Symbols of Division

“For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

When I first heard Michelle Obama say these words in February 2008, I was taken aback.  If I’m being completely honest, I was a little angry about it.  I didn’t realize at the time that my privilege was being confronted.  I knew that this nation was far from perfect, but the idea that someone could find nothing to be proud about was something I was not equipped to hear at the time.  I’m a work in progress.

Nine years later, I’ve learned a lot about the different lenses through which we all view the American experience.  I’ve learned that, for many, those lenses genuinely make it hard to be proud of the state of our Union.  And, because of that, the same symbols a hetero white male like myself see as unifying (or at least innocuous) take on a much darker meaning to those for whom our imperfect nation has been neither kind nor just.

From confederate monuments to sports mascots to the national anthem, symbols have been much on our mind of late.  And I think its worth a moment for us all to consider just what symbolism is.  In my very best 3rd grade English, it’s “using a thing to represent an idea”.  But who owns the idea and who infuses it into the thing?  And how does that change over time?

Take the swastika, the most recognizable and notorious symbol of the 20th century.  Do you think the Nazis invented it?  Ancient civilizations from India to Greece used the swastika as a symbol of strength and divinity.  Today, we view it in the context of the Third Reich and the Holocaust.  Many pagan symbols were co-opted by the early Christian church as a way to absorb those cultures under an expanding Roman empire.  The bottom line is, things change.  No symbolic meaning is immutable.  The good can be corrupted and the corrupt can be redeemed by events large and small.  

The passage of time isn’t the only reason for differing perspectives on the meaning of a symbol.  Life experience in the shadow of a symbol can impart wholly different meanings on the same icon.  Imagine every morning a big red truck drove down your street.  If you lived on the right side of the street, people came out of the truck and hosed you down and beat you.  If you lived on the left side, different people came out and handed you food.  I imagine the symbolism of a red truck would inspire both hope and fear, depending on what side you were on.  

We can have opposite and equally valid reactions to a symbol.  And allowing you your reaction does not detract from mine (because the thing is not the idea).  A reaction that you didn’t expect or consider is an opportunity to learn and see things from a different lens and become an ally.  To grow.

So if you can accept the idea that symbolism changes over time and can be drastically different, based on your own experience, then there is no sacrilege in asking “what is it you are trying to promote here?” and “would another symbol promote the same thing without the mixed messages?”  Our values, our truth, come from inside.  We can love our nation and still face its faults.  We can hold something dear and still respect someone else who sees it differently.  We can be proud and still understand why someone else finds it extremely hard to be.  Ideas matter more than things and people matter more than ideas.  Choose people.  We have to get past the flash point of our personal outrage and get to the conversation that matters.  

No, "Whiteness" is Not Under Attack

...White Privilege is.

The White Supremacist march and Heather Heyer's murder ripped the bandage off a still-open wound in America:  racial hate.  The backlash against anyone that equivocated on the issue, up to and including our president, was immediate and clarion-clear.  No.  Just, no.  But, with almost Newtonian precision, the equal and opposite reaction inevitably came.

There is a small, but insistent counterpoint in America that asserts that "Whiteness" is under attack.  First of all, I'm not sure, and never have been, what "Whiteness" is supposed to entail.  But I do see the very real pinpoint pressure that is inevitably penetrating the white bubble.  And that is being met with strong resistance among many who don't want that bubble popped.

This article is for the ones in their bubbles.  From a white man who had his popped and lived to tell the tale.  My message: stop fighting it.

If I had to define "Whiteness" I suppose I would have to use the word naiveté.  Our history and heroes are carefully disinfected and sanitized to remove any of the warts of reality or controversy.  Our holidays and patriotic remembrances are purged of any burden of conscience.  And our systems are inoculated with isolated examples of transformation, just enough to let us off the hook.  And, sustained by this cocktail, we can walk through life with rose-colored glasses, completely blind to the much larger and more complex reality of the American fabric.

I've always struggled with my German heritage.  My family came to the US well before WWII and my grandparents served in the US Armed Forces during the war.  As an Army brat, I was raised in Germany on an American base, an army of occupation still, in a 2,000 year-old city surrounded by relics both ancient and modern.  I learned that Germans had not erased their national shame, but confronted it and placed it centrally in their culture, so to never repeat it.  It didn't make me proud, exactly.  More like determined.  

Then I moved back to the states.  And, for the first time in my life, I was relentlessly tormented as a "Nazi".  There was no explaining to these people that (a) I was an American, (b) came from a multi-generational family who served in the American military (c) modern Germans are more determinedly anti-fascist than they could conceive.  They wouldn't hear it.  I retreated socially and kept my head down until we were tapped to move to our next base.  I didn't realize it at the time, but I'd just had my first brush with "otherness".  

I don't tell you this to evoke your sympathy or to ingratiate myself to any person or group.  I say it because what I learned was the importance of confronting one's history head-on.  Of owning it.  Of realizing that it is beyond my power to take back from the pages of history, but it is my duty to both carry it forward and make sure those lessons are not forgotten or re-lived.

That's where American "whiteness" fails us all.  Instead of confronting and coming to terms with our history and its very real ongoing impacts to people of color, we sink into our bubbles.  We deny, deflect, and "whatabout" with ridiculous statements like "all lives matter" and - the absolute worst - "political correctness."  When you don't treat a wound, it festers.  It gets infected.  And your problems multiply beyond the point where the original wound is no longer even recognizable.

My white friends who are struggling with this often say "I shouldn't have to keep apologizing for something I never did!"  Yet they continue to celebrate their white-sanitized version of America, not realizing that their continued denial is, in itself, doing damage.  Let me explain something.  People of color don't want Bob Smith to apologize for the sins of your ancestors.  They want Bob Smith to acknowledge that those things happened and still happen today.  They want Bob Smith to be an ally.  When you wake up.  When you pop the bubble.  When you SHOW UP in support for people that are still struggling against institutional and cultural racism and acknowledge it for what it is, that whole "apologize for my ancestors" thing goes away.  Take it from a German.

Is the President a Racist?

SPOILER ALERT:  No, I truly don't think so.  But that shouldn't make you feel any better.

I'll get more to the president in a moment.  But first, let's lay a few things out there.

First, there's a big difference between the political spectrum of ideologies and actual legitimate political parties.  Let's have the sophistication to separate the two.  Not all ultra-conservative (reactionary) ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Republican Party, just as not all ultra left-wing ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Democrat party.  Sovereign Citizens, anarchists, eco-terrorists, Marxists, and other fringe ideologies do not have a foothold in either party.  Just because someone is classified as "far left" or "far right" in ideology doesn't merit legitimate actors and parties being pasted and smeared with their acts or words (Anybody who does is lying to and manipulating you and should not be trusted.)

Extremists on either end of the political spectrum are fundamentalists, with binary values (I'm right, and everyone else is wrong), and prone to violent expression (whether physical or just in rhetoric).  The "conventional" political spectrum, in which the Republican and Democrat parties operate are, in effect, the moderate middle (I know that's hard to believe).  Because, no matter how much we disagree, we all believe that participation in the processes and institutions of our Constitutional Democracy is the way to effect change.

Second, you either operate within the political apparatus (parties, PACs, votes) or outside of it.  There are people who have extreme ideologies who operate inside the apparatus, and those people tarnish anybody or any organization that suffers them.  David Duke espouses ideologies (white supremacy) that are FAR outside any party platform, but is tolerated within Republican circles.  That brings into legitimate question how tolerant the Republican Party is of such attitudes.  Conversely, there are moderate groups with mainstream ideology and sentiments that are not directly involved in party politics.  Non-profits, advocacy groups, churches: these are all examples of institutions that share certain ideologies but don't operate primarily in the political machine.

Recapping:  You can be an extremist insider or a moderate outsider or any combination of them.  It's important to understand where players are on the spectrum.

Third, let's be clear about the difference between violent political ideologies and incidents of opportunistic violence.  A march by the non-violent and social justice #BlackLivesMatter movement that is co-opted by hooligans and thugs is not the equivalent of anarchists or white supremacists harming people and property as a vehicle for their ideology.

Thanks for your patience.  Now to the matter at hand.

I do not believe the president is a racist.  That's no vindication; I actually believe that his inability to empathize with other human beings makes racism basically irrelevant to understanding him.  But he's the president, and he's accountable for the environment and people around him.  And that's where we get to the root of the current situation.  I said before that fringe groups are basically binary; so is the president (albeit for different reasons).  And therein lie the inescapable parallels and attraction between the two.

The president has inarguably surrounded himself with racists and advocates of racist (and generally hostile toward all marginalized groups) policies.  Bannon, Miller, Gorka, and Sessions have clear records and agendas.  No sugar coating it: they're straight-up racists.  There haven't been so many race-hostile people in the executive branch in decades, and that makes a clear statement.  He can't possibly distance himself from racism philosophically when he can't distance himself physically.

And then there's the president's policy agenda, starting, most significantly with his absolute determination to erase everything about this nation's first black president.  There is nothing that white nationalists want more than to eradicate Barack Obama's legacy from the annals of American history.  It's easily thrown off as pettiness (and to him it probably is), but make no mistake, this is a bright neon sign to those fringe so-called "alt-right" elements.  His "victims of Obamacare" charade is like a guestbook of aggrieved whiteness.

Simultaneously, in his "win or lose" brain, the president has bought in to key elements of the white nationalist "America under attack" mantra.  That is, immigrants from Central and South America, and Middle Eastern Muslims.  And he has laid down aggressive policy agendas to "fight back" against these false threats.  Again, he's gone so far as to create "victims lists" and "undesirable" lists and published them.  These policies are precisely the sort of "victories" that politically-minded fringes are looking for.

So, if he's not a racist (according to me, anyway) why won't he denounce, by name, the white supremacists who support him?

Those who have examined the president most closely describe him has having an insatiable need to be adored.  That's why he loves the rallies so much.  It's why he also constantly speaks in superlatives.  That hole will never be filled, no matter how much money he makes, how many buildings bear his name, or how many votes he gets.  It will never be enough.  Many have posited that the president might be a "useful idiot" to Putin.  That has yet to be proven.  But, undoubtedly, he is being used as a vehicle for white nationalist/supremacist ideologues, in return for their adoration.

The president is binary, win/lose.  And right now, he's losing.  His popularity is historically, stunningly low.  Who's sticking with him, though?  The nationalists.  He can't let go; that would be admitting defeat.  He's trapped, both by his own psychosis and the team he put around him.  But those nationalists are also operating freely and openly through the edges (but definitely inside) of the Republican political apparatus (see Iowa Congressman, Steve King, for example).  They've been quietly, distastefully tolerated, because they bring votes and money.  They have a seat at the table, even though nobody will admit they invited them.  And that's the ugly elephant in the room for Republicans (no pun intended).

Bottom Line:

There is no place for hate or violence in America in 2017.  The First Amendment gives you the right to spew this garbage, fine.  I served to defend that right.  But let's not kid ourselves.  It doesn't belong here.  And nobody who espouses hate or violence, for any reason in any form, should have a welcome seat in any mainstream political group.

Any reasonable, semi-informed person (let alone seasoned political operative) should be able to distinguish between extremist and mainstream ideology.  Likewise everyone should be able to distinguish between politically-motivated violence and opportunistic rage.  And if you can recognize it, you can tell the difference between righteous condemnation and ridiculous smear tactics.

It should be easy, therefore, to reject and condemn extremism and violence, no matter what your party affiliation or ideology.  Nobody should think for a moment that rejecting white supremacists should have any political implication.  But when the rats are in your midst, it gets a lot harder to deal with the traps.

Slowing our Roll on Healthcare Reform

Last week, three Republican Senators joined the 48 Senate Democrats and struck down a horrific bill that would have kicked 22 million Americans off of healthcare.  After six months of assault, this was a huge relief to members of the resistance who, literally worked day and night to lobby members of Congress to put a halt to it.  It was a good day.

It's only natural in the aftermath to start talking about a path forward.  Where do we go from here?  For those who would say "single payer now," I say: slow your roll.  Here's why:

If you've ever had a child come to you with gum stuck in her hair, that's a pretty good analogy for the American healthcare system.  It's sticky, it's messy, and it's sort of worked into all sorts of things.  Also similar, everyone's got their home remedies, all of which work to varying degrees, but nothing is a perfect solution.  And just yanking at it only makes things worse.

One oft-cited statistic about healthcare is that it represents 1/6th of the American economy.  That should be enough to give anyone pause.  While you may not feel any particular sympathy for the 'big bad insurance companies,' that number represents hundreds of billions of dollars, millions of jobs, and - oh yes - a bunch of publicly traded companies that find themselves comfortably nestled in our retirement accounts.  You simply can't turn an entire enormous industry on its head overnight without some serious consequences rippling across broad sectors of our nation.

So let's just put single payer back in the box for a while.  So, what's left?

It's important to think just a moment about what health insurance as a product does.  Because it's not actually for the patient.  Health insurance actually protects hospitals, ensuring they will get paid for services, ensuring they have the cash flow needed to continue operating.  Health insurers don't really provide the patient anything today.  They are an administrative layer, complete with the added costs of overhead and executive compensation, all conveniently added to the expense that the hospital already charges for care.  What's more, they charge you based on what they "guess" your eventual medical costs will be, whether or not they ever materialize.  This may sound like an indictment, but it's really the beginning of root causes.  If we break it down, we see problems that need to be solved.

• How do we ensure hospitals are protected from going out of business?
• How do we ensure health insurance companies profit from improved health, a benefit to the patient and reduced load on the system?
• How do we ensure people are really paying their 'fair share'?

And, most importantly:

• How do we ensure everyone gets the care they need without fear of going bankrupt?

There are a LOT of potential answers to each of these questions.  Do we declare hospitals "critical infrastructure" and provide them direct government subsidies (the way we do farms) to offset their shortfalls?  Maybe.  Do we transform the health insurance industry into a health management industry, where people pay for the access to non-medical and screening services that help improve the customer's health profile and limit doctor visits?  Possibly.  Do we transform "insurance" into "membership," where your actual accrued balance is what is used to pay directly for medical services when needed?  Who knows?  The point is, now you've got new, tangible problems to solve.  

And yes, would single payer address those things?  Of course.  But, again, we'd tank an entire industry overnight, throw a bunch of people out of work, sink your retirement account, and probably a mini-recession to go with it.  So let's move forward, but tread lightly.  

Broken: What James Comey taught us about us

If you watch television, any television, pretty much the only thing that has happened this week appears to be the congressional testimony of ex-FBI Director James Comey.  Depending on your political leanings, it was either a scathing indictment or a tempest in a teacup.  But as I watched the testimony and the coverage, I came away with another conclusion.  We. Are. Broken.

Here are the lessons I learned from this week.  And I wish more people would talk about them, because I believe they say a lot more about us than anybody on camera.

We have completely given up on transparency in government.
I'm stunned by the constant characterization of Comey's actions as "leaks."  The director of a "three letter" agency, a career public servant, released a complete and unabridged first-hand account, with full personal attribution of matters that he believed to be in the public interest.  When did we become so cynical that an act of transparency is viewed with suspicion?  We have the Freedom of Information Act, which FORCES government agencies to release information just like this.  And, when a judge enforces it, we celebrate it as a coup.  Even sympathetic coverage is using the "l-word".

What Comey did that was so stunning, that shook us to the point of suspicion, was to break ranks, to drop the "party line" and put disclosure of government activities ahead of, quite literally, his job.  It's sad to see that such a simple act would come as a surprise.

We are living in a sort of "truth inversion"
In weather terms, an inversion is when a layer of air is trapped beneath another layer, preventing natural circulation and pollutants from getting out.  In social terms, the truth has been trapped beneath a layer cynical and self-serving spin for so long that we no longer accept the truth, on its face, as good enough.  Instead we expect proof, beyond an unreasonable doubt, that the speaker isn't lying.

If our court system worked that way, no witness would ever be considered credible.  Yet, in today's politics, we can dismiss the word of a career law enforcement professional, placed in positions of the highest public trust again and again, simply on the basis that nobody can prove he isn't lying.  There is no longer an assumption of truthfulness, from government, from media sources, or any other speaker.  And that - if you think about it - puts our entire reality into subjective doubt.

We are almost pathologically protective of our reality bubble.
This is nothing new.  Many studies and scholarly papers have been written about the tendency of people to reject new information, even if it is better or more likely to lead to success, in favor of known, flawed information with which we are comfortable.  But we have turned this tendency, through social media and selective, tribal consumption of information into something fundamentally destructive.  We have managed to build massive, mutually exclusive information bubbles that are self-feeding, self-reinforcing, and becoming increasingly removed from objective reality (there is actually such a thing).

People supportive of the president came away dismissing Comey's testimony (and his motives).  People opposed to the president took everything he said as gospel truth.  It can't be both, yet both narratives are carrying equal weight in the aftermath.

The most disappointing conversations I've had lately have been with fellow liberals who are literally angry about the inclusion of "conservative" hosts "taking over" the liberal-leaning channel MSNBC.  We have been railing together against "fake news" for the better part of a year.  But all of a sudden, a network whose editorial and production values have been considered trustworthy by these friends is now suspect, solely because a person is sitting in front of a camera who may have a differing philosophy of government.  As if this sole fact makes a person less capable of informing the public.  We've got to stop this.

Comey's testimony may or may not, in your view, be game-changing.  But we need to pause and look critically at WHY we are coming to one conclusion or another.  We deserve a transparent, honest, and objective government and public officials.  But we will only get those things if we demand them.  And, frankly, we need to learn again how to recognize it when we see it. 

The "Big Checkout" - How We Justify Disengagement

In modern American discourse, the word "Big" has become a pejorative.  "Big Pharma" "Big Banks" "Big Business" "Big Media" and let's not forget "Big Government".  America is the most affluent and powerful nation in human history; but is the down-side that everything is so bigly big that individuals feel hopelessly powerless?  And, if so, what do we do about it?

These big institutions are the culminations of decades of success, built brick by brick and year after year, on the principle that growth is always good and more is always better.  Bigness have given us more choice and more availability of practically anything we could want or need at any time, day or night.  And that's a good thing.  But...

"Bigness" creates a unique dynamic between the "big thing" and those under its influence, and it can be most easily observed in the world of cable TV providers.  Nobody really likes them.  Nobody's very satisfied with their costs, options, or service level.  Yet most of us remain customers, because there really is no comparable option or alternative.  Customers are trapped.  So, even though the cable companies continue to have huge customer bases (and profits), the relationship is not a cheerful one.  As a result, customers just hold their nose and disengage, always watching for some alternative.

Examples of this are literally everywhere around us.  In retail, the airlines, in media, and - yes - in politics.  And this ever-present passive-aggressive semi-surrender mindset of the average person in daily interactions, that are are needed but wholly unsatisfactory, is something that has polluted our attitudes toward political engagement in an extremely damaging way.

I view it as a cycle.  It's hard to figure out exactly where it starts, because it feeds on itself.

• Politicians lie
• People are cynical about politicians
• People disregard what they are saying and doing
• Politicians get to do things without the voters paying attention
• Companies and interests get to influence politics without accountability
• Things get worse for individuals, better for the interests
• We don't have context to understand anymore, so we have to rely on the politicians to explain it
• Politicians need to get re-elected
• Repeat...

It's this cycle of dissatisfaction and codependency that repeats until we find ourselves completely detached from the process we actually own.  And just like the cable company, we hold our noses and disengage, always watching for some alternative.  We rant about it, but don't take any accountability.  We forget that governing doesn't just happen in an election year.  We've reduced our role in the democratic process to a single act on a single day.  And when we DO engage, we are either low information voters or we're just too disgusted to vote at all.  

There are only two ways to deal with an unspeakable mess: you can light it on fire and walk away (tempting), or put on a mask and grab a shovel (unpleasant and exhausting).  I get why a lot of people, frustrated by the unspeakable mess of "big government," would rather choose the first option. In fact, I think that really describes what this last election was about for many.  But, while it may have felt gratifying, it doesn't fix anything.  We've got to grab our shovels.  We've got to wade into the mess we helped create and clean it up.  And we've got to stick with it to keep it clean.  We can't merely leave it for once every four years.  

If you want to take on the "Bigs" of this world, you've got to start small.  Ask questions, talk to local officials, attend a city council meeting or a school board meeting, attend a party meeting in your local district.  Find out what the reality is on the ground right around you.  Then get your shovel.    If you're already engaged, then it's your job to show people that small things and small steps make a difference.  There are a lot more of us than there are of them.

Finding the Zebra Among the Stripes

The poor zebra is the perfect metaphor for where we are in America today.  One side looks at it and says "it's black with white stripes"  while the other says, "No! It's white with black stripes!"  Both are arguably true and neither one can be objectively disproven.  We are diametrically opposed!  There's just no middle ground.  

The part neither side seems to want to admit is that they are BOTH looking at the same zebra!  

And that's how it goes.  Whether it's an argument about civil rights, justice, school choice, healthcare, marriage equality, or women's reproductive rights, we are fixated on the stripes.  Nobody wants to talk about the zebra.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are not a Red country with some Blue people.  Nor are we a Blue country with some Red people.  We are Americans, lumped together in this messy, chaotic grand experiment of liberty first envisioned almost a quarter millennium ago.  But we have been sold a lie.  Or, rather, two of them.  The red and blue stripes are an illusion.  They've been crafted by micro-targeting, big-data, big-money interests who only want their fringe version of America to ascend.  DON"T. LET. THEM!  It's time to recognize the zebra for what it is and stop arguing on behalf of people that just want to keep you in line.  

Trump, The Russians, and the Null Hypothesis

In the last six months, a nebulous and nefarious Russia-Trump connection has been dogging at the heels of our current president.  Conservatives are calling it conspiracy; liberals are calling it grounds for impeachment.  Yet, for all of the circumstantial threads, there has yet to be a smoking gun.

One way or another, the future of our nation hinges on the truth of the matter.  If, in fact, the administration is in cahoots with the minions of Vladimir Putin, then that's a threat to the integrity of our democracy.  If not, we owe it to the stability of our constitutionally appointed and duly elected government to do their jobs without this cloud hanging over them.  If not, everything they do will be viewed through the lens of possible collusion.

Let me be absolutely clear: I'm not happy about any of this.  It gives me no joy, regardless of how this turns out.  Either it has been the most reckless case of political innuendo ever, or our electorate have allowed an adversary to literally plant their cronies at the highest level of government.  Either way, this is an extremely dire sign of the state of our democracy and institutions.

I've written a series of short posts on Facebook, titled Debunking 101.  One of those posts was about the "Null Hypothesis".  It's an analytical approach where, being stuck on a problem, you work to prove the opposite is true.  If you can find proof of the Null Hypothesis, then you have to abandon your theory.  So that's what I'm going to do here.

Theory:  Donald Trump is NOT in collusion with Vladimir Putin.  

Likely Indicators:

• Support for NATO - America's premier military counterpoint to Russia
• Opposition to Russian aggression in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, most likely through supporting ongoing sanctions that have been levied in response
• Actively supporting the Ukrainians in repelling Russian aggression
• Condemnation of a Russian intelligence and propaganda campaign to influence our election in 2016
• Statements clarifying the administration's position toward Russia
• No associate connections to Russia or Russians
• No financial connections to Russia or Russians
• No philosophical connections to Vladimir Putin, Russia, or Russians
• A sense of transparency and trustworthiness in general

If all, or even most of these are provably true, then we have to abandon the idea of the Putinized President.  

On NATO, the president has been quite muddy.  Since taking office, he has referred to NATO as "obsolete" but later expressed his support.  On the campaign trail, he was consistently anti-NATO.  His cabinet and VP Pence have worked to shore up the appearance of support for NATO, but it really remains to be seen which of the president's positions will emerge as the "real" policy.  

As for the Ukraine, the president has yet to make a public statement.  However, it is noteworthy that military action in the eastern regions of that country increased in the days following his first phone call with Vladimir Putin.  And no criticism has been heard from the administration in response.  The Russian version of the readout  of that call mentions the "importance of restoring mutually beneficial trade and economic ties," but goes no further.  We are told that Mike Flynn discussed sanctions during a phone call with the Russian ambassador, but we don't have any details about what was said.In a private, off-the-record meeting with a Ukrainian official, the president is said to have told her that he "would not abandon" the Ukraine.  Still there are no more details and no public statements.  We do have increasing evidence that elements of the Republican platform supporting the Ukraine were removed at the specific insistence of the president. 

On the subject of the Russian hacking and propaganda campaign during the election, the president made a single statement in public.  "He shouldn't have done it.  I don't believe he will be doing it more now."  That was in response to press questions on the subject in his first press conference after the election.  I understand that this is a politically awkward position, as he tries to defend the legitimacy of his election while simultaneously acknowledging the fact that the election itself was the subject of influence from a foreign power.  

On Russia in general, the president has been very equivocal.  He'd like to do a deal, wants to have better relations, but hasn't gone out and done anything to either blatantly soften or strengthen America's stance toward Russia.  Not much to go on here.  

When it comes to Russian contacts and connections, there's something you need to understand.  There is almost no distinction between private and government actors in the Russian system.  Communism may be officially dead, but all successful institutions in Russia operate with the explicit blessing (and to the benefit) of Vladimir Putin.  Private citizens often operate at the behest of the state, and the intelligence directorate is literally everywhere.  So when you look at associations, it's very difficult to separate legitimate private actors from state-sponsored ones.  

Still, you have a string of actors on this stage that raise questions.  Manafort is deeply connected to pro-Kremlin actors.  Flynn worked for state media, RT. Carter Page worked for and with GAZPROM.  Rex Tillerson is a recipient of the Russian Medal of Friendship.  And Wilbur Ross co-chairs a bank in Cyprus with at least one Russian Oligarch that is known to deal with vast sums of Russian money.  None of these high-level associations help disprove or even dissuade any Russian associations.  

Finally, we come to transparency.  There isn't any.  The president has either ignored or circumvented tradition and law that requires disclosure of finances and removal of conflicts of interests.  It's not unusual for large and wealthy companies and operators to use shell companies to compartmentalize and shield assets from liability.  But without tax returns and other disclosure, it's impossible to know where these rabbit holes lead.  The president has had a demonstrable issue with the truth in ways small and large.  In specific relation to Flynn and other revelations, there has been a pattern of strong denial until the point where the facts are revealed in the press.  These patterns make it extremely difficult to discern what is true in his statements.  

So, what are we left with?  There are definitely some nods toward the Null Hypothesis, but nothing particularly solid.  So, while we don't have a smoking gun in favor of the "collusion angle," we certainly don''t have enough to discard it either.  As American citizens, we must know the truth.  Party and politics aside.  All of us should be pushing our elected representatives to investigate the entirety of this matter as quickly and thoroughly as possible.  And we should all continue to gut check against the Null Hypothesis to make sure we aren't chasing shadows that just aren't there.  

Can't We All Just Get Fiscally Conservative?

I confess.  This article isn't about what it's about.  Okay - it's a little bit about that.  I mean, yes, liberals should be (and I think we are) every bit as fiscally conservative as our conservative counterparts.  But that's just one example of what I'm really getting at.

I'm talking about "inverseness." The idea that being one thing automatically makes it the polar opposite from a complimentary thing.

The nod to Rodney King in the title is intentional.  His brutal beating following a high-speed chase by LAPD officers led to the 1992 LA riots.  It felt for a while like the whole city was at war.  Then Rodney King himself went on television and issued his now-famous "Can't we all get along" speech.  He recognized that, in all of that anger, everyone loses.  Here is a little more of what he said:

"We've got to quit - we've got to quit; I mean after-all, I could understand the first - upset for the first two hours after the verdict, but to go on, to keep going on like this and to see the security guard shot on the ground - it's just not right; it's just not right, because those people will never go home to their families again."

The division in our political world today is almost entirely artificial.  And it all stems from the idea of inverseness.  If I'm a conservative and I say I believe in, say, school choice, then my automatic assumption is that a liberal does not.  I also believe that, naturally, I am right and, therefore, the inverse view is wrong.  If I say #blacklivesmatter, then the automatic assumption of a conservative audience is #bluelivesdont.  This is patently ridiculous, but I think most of us recognize the truth in this observation.

The problem with inverseness is two-fold.  First of all, it assumes the there are only two answers to any question.  Heck, even most multiple choice tests give you four!  And those just tell you to pick the "best" answer, not the right one.  Secondly, inverseness totally absolves us of having to listen to anybody, or even ask, because we assume we already know.  If I'm for it, you MUST be against it.  We couldn't possibly have something in common; that's not how political views work.

I've got news for you: yes it is.  We've just been doing it wrong for a very long time.  If you want to know what somebody actually believes, the dumbest possible way to figure that out is to assume based on their ballot selections.  Ask the open question.  And listen to the answer.  I might just surprise you.  Oh - and stop calling me a "tax-and-spend liberal."  That's a bumper sticker, not an actual thing.

Is Obamacare the best bad idea ever?

When the Affordable Care Act was being debated and ultimately passed, I was not happy.  I wasn't happy with the hyper-partisan political process and, more importantly, as an insurance guy, I wasn't happy with the proposed model.  But, eight years later, I believe this has turned out to be the best bad idea ever.

The Bad
Insurance is all about balancing risk with cost.  It's basically counting cards in blackjack.  If you do it well, you can charge people collectively reasonable and layered rates based on the risk of occurrence of a claim.  Insurers try and limit subsidization of higher risk groups by lower groups to provide more desirable rates to customers that are less likely to file a claim.

The certitude of a claim (i.e. a "pre-existing condition") completely breaks the model and stops it from functioning.  The only way to counter-balance that is finding a group of equal weight that has a virtual certitude of never filing a claim and somehow splitting the difference.  The ACA did that through the individual mandate.  The math works out, but it's hardly equitable.  And that's why costs have gone up.

And unlike something fairly straightforward, like Auto Insurance, health care issues aren't limited to a single clear point in time.  Often they are chronic and progressive, creating an ever-mounting cost spiral.

In fact, it's my belief that an insurance-centric model as the primary means of access to health care is a lousy idea.  Since insurance is predicated on the hope you never actually use it, the model is inherently at odds with the needs of the populace and modern medical practice, which places greater value on regular check-ups and screenings to prevent more serious conditions.  Nevertheless, that's what we've got.

The Good
The mission of our federal government is to "promote the general welfare."  I don't see anything more plainly fitting that scope than the health of our populace, our workforce, and our fighting force.  The ripple effects of a debilitated population to productivity are staggering.  Plus, expecting people to suffer when we have the means to alleviate it is simply inhuman.  So, creating a system that provides access to care for 12 million people who needed it most but couldn't get it, is fundamental to our duty to our fellow citizens.  We've raised the standard of fundamental support to people, and that's a victory we should all be proud of.  Cortez burned his ships, and none of us can go back now.  We are marooned together in this strange new land.  Now, we have to figure out how to make a life here.

The Ugly
The one reason above all that I have come to support the ACA is this:  eight years later and Republicans are still talking in bumper stickers.  Ridiculous statements like "health savings accounts" and "let the free market decide" show that they clearly don't have a clue how to fix it.  If the Democrats had not shoved the ACA down all of our throats, a courageous move that cost them dearly in congressional seats afterwards, we would still be dithering about slogans like "portability" and "tort reform" while people died.  We can only hope we can find another batch of brave souls to tackle Social Security someday soon.

The Next Steps
Whether the ACA survives or not will be up to Republicans in Congress.  We'll have to wait and see.  The ACA has problems, no doubt, but they will be hard-pressed to deliver on promises without throwing a lot of people under the bus.  I sincerely hope that they aren't that reckless.

What I hope happens next is this:  Congress uses it's power to direct hospitals and doctors to reduce actual COSTS of care to the point where insurance is no longer the primary way to see your doctor.  You can fiddle with the insurance models all you want, it's all still the same pile of money, just shuffled around differently.  You've got to dictate that hospitals provide the basic services at accessible prices for routine and regular care.  Then, maybe, the models can handle the rest.

Five Things We Can Talk With Conservatives About

We have got to to restore respectful dialog.  Wedge issues have been carefully (or maybe recklessly) constructed to divide our nation into pockets of “core issues” groups in a way that makes it seem like we are hopelessly divided.

But are we really so far apart?  I’m willing to bet that, if you can get beneath the wedge and frame problems differently, there’s a chance we might be able to start talking again.

Here are five, possibly surprising ways you might find yourself able to actually talk with a conservative.

The Wedge:  Women’s Reproductive Choice (aka Abortion Rights).  Nothing has more distinctly defined and divided conservative and liberal voters over the last 40 years than Roe V. Wade.

The Root:  Unplanned pregnancies and how to reduce them.

Is anybody really opposed to the idea of providing women the resources and opportunities to empower them to decide when and whether to get pregnant?  Does anybody believe it’s in the best interests of a young single mother or a small child to be put in a position where there’s not enough to provide for either of them?  And would a robust culture of empowering women to decide whether and when to get pregnant reduce the need for abortions?  Those are issues we can start tackling today, together and stop fighting over a law that is not going to change in the foreseeable future. 

The Wedge: Our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms (aka Gun Control).  Yet another sure way to divide up the country is to bring up guns, gun violence, and gun control.  

The Root: Reducing violence through prevention of contributing causes.
Desperate people do desperate things.  People with nowhere to turn.  People who are overwhelmed beyond their ability to cope with what they're feeling.  Those people are the ones who become violent.  Actively pursuing policy and initiatives that bring the disenfranchised back into the fold, that offer the critical mental health care to people who lack the ability to connect and cope with the world around them, and face it, just turning down the inflammatory rhetoric which which we are bombarded daily are all ways we can work to reduce the factors that lead to violence.

Intelligent people of goodwill can debate the meaning of and need for a "well regulated militia" in the 21st century, but unless you know about a Constitutional Convention taking place, then gun ownership is protected just as much as speech is.

The Wedge: Super PAC "X," Think Tank "Y," or Shadowy Billionaire "Z" is a force for evil.

The Root: Campaign finance laws have gotten completely out of control.
I don't know anybody that is happy with the nasty, divisive, expensive, and thoroughly anonymous machine that selects and promotes candidates while smearing the opposition beyond recognition.  I don't know how this has even become a partisan issue, but somehow it has.  Still, speaking one on one with any person of any political affiliation, you're likely to get agreement.  How about we nail down the rules on how donors have to disclose who they really are?

The Wedge:  Liberals are "Tax & Spend" and want to "redistribute wealth."

The Root:  Honestly, does ANYONE think that their taxes aren't high enough?  Does ANYONE think that the federal budget isn't large enough?
Taxes are necessary to fund whatever policies we enact.  People should pay their fair share to support those policies.  We should be judicious about prioritizing the things we must do and the things we would like to do, but simply can't afford to as a nation (or state or municipality).  Anybody that receives Social Security, Medicare, VA health benefits, or any other federally provided assistance or support is getting a slice of that "redistributed wealth" so we should not be so quick to sling this particular arrow, no matter what side of the issue they're on. 

The Wedge:  Illegal immigration is out of control.

The Root:  Legal immigration is so badly broken that it promotes illegal immigration as the only option.  
Imagine if you made hungry people stand in line for weeks before they could get a loaf of bread.  What do you think would happen?  Yeah - they'd find another way to get what they needed to keep from starving.  People who want to come to the US have to wait years and years (sometimes decades) to come in.  The quotas are low.  The staff is not sufficient to the task.  It's a dinosaur.  Having people live in the shadows of our society isn't a good thing for a whole host of reasons.  If only there was a way to stop that from happening... Oh yeah - that would be something like a healthy, functioning, modern immigration/visitation policy and system that could accommodate the load.

Look - at some point, we are going to have to start talking to each other (and listening too).  The wedges were put there to keep us apart.  Get to the root; open a dialog.  Show people that liberals want solutions and answers every bit as much as conservatives do.