed, the fog was necessary to keep the Trump administration going. The hope was, and is, that Americans not read the Report for themselves.

It’s a shame. Grasp three key concepts, and how they inter-relate, and the significance of the Mueller Report is right there for the taking at any level of detail desired. The three points are: (1) Mueller believed he could not indict Trump. (2) Therefore, Mueller would not say whether Trump had committed a crime. (3) Underlying everything is the burden of proof in a criminal case, “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” (BARD).

The first point is discussed but seldom fully understood. The most subtle, intriguing, least discussed, and useful point for understanding what puzzles and frustrates people about the Report is the second. It’s explicitly there, though, just like point #1 from which it flows.

Reading the Report is highly recommended. Yes, it’s long and the redactions are annoying. (Speaking of which, many of the redactions were about Roger Stone’s then-ongoing case. That debacle has played out. ISSUE AN UNREDACTED VERSION, NOW!)  The Report isn’t literature, but the content – what took place – is spellbinding.  The following is a relatively brief guided tour.

Key Point #1: Mueller Never Was Going To Indict the President

Robert Mueller was Special Counsel charged with handling the investigation and reporting to the Attorney General. As such, he was working under the Department of Justice. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”

Ordinarily, an investigating prosecutor has a binary decision to make: either prosecute or decline to prosecute. This being no ordinary investigation, Mueller determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. That’s because he adopted the OLC’s legal conclusion: It would be bad public policy and arguably unconstitutional to indict or prosecute a sitting President of the US. In his words, “we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”

In other words, (a) An indicted president can’t govern; and (b) Since electing a president is a political process, removal should be political, too, rather than legal. Impeach, then indict. We know what happened with impeachment (see Senate Republicans, I Know What You Did Last Winter, post of 6/23/20). Thereafter, the proper order became: Elect someone else, then indict. We’ll learn more on Tuesday, November 3.

So, why bother to investigate, then? Mueller anticipated that question. Paring down his answer: The OLC opinion recognizes that (1) One does not indict a sitting president, but a criminal investigation of a sitting POTUS is permissible. (2) A POTUS does not have immunity after leaving office. (3) Individuals other than the POTUS may be prosecuted. Therefore, Mueller proceeded: “we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.” [See pages 213-4. All page references are out of the Report’s total 448.]

As it turned out, unfortunately, some memories were more flawed or fabricated than fresh, and important documents weren’t as available as they should have been.

Key Point #2: Mueller Would Not Say Whether the President Committed a Crime

Ordinarily, the threshold step in deciding whether to prosecute or decline is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.”  Mueller believed fairness dictated that he not even reach that assessment, given that criminal prosecution was out of the question.

Why? Because the protections provided within a public criminal trial is how individuals get a chance to clear their name. “In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” (214) Such fairness concerns would be heightened in the case of a sitting president.

Get this, and you are on your way with the Mueller Report: It would be unfair to accuse informally, and not indict.

Key Point #3: BARD – the Highest Burden of Proof – Was in Effect

Parties in legal cases have one of three burdens of proof – i.e. the degree of certainty they must prove for their side of a dispute to prevail. For example, the most common burden of proof is the lowest, “Preponderance of the Evidence”. In effect in civil cases for damages, it means proving your version of the facts is “more likely than not” what happened. (Another burden, “clear and convincing” is in between the other two, used in limited instances not relevant here.)

At the other end of the spectrum, the highest burden of proof is in effect in criminal cases: “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. Prosecutors must show there is no reasonable doubt that (a) a crime was committed and (b) the defendant committed it. Note that it’s not Beyond All (or Any) Doubt. So, who decides which doubts are “reasonable”? The jury.

If defense counsel does a good job in arguing reasonable doubt, the judge instructs the jury properly, and jurors take their role seriously, prosecutors have their work cut out for them with BARD. Combine this burden of proof with the first two key points, and a prosecutor more interested in doing his job scrupulously than throwing his weight around, and what do you get? The highly nuanced Mueller Report.

Robert Mueller’s Uniquely Delicate Task

No one knew better than Robert Mueller just how unique and delicate his role was. Nationally renowned as he was as a federal prosecutor, Mueller was still a non-politician in a very public setting. He presented himself as a man determined to discharge his duties fairly and honorably. For example, I loved what he said to the press while conducting the investigation: nothing.

Robert Mueller was never going to indict a sitting president (key point #1). He was never going to even express an opinion as to whether his conduct was illegal (key point #2). Some “Witch Hunt”, wasn’t it? Had he bent over backwards any further to be fair to the president, Mueller would have broken his back.

Mueller took a lot of heat for it, too. Some thought him wrong with #1, that his authority in this assignment would have permitted prosecution of the president. Many thought him wrong about #2, if they even bothered to grasp the point. Displeasure with him was from all sides, the result of his being neither the avenging angel sought by Democrats nor the exonerator Republicans wished to portray.

In particular, we’ve heard a lot about how poorly Mueller “performed” in his congressional testimony. He was hesitating, halting, asking for questions to be repeated, relying on the report, refusing to opine or characterize beyond the report, appearing to stumble while searching for the correct words.

Perhaps a Mueller presentation may have been more fluid a decade earlier. In general, though, complaining viewers did not realize what they were seeing. Mueller said the Report was his testimony and that he would not go beyond it, then actually did what he said. He was absolutely determined not to prejudice other ongoing investigations, or go beyond the purview of this one. There was good reason to resist attempts to put words in his mouth that were not in the Report, or to give questioners a second chance to ask something coherent. Many pauses involved processing subtleties and complexities, while being exquisitely fair to all in a setting where an answer’s every nuance mattered.

My impression, then, was of a career prosecutor who came by his impeccable reputation honestly; of a life-long Republican who found this one of his most distasteful assignments; and of a patriot worried about the country he loves and serves. Getting Mueller wrong may have had something to do with how unaccustomed citizens became to seeing a person of stature inside the beltway behaving honorably on the big stage.

II. Takeaways from the Report

Armed with the three key points, one can delve into the Mueller Report and emerge with any number of important takeaways. Here are a few.

Russian Interference With the 2016 Election Was Massive and Undeniable

Volume 1 of the Mueller Report, 199 pages, is devoted to detailing the nature and extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election. It makes for astonishing and appalling reading.

The Report breaks Russian efforts into two broad categories: (1) a social media campaign led by something called the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and (2) a hacking and dumping operation by a Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU).

The IRA

The social media campaign, begun as early as 2014 to generally undermine the US electoral system, fell in behind Donald Trump as an early candidate and then as the Republican nominee. IRA created phony entities under Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Some of them sounded like they were invented for satire, but had hundreds of thousands of followers. All told, as many as 126 million Americans were reached with false information and divisive messages.

Posing as American grassroots activists, the IRA also created, promoted, and held rallies in the US. The Russians sent notice of an event through the phony social media accounts, then recruited coordinators for the event from those who responded enthusiastically. IRA operatives would claim a schedule conflict as the event approached, leaving the recruited American coordinator to promote the rally with the media and run the show. An early (2015) event was a “confederate rally”; from June 2016 on, they were pro-Trump and anti-Clinton. Page 31 of the Report displays an IRA poster promoting a “Miners For Trump” rally in Pennsylvania.

A glance at the names of some fake IRA-backed groups active on Facebook alone shows the breadth of Russia’s insidious efforts at sowing discord: “Stop All Immigrants”, “Being Patriotic”, “Secured Borders”, “Tea Party News”, “Blacktivist”, “Black Matters”, “Don’t Shoot Us”, “LGBT United”, and “United Muslims of America” [page 25].

The GRU

The second category of interference, GRU’s hacking campaign, began in March 2016. It started with the email accounts of Clinton campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chair John Podesta. By April, the GRU had hacked into the networks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Hundreds of thousands of documents were stolen.

Release of materials was timed to assist Trump and hurt Clinton. Example: the first dump of Podesta materials by WikiLeaks occurred on October 7, 2016, about an hour after release of the infamous 2005 “hot mic” video in which Trump boasted of sexual assault exploits to Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush.

There’s also this: On July 27, 2016, “candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically)” [page 5]. There’s that pesky sarcasm again; such a jokester, that Donald. However, “Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office.” [page 49]

Information Warfare

The second sentence of the Report, on page 1, is this: “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” Elsewhere, it points out that the IRA referred to its own tactics as “information warfare”. In short, as said by former NJ Attorney General John Farmer, Jr. in a terrific piece in the 4/21/19 Philadelphia Inquirer, “Taken as a whole, those measures were a cyber invasion of our nation, an act of virtual war.”

In his testimony, Mueller said, “Over the course of my career I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”

The Report Did NOT Say “No Collusion!/No Cooperation!/No Conspiracy!”

Far from it. It concludes that Special Counsel had not gathered enough evidence at that point to be confident of conviction.

This is the burden of BARD at work. In reviewing the Report, never forget that these are criminal law considerations. Note the use of careful language like “not sufficient to establish” throughout, in explaining instances where prosecution was declined. This is a prosecutor being careful not to charge unless very sure of sustaining the burden of proof. (His batting average for obtaining convictions on those charged was as high as it could be, thus setting the stage for disgraceful intervention in the cases of Roger Stone and Michael Flynn by Attorney General Barr and President Trump.)

The Report sets forth both an eagerness on the part of the Trump Campaign to conspire and numerous contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.

Individuals were indicted for lying and obstructing, but no member of the campaign was indicted for conspiring with the Russians.

Three possibilities suggest themselves here. Either:

  1. There was no conspiracy because the Russians concluded from contacts with the Trump campaign – like the meeting at Trump Tower of 6/9/16 in which Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort were disappointed not to receive dirt on Clinton – that they’d do better helping  Trump get elected without them;
  2. There was a conspiracy, but the obstruction of justice laid out in Volume 2 succeeded in preventing Special Counsel from proving it beyond a reasonable doubt; or
  3. To borrow a concept from Antitrust law, conscious parallelism occurred. (Bear with me here, or just skip this part.) Without explicitly agreeing to fix prices, competitors in a market sometimes simply behave as if they had. With no smoking gun, it’s harder to prove, but conscious parallelism is an antitrust violation. The question here would be whether the parties had the sophisticated wherewithal to pull off such a nod-and-a-wink political conspiracy.

Before letting this topic go, I should mention that the weakest part of the Report for me, admittedly no expert on criminal law, was the explanation of why that Trump Tower meeting of June 9 did not constitute criminal conspiracy. Pages 184 to 188 contain a fine explication of the law but an unpersuasive application of it to the facts. Counsel fusses over his ability to prove, BARD, two elements of conspiracy, thing-of-value and willfulness. Yet, it seems incredible that (a) the anticipated dirt on Hillary would not be a “thing of value” and (b) individuals so high up in a major party’s presidential campaign could be held so ignorant of basic election law as to be incapable of willfulness.

Obstruction of Justice

Volume 2 of the Report presents a compelling case of breathtaking obstruction of justice by the President and others. The details are as comprehensive as they are appalling. As with the facts underlying the Trump impeachment, Nixon’s Watergate cover-up shrivels into insignificance by comparison.

Here is the Conclusion to the executive summary of Volume 2:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

The only reasonable conclusion to draw from Volume 2 is this: There is only one reason Donald Trump was not indicted for multiple counts of obstruction – he was a sitting president. So why doesn’t Mueller just say so? Because Key Point #2, above, is just as important as Key Point #1. This was as far as Mueller felt he could go.

If you doubt my assessment of this as a non-expert in criminal law, please consider a Statement made public on May 6, 2019 (available here: https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1) by a group who are certainly experts – former federal prosecutors. They describe themselves thus: We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Their conclusion, supported with analysis: Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

The Statement is signed by 1,027 former prosecutors. That’s right – over a thousand experts put the lie to the “fake news, witch-hunt, hoax”. If he’s indicted for multiple crimes after leaving office, Donald Trump will get what he deserves: the opportunity a trial entails to clear his name. If not, it will be official: someone is above the Law.

On “Exoneration”

An interesting exchange during Robert Mueller’s testimony was then-Rep. John Ratcliffe taking him to task for the second half of the Volume 2 Conclusion above, especially the last sentence not exonerating the president. The essence of Ratcliffe’s point was that Special Counsel lacked the authority to exonerate or not exonerate President Trump.

Mueller could have been accused of setting up a straw man and knocking him down (a pet peeve of mine, by the way), except for one important thing. He knew Trump was the type to claim falsely that the Report exonerated him and felt the responsibility to head that misconception off at the pass. Sure enough, Trump couldn’t wait to prove him right by claiming total exoneration – and that’s even with the Report’s detailed explanation why it did not and could not have exonerated him.

This chirping about exoneration makes an interesting contrast with Trump’s now-famous response to hearing that Mueller had been appointed: “According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f—-d.’ ” [page 78] He had every reason to believe that.

It is worth noting that, as in numerous other published accounts of President Trump’s misfeasance, the Report describes instances where underlings prevented further damage by ignoring, deflecting, delaying or refusing orders by Trump to engage in wrongdoing. Remarkably, it could have been even worse.

III. The Big Question

Taking a deep breath and a step back from all the technical details and legal arguments, we’re left with one Big Question. Oddly, it has received little public discussion.

We’ve seen the extraordinary lengths (time, effort, and expense) that Russia went to in aid of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. The Report makes clear there can be no doubt on this and that more detailed evidence than anyone has time to read is available to prove it. Indeed, no one but Donald Trump even pretends to doubt it.

The question of whether such efforts were enough to alter the 2016 election’s outcome has lurked ever since. At this juncture, though, we’re more concerned with what effect Russia’s continuing efforts are having on the 2020 election. Let’s set that aside.

The Big Question is simply “Why?”

Why did Russia in general, and Vladimir Putin in particular, want Donald Trump to be President of the United States so very badly? Why does that continue?

Forgive me, fans of Hillary Clinton, but it cannot be that Putin was quaking in his boots at the prospect of a Clinton presidency. One of the most concerning aspects of President Obama’s eight years was how Putin consistently had his way with him – and no less so while Clinton was Secretary of State.

Notwithstanding false denials, there was the prospect of building a Trump Tower in Moscow. But if any hanky-panky were involved, it would be your garden-variety corruption that could occur whether or not Trump were President. In fact, the project, with or without wrongdoing, actually would have been easier without the glare of the presidency.

Why does Donald Trump admire Vladimir Putin, one of the world’s truly evil men, so unabashedly, to the point of hero-worship? Why and how does a president behave as Trump did in Helsinki? Why did Putin want Trump to be President so desperately that no effort or expense was spared?

Why the Big Question Matters

With no satisfactory answer, the question keeps presenting itself as each episode of President Trump’s bizarre and otherwise inexplicable handling of our international affairs unfolds. The long list includes seemingly impulsive and erratic behavior in troop movements, withdrawal from negotiated international agreements, and treatment of allies as enemies and enemies as allies.

With few exceptions, such behavior leaves experts in the affected fields, including (one hopes) the president’s own hand-picked advisors in the White House, aghast and repulsed. More importantly, such actions withdraw the US from the international stage, leaving the world a worse and more dangerous place. Every lessening of American presence and influence creates a void. Guess who is eager to fill the vacuum that Nature abhors. 

Again, if Donald Trump were to be re-elected, does anyone doubt that he would seek to withdraw the US from NATO? Guess who would be thrilled with that development.

Note the consistency in Russia’s strategy; it’s the classic Divide and Conquer. Yes, they worked to bolster candidate Trump and diminish Hillary Clinton. The most striking detail, however, was Russia’s unrelenting effort to sow anger, confusion, and especially division among Americans. Arguably, we needed less prodding than we should have, but they’ve been more successful dividing us than they could have dreamed. Similarly, Putin’s clear path to restoring Russia’s prominence is to divide those nations whose freedoms and way of life threaten him.

Again, why does Putin want Donald Trump to be President of the United States so very badly? Why was he so confident that a President Trump would deliver as he has? And, what’s in it for the Donald?

Finally, who wants a President of the United States about whom such questions can be asked credibly, with urgent concern? Guess we’ll see soon enough.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

For and Against, in the Election of 2020

Most presidential elections leave me grumbling how tired I am of voting against the worse of two evils, and longing to vote for someone. This is the year.

That is not to say there’s no compelling reason to vote against Donald Trump. There are many – and almost every day there are more. Happily, though, there are some good reasons to vote for Joe Biden.

Reasons To Vote For Biden

Breadth and Depth of Relevant Experience

With eight years as Vice President and many years before that in the US Senate, Biden’s background in two of the three branches of government is an enormous advantage.
Domestically and internationally, Biden knows the issues, the opportunities, the dangers, and the players. He has institutional knowledge and skill, a sense of what works and what doesn’t. Even mistakes and stumbles from the past can be teachable moments, for those, like Biden, open to learning.
The strongest resume of relevant experience since George H. W. Bush makes Biden a candidate ready to govern immediately upon taking the oath.

Devotion to the Constitution and the Rule of Law

Biden gets it; the reverence isn’t feigned. No policy position is as important. In matters large and small, he’s not the kind of guy to ignore his oath of office. It may not have seemed a big deal, but during last night’s town hall from Philadelphia, he eschewed presidential overuse of executive orders. He’d be the first president in a while with that approach.
So many offices and functions of the Executive Branch that must be apolitical to operate have been politicized blatantly. Restoring their integrity will be at or near the top of Biden’s essential to-do list.

Decency

Biden is a good person. In a better time, this would be a prerequisite, taken for granted in anyone seriously considered to be running for president. In these times, however, decency counts as a noteworthy advantage.

Integrity

(Ditto on this as normally a prerequisite.) Considering Biden’s worst moment in this regard ironically underscores his fundamental honesty. In an attack ad we’ve all seen countless times, it is telling that they had to go back 33 years for a clip of Biden responding to a question defensively, claiming academic achievement he hadn’t attained 20 years before that. It is cringe-worthy, but Biden’s worst moment wouldn’t have registered as noticeable if done by his adversary. More on that below.

Relationships

Few aspects of life are more important than relationships formed and nurtured. The significance is magnified on the national and international stages. Genuinely worthwhile relationships take patience and hard work, and this is where decency and integrity really count. Possessing all these requisite traits makes this factor Biden’s strongest suit.
Even better than his knowing the players in every realm, the players know and respect him. This consensus builder understands that the President’s most important power is the power to persuade (Presidential Power, Richard E. Neustadt, 1960).

Bipartisanship

When given grief for talking to the “enemy” across the aisle, Biden explains as patiently as he can that this is how things get done. It’s OK to shut up and listen once in a while, without giving up your fundamental principles. Not only is it possible to learn something – about their position and yours – but it can lead to discovering a better solution for all concerned.
If there is merit in anything that’s been done in the last four years, Biden is one politician who might just retain and build upon such items, rather than ditching them out of spite.

Deliberative Decision Making

Joe Biden knows what he doesn’t know, a key component of wisdom. He seeks expertise, listens, and carefully considers alternatives before acting. If anything, he’ll have to guard against being too deliberative before taking action. Given the enormous stakes involved in what comes before a president, this approach would be an important improvement.

Strength in Core Beliefs

Biden’s willingness to give and take for prudent problem solving does not extend to basic principles and core beliefs. Nice try with that “sleepy”, “weak”, and “Trojan Horse” stuff, but Biden would not be the Democratic candidate without HIS beliefs and principles defeating those he is accused of espousing.

Race and Social Justice

No Johnny-come-lately to these issues, Biden has earned trust in this area. It will take most of what he brings to the table in judgment, empathy, honesty, consensus building and experience, but the time seems right. It should be straightforward to get this done, but it just isn’t. He presents the best opportunity to take significant steps toward real justice. The fear-mongering ads against him are predictably false.

On Trump-Haters, Never-Trumpers, and the Like

It’s worth pausing to examine one of the least persuasive and most annoying tactics employed by defenders of Donald Trump. Point out anything done or said by the Donald that is clearly wrong – morally, legally, or factually – or criticize him for anything, and expect to be dismissed quickly as a “Trump Hater” or a “Never-Trumper”. (Other versions include “I get it; you don’t like the guy” or “Ignore what he says and concentrate on what he does”.)

The implication is that one must have suffered an affliction, or taken a blow to the head and awakened loathing Donald Trump. Worse, it’s as if that retort explains anything. The tactic is designed to accomplish two things. First, it is a condescending put-down. Second, it gives the Trump defender something to say without addressing the merits of what’s wrong with Trump.

This has cause-and-effect backwards. Observers of what Trump says, and even worse what he does, conclude based on overwhelming evidence that he is both a terrible president and a despicable human being. Disliking him as thoroughly as anyone ever encountered, while resolving never to vote for him, flow directly from rational analysis of observed fact. It’s not that he’s a bad president because he’s not “my kinda guy”.

Let’s use me as an example. I resolved on Inauguration Day to give him a fair shake, on the merits, cognizant of his having a personality I tend not to appreciate. Would he glance around the Oval Office, feel the gravity of the responsibility and the opportunity for accomplishment, and (at least attempt to) rise to the occasion? Well, no, apparently; not for an instant. That has proven tragic for countless reasons.

Reasons To Vote Against Trump

This section writes itself. It was tempting not to bother writing this as being too obvious, but it feels instructive to gather a number of the reasons in one place.
How can such a spectacular collection of character flaws and personality disorders have been amassed in one person? Niece Mary Trump points to Donald’s father, Fred. Other plausible explanations are lacking. A childhood impoverished in ways not financial is still cause for sympathy, but at some point people must take responsibility for the adults they have become. Unfortunately, Donald Trump doesn’t take responsibility for anything – other than credit for good things he had little or nothing to do with accomplishing.

Contempt for the Constitution, Ethics, and America’s System of Justice

Many of the reasons not to vote for Trump are disqualifying for the presidency all by themselves – but none more than this. Books have been written on the topic, with many more undoubtedly to come. Their remarkably consistent portrayals of Trump, as a man and as president, lend these books collective credibility, regardless of their angle.
Trump’s pursuit of self-interest has comprised an all-out assault on basic American principles – among them separation of powers, judicial independence, checks and balances, the integrity of elections, equal protection, transparency, and (soon to come) the peaceful transfer of power. Previously unthinkable conflicts of interest are to this president no more than the spoils of attaining the office, perhaps the main reason to run. Even more alarming is his yearning for, and pursuit of, autocratic power.

Hero worship of Vladimir Putin

Could there be a worse hero/mentor to an American president than KGB thug Vladimir Putin? The disgrace at Helsinki was the end for a fair number of people who had supported Donald Trump. (That more of them didn’t turn away then is disappointing enough to deserve its own post, as do many of the points here.) Much has been written elsewhere on the topic of Trump’s extreme and bizarre deference to Putin, most recently in his refusal to address Russian bounties on US troops. The personal fawning is embarrassing enough, but this is substantive; let’s address one aspect.
President Trump’s behavior in the international arena has been called erratic, puzzling and impulsive. It’s been all that and more with respect to American interests. When viewed through the lens of Russia’s ambitions, however, a clearer, more consistent picture comes into focus. When prosecutors finally get to sift through the wreckage of the Trump administration, this should be high on the list of items to probe. Anyone looking for reading material will find the Mueller Report more relevant than ever.

Abandonment of Allies

Nothing gladdens Vladimir’s heart more than Trump’s systematic weakening of America’s alliances and influence around the world. Vacuums created by our lessening presence are filled eagerly by the world’s bad actors, like Russia, China, Iran and Turkey. Our allies wonder what is left of the America they thought they knew.
It seems clear that a re-elected Donald Trump would waste little time withdrawing the US from NATO, for example. This would be the piece de resistance for Putin, the jackpot that makes his considerable investment of effort and resources assisting Trump’s campaigns a bargain.

Mendacity

Donald Trump is adept at every form and technique of dishonesty. He didn’t invent lying, of course, but the scope, the nastiness, the audacity, and the sheer volume of his lies are unprecedented. If they ever open a Dishonesty Hall of Fame, Donald Trump will be the Babe Ruth of its first induction class.
Prior to Trump, a good way of describing a compulsive liar was one who lied when the truth would serve him better. Here again, Trump is special. Simply put, it’s never the case that the truth would serve him better. Because of who he is and what he does, the truth has been Donald Trump’s enemy for as long as he can recall.
He has been lying so much for so long, he seems incapable of uttering a declarative sentence that is completely true. It’s fascinating to watch, actually. In the middle of a statement that might contain a kernel of fact, he catches himself just in time to salvage his words from the truth.
Before leaving the subject, two other aspects of Trump’s dishonesty are worthy of mention. First, he is a master at projection. That is, he falsely accuses others of the illegal or unethical acts he is actually doing or planning to do. As one of countless examples, Trump can guarantee the election will be “rigged” because he is doing everything he can to rig it.
This tactic is clever. It puts the falsely accused on the defensive; moreover, being the first to accuse serves to weaken any allegation of the same wrongdoing against the accuser, even if true.
Then there’s the cowardice with which he lies. The worst of Trump’s whoppers usually are presented in one of two ways. Either Trump pretends merely to relay what others are saying (“People say that…”, “Everyone knows…”etc.) or he’s merely asking a question (the lie followed by ???????). Leave it to Donald Trump to lie in ways that are themselves intellectually dishonest. It’s no compliment to observe that there’s never been a president like him.

Ignorance

No one knows all that is needed to be a good president. That’s not ignorance, but the reality of taking on a really tough job. But Donald Trump is proudly, willfully ignorant. Regardless of the expected participants, the setting, or the issues at hand, he doesn’t know and he doesn’t want to know. At this point, Trump’s rages against anyone trying to brief him in detail, or tell him anything he doesn’t want to hear, are legendary. Consider the caliber of people who’d be left willing to work for this man in a second term.

Business Dealings

One of the strangest myths about Donald Trump is that he’s a business genius. At a time when the only competition was 2,200 miles away in Las Vegas, Trump managed to go down in flames with casinos in Atlantic City. By all accounts, Trump University and the Trump Foundation were little more than frauds. Worst of all, his decades of dishonorable business dealings sent innumerable honest, hardworking small business people to ruin.
Living and working in New Jersey, I have heard dozens of first-hand stories of Trump dealings over the last 35 years or so. They’re all essentially the same; the next good one will be the first. By 2019, before COVID-19, it was dawning on some US industries – like steel – that Trump was bad for business (December 2019 Fortune magazine).

Negotiating/deal-making

Using bluster and bullying on our allies and a sort of inane flattery (that works only with him) on our adversaries, our master negotiator careens from one interaction to another, either not caring or not realizing how he’s being had. He single-handedly raised Kim Jong-un’s status on the world stage several levels without getting a thing in return. As a result, North Korea has accelerated their nuclear program during Trump’s watch.
Meanwhile, he would have you believe he has tamed China with his tariff war – the main effects of which have been to raise prices and hurt more American businesses. So intimidated by Trump are the Chinese that they are more aggressive than ever regarding Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Taiwan. The world is more dangerous than it was four years ago.

Race and Social Justice

In effect, Donald Trump has been telling white supremacists and neo-Nazis to “stand by” for his entire presidency. He simply made it explicit during the nationally televised debate. We all know what that means, and no one more than the white supremacists and neo-Nazis. They have received the message loud and clear. A worse president for the healing needed in this realm, again, can scarcely be imagined.

Conclusion

For a while after it became clear that Biden would be the candidate, I joked that he would win because there were two reasons to vote for Joe: (1) He wasn’t Donald Trump. (2) He wasn’t Hillary Clinton.

I’ve come to relish the opportunity to vote FOR Joe Biden, though. His strengths are oddly, uniquely designed to address the mess awaiting him and to begin undoing the damage. Whether voting for Biden or against Trump, though, the person deserving the vote is the easiest decision of my lifetime. Not for nothing, as they say, was Donald Trump desperate to run against anyone but Joe Biden.

Like the rest of us, Joe Biden is far from perfect. Some mistakes will be made. Even if not a superstar, though, Biden has a real chance to be a good president, giving us what we need in a perilous time. That might make him the best we’ve had in a while.

Meanwhile, down the ballot: Over the years, whichever party wins the presidency, it has seemed desirable for the other party to have either the House or the Senate. Not this time.

The indefensible abuses of power by Donald Trump (and his Senate Republican enablers) deserve total, unmistakable repudiation. A presidential landslide combined with new faces in the Senate would send clear assurance, to both our emboldened enemies and our appalled and apprehensive allies, that America has lost neither its values nor its collective mind. That would be a first step in restoring order.

If the required no-doubt-about-it message is delivered, it also needs to be understood by the Democrats taking the reins. Elections have consequences, as they say, but we don’t need one batch of serial abusers of power replaced by another. After four years of unrelenting Republican wrongdoing, it seems almost unfair to ask Democrats to play by the rules, restore decency, and forego payback. Unless someone does it, however, what is to become of the erstwhile United States? It should be a badge of honor to right the ship.

Meanwhile, whatever real Republicans remain with their sanity and consciences intact have the unenviable task of taking back their party from the lunatic fringe and the craven enablers. Talk about needing to undo damage!

The message has to be: We don’t care who you are. The only way to attain power and then keep it is to deserve It – by behaving and performing well. That message must come from us (We the People) every election at every level, every time.

That’s our job.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

From Let America Be America Again by Langston Hughes (1935)