H O W A R D S B E N D

Mr President, I dare you to go in front of the Special Prosecutor and just answer his questions!

Mr President, I dare you to meet the Special Prosecutor without your army of paid lawyers.

Mr President, I dare you tell the truth,the God’s honest truth to the special Prosecutor.

Mr President, I dare to stick by your original statements to the Special Prosecutor and not to have your legion of lawyers, publicity agents and sycophant Republicans then come out and tell the media and the world want you really meant to say.

Mr President, for over a year now, we have heard you repeat over and over again, “No collusion, no collusion, no collusion,” and for about this same period of time we have heard your boast that you would be happy to meet with the Special Prosecutor.  Well, Mr. President the time is now.  Are you man enough to backup those words that you have been uttering for the past year or so? Do you have the integrity and backbone to do what any innocent person would do and meet the Special Prosecutor and answer all questions that he poses to you on the Russian involvement in the 2016 election?

For some reason, Mr. President, I suspect that you are not going to man up and follow through on your false promises.  You have boasted for a year of your innocence, but when the time comes for you to prove it, your lawyers are seeking ways to shield you from the Prosecutor’s inquiry.  Got something to hide, Mr. President?

I am therefore asking all those in the public eye, including politicians, news reporters, movie stars, athletes, musicians to begin their public appearance, performance or show with the words, “I dare you, Mr. President”  Imagine the power of this collective challenge to the President.  You turn on your favorite news show and the commentator starts the show with, “I dare you, Mr. President.”  You favorite athlete scores the winning goal and the sportscaster comes over to get the athlete’s thoughts before the big shot and the athlete begins, “I dare you Mr President.”  You go to a rock concert and the featured musician comes out, picks up the microphone and announces to the crowd, “I dare you, Mr. President.”  And when we talk amongst ourselves, we do not begin the conversation with, “good morning or what a beautiful day,” we start our conversation with,  “I dare you, Mr. President.”  

We need to take collective action.  We need to raise our collective consciousness.  We have to be proactive in bringing down an administration that has colluded with a foreign power to undermine our democratic process and has lied to the American people and continues to obstruct our government’s efforts to get at the truth.

#IDareYouMrPresident

Yes, I’m mad.  I am mad as hell.  We have $20 trillion of national debt.  On top of that, we run a $600 billion annual shortfall, piling more debt on top of debt.  Our government representatives preach that this is unsustainable and thus refuse to fund the CHIP program, which provides healthcare tor 9 million children.  Our elected officials maneuver to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, effectively denying another 23 million Americans their right to affordable healthcare.  Then, the government of the people passes a $1.5 trillion tax-cut for the wealthy and for corporations.  This is a $1.5 trillion gift to the privileged at a time when so many Americans are in need of assistance.  Yes, I am mad, I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore.

I could ask you too, to go to the window and shout out as loud as you can, “I am mad and I am not going to take it anymore,” but honestly, protests such as this have yielded little results.  I have a better plan.  We are going to shut the government down.

Over the past few years, we have seen the Democrats or the Republicans hold the government hostage as the annual budget must be renewed, or as the government’s total debt approaches the debt ceiling limit specified in the current law.  The party out of power then uses this imminent crisis as leverage to get some additional “pork” programs for their districts or to cut taxes for their wealthy supporters, when it is clear these policies are for the benefit of a targeted few.

It is now our turn to hold the government hostage to the will of the people.  A government shutdown is the ultimate threat and the tactic that always gets immediate results.  Our government cannot run without our tax dollars.  What if we collectively refuse to pay our taxes?  On January 26, 2018, there is planned The People’s March on Washington.  At that rally, let us announce that no one in this country pay their 2017 taxes.  That is correct — a “tax holiday” for all those feeling disenfranchised from the policies of our current government.  That is correct – DO NOT PAY YOUR 2017 TAXES.  I am not sure our representative government is currently working for the majority of people, so it is time that the people make their demands directly to the government.    Only the threat of a total government shutdown will get everyone’s attention.  Therefore, I suggest we pay no taxes until the demands below are met:

1. Repeal of the the new tax law passed at the end of 2017
2. Provide funding for CHIP immediately
3. Restore the original ACA  and add a public option to the program
4. Pass a new $1 trillion infrastructure bill that hires millions of Americans
5. Force Donald Trump to release his tax returns to the public

If we can throw tea overboard and bring down a nation, then we can stop paying taxes and create a new government that is responsive and focused on improving the lives of the vast majority of its citizens with programs and policies that will in fact make our country “Great” again.  I am not going to stand idly by and watch this government become a government focused on serving a selected few.  No taxation without fair and equal representation.

Over the past year or so, we have watched professional athletes, led by Colin Kaepernick, kneel during the national anthem.  While this act has spurred national debate on the themes of “Black Lives Matter”, especially police treatment of  black victims, it has done little to affect immediate changes in our society.  The million women march on  Washington raised the public awareness of social and sexual injustices, yet does little to bring about immediate  changes in our society.  The anti-Vietnam war marches in the late 1960’s and early 70’s spurred the debate on the war, but did little to bring the war to a rapid conclusion.

Social protests need to have a more immediate result than just raising public awareness.  My good friend Jim gave me a great idea at a recent social gathering.  Jim’s cause is the growing number of voter suppression laws that have recently been enacted in so many state legislatures especially through the South.  The right to vote is under attack in America.  Over the last decade, nine Southern states have implemented voter restriction laws.   Most require voters to show state-issued photo ID at the polls. These laws have be enacted to make it harder for people of color and low-income to vote as they often lack the required voter photo ID.. These voter suppression laws have resulted in  final voter counts much more conservative than the population make-up would predict.

Jim gave me a simple solution to this social injustice  – convince young super athletes to refuse to matriculate in colleges and universities within those states that have voter suppression laws.  Of course, this would require a well-known and respected national organization such as the NAACP to endorse this policy and to seek out blossoming high school super-stars on a grand scale and convince them that they are leading a movement.  By choosing to take their talents to a university in a state that does have these voter restriction laws, they are in fact a force leading to improvements to the social equality in our country.  The sacrifice for the young athlete are minimal, but the results can be outstanding.

The immediate drop in top talent in these large universities should result in a quick drop off in the performance of these spots teams.  Jim is convinced that the people of these states are more concerned with the performance of their sport teams than they are about the racial make-up of the state’s electorate or elected bodies.   He believes and I agree that these laws would quickly be reversed and people previously denied access to the polls will quickly earn their right to vote.

Such a simple solution to a social wrong.  It would be nice if other social injustices could be attacked with such simple solutions.

 Let’s have yesterday’s spaghetti and Tuesday’s meatloaf for dinner.  Is that milk in the refrigerator still good?  It smells OK.  It is very hard to get excited about leftovers for dinner and it is very hard to get excited about political leftovers carrying the presidential banner in the upcoming presidential election.

John Kennedy stepped into the presidential arena in 1960 and brought with him all the hopes and aspirations that a fresh new approach could bring to Washington.  Then in 1968, first Eugene McCarthy and then Robert Kennedy joined the political race with hopes of taking on the Washington political establishment which was perpetuating a hopeless war in Vietnam.  After the death of Robert Kennedy and the shunning of Eugene McCarthy by the Party, the political establishment of the Democratic Party nominated Hubert Humphrey, a long-time political figure in Washington and in the Democratic Party, to represent the Party in the 1968 presidential campaign.  Was Humphrey committed to ending the War?  Maybe yes and maybe no.  Was Humphrey committed to expanding the social programs and escalating the war on racial inequality in the US?  Possibly.  Was Humphrey committed to the Democratic Party and devoted to not making waves that would rock the establishment and to make sure that friends of the Party would be rewarded with patronage jobs and positions in the new administration?  Absolutely.

This pattern has been repeated over the past half-century by both parties.  It is the policy of promoting the long established and blindly loyal politician to the position of standard bearer for the party in the next presidential election.  Of course, there was the disastrous campaign of Walter Mondale, another middle-of-the road, loyal serving and well-respected member of the Democratic establishment who got pummeled in the 1984 presidential race against the popular Ronald Reagan.  The Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis a nice centrist Democrat in 1988 who lost to the uninspiring George Bush.  We all remember the fate of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign.

 This strategy of picking the old established, loyal party member to run for president was so disastrous for the Democratic Party that the Republicans could not help but adopt this strategy by nominating Robert Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.  These presidential campaigns all ended with the same result of the old and stodgy nominee who was automatically ordained by the party losing in the general election.

I believe that the Democrats are following this very old and failed policy of nominating the established, most recognized name in the party to be the standard bearer in the upcoming presidential election.  Of course, there is one slight difference this time and it is the fact that this established political party hack is a woman.  This leading Democrat is running not to make waves and to promise to fellow Democrats that policy will remain the same.  Is she really for improving the living standards of the left-behind electorate?  Maybe.  Is she for forging new roads to get us to a safer and more peaceful world?  Not so sure.  Is she for ending the grip that Wall Street, the military industrial complex or the oil and gas companies have on the economy?  Probably not.  Is she for combating global warming?  Maybe a little.  So the Democratic Party is about to nominate a middle-of-the-road candidate who promises to keep most of our current policies in place and not disrupt the political establishment or their corporate contributors with any new policy that might “rock the boat.”  Will this capture the imagination and enthusiasm of the many young people who are getting involved in the political process for the first time?  I kind of doubt it.  Does Hillary inspire any of the hope that Kennedy or Obama inspired in their run for office?  Do we listen to Hillary’s campaign speech and discuss pressing political issues and their solutions at the water cooler.  I don’t think so.  Feels like like same old same old.

Every four  years, we hear the Republican presidential candidate promise to make America great again and to restore America’s respect around the world. Every four years, the Democratic presidential candidate promises to restore the opportunities for the middle class and to improve the quality of life for all Americans. These vague campaign promises are re-hashed rhetorical pledges from previous campaigns and only present to the voting public an abstract view of what goals and policies the new president might enact.  We are left to speculate on a greater America or on an America with more equal opportunities.

This year the campaign ideas and promises of one candidate are presented in a concrete vivid image presented on the magnificent technicolor wide-screen at your local movie theater.  Coincidently or not so coincidently, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders have a similar vision for America and Michael Moore’s latest movie “Where to Invade Next” happens to hit the wide-screen as Bernie travels America promoting his vision for America during this current presidential campaign season.

Bernie talks of free tuition for public universities as a right for all Americans.  Moore takes his film crew to Slovenia and them Germany demonstrating that free college is a right in many European countries.  Kids go to college and university in these countries without accumulating the tens of thousands of dollars of debt needed to complete a degree at an American college.  These European universities are beautiful, well-staffed with highly qualified professors and filled with students receiving a top-notch college education.

Bernie talks of raising the minimum wage and treating workers more fairly.  Moore takes us to two European factories, one in Italy and one in Norway, where we see workers in comfortable factory settings getting two hour lunch breaks and receiving anywhere from six to eight weeks of paid vacation not including time for maternity  leave or time for personal leave including time at magnificent spas located in a beautiful countryside for mental health recovery all paid for by the government.  We meet the factory owners who claim that their workers’ well-being is as important to them as bottom line earnings.

Moore again takes us to Italy to see how removing the criminality of drug use and offering well funded government  drug rehabilitation has almost eliminated drug crimes and has led to a country in which drug usage has in fact dropped significantly.  Of course, the incarceration rate in that country is well below the rate of incarceration in our own country.  Moore then takes us on a tour of the Norwegian prisons where we see inmates treated as human beings and working to re-integrate back into society.  This re-integration includes education programs, job training and a level of independence all needed for their return to society.  Of course it is no surprise, but the rate of return to  prison for these prisoners is a fraction of this same rate here in the US.

Moore does not touch on universal healthcare in this movie, but it only takes a minute to find “Sicko” to see the benefits to individuals getting free access to healthcare and to see how the costs of providing healthcare to all have lowered the per capital spending on healthcare for the country as a whole.

Many pundits argue that Bernie’s programs are unrealistic and way too expensive for our society to afford.  We hear that Bernie is a “dreamer” but lacks the the specifics for his programs. We hear roar Bernie’s promises will cost trillions of dollars and bankrupt the country.  Well, I say, go see Michael Moore’s new movie and see Bernie’s vision for America brought to you in beautiful technicolor on a wide screen at you neighborhood theater.

For the past year, I have felt like John the Baptist preaching to anyone who would listen that we are in the “Age of the Great One”, the “Mesiah is Amongst Us”. I would coerce friends to watch Steph Curry perform his magic and mystical powers on the basketball court.  People were dumbfounded by this one person’s ability to glide around the court evading opponents’ vain attempts at defense and surreally lofting this round object effortlessy great distances into a round object only slightly larger than the diameter of the ball itself.  People instantly become believers.

This past weekend, I made the pilgramage to the Wachovia Center in Philadelphia to witness first-hand the miracles of this basketball saint.  The Center which lately is only half-full due to the persistent mediocre performance of the home team was full to capacity and buzzing with activity an hour before game time.  Fans came early just to watch Curry warm-up.  Almost all the kids under the age of 15 are wearing number 30 Golden State jerseys following their Pied Piper as he leads his team to the promised land.

A few nights later, the Golden State Warriors are on ESPN playing the Washington Wizards.  Curry was having one of those indescribable nights, where he made 8 of 9 three-point shots in the first quarter and when he wasn’t shooting the long range jumper from anywhere, he was making behind-the-back passes or stealing the ball from his opponents.  He finished the night with 44 points and sat out almost the entire forth quarter.  But, what was truly amazing was hearing the three sportscasters, who have been around the professional game for about 120 years collectively, go on and on about how Curry is the best shooter in the history of basketball and possibly the most entertaining person ever to play the game.  They ask how is it possible that the  MVP player from last season can win the Most Improved Player this year.

So why is Curry bad for the game of basketball?  The problem is that he makes the rest of the NBA look like an over 55 league at the YMCA.  The play around the NBA is slow, predictable and uninspiring.  Kobe, a former superstar looks old and tired.  King James looks stiff and clumsy.  Westbrook and Durant look too human as they miss key shots in big moments and Rose looks hobbled coming back from his knee surgery.

So how does an avid fan and sports junky like myself deal with the disparity between Steph Curry and the rest of the league.  It is very hard.  It is no fun tuning in to a mid-week came between Sacramento Kings and the Jazz or the Sixers and the Timberwolves waiting the entire game for one outstanding play. Curry promises a highlight clip every minute.  I change the channel looking for a good college game or flipping on the Flyers for two seconds.  The Australian Open was a pleasant diversion an now I only watch the NBA when Golden State Warriors are being televised.

It would ironic if league attendance and viewership suffered because of a player that is just too good that he makes the rest of the league look mediocre.  Can the NBA televise a Warriors’ games three or four times a week, or do we just need a Steph Curry app which gives you all the highlights from the previous Warriors’ game that you can re-play whenever you need a fix f good basketball.  I guess the NHL survived with Gretzky and the NFL survived with Montana , so I guess the NBA can survive with Curry.

For the past several years, the world has been plagued with two major crises in the Middle East.  The first crisis is the surge in refugees fleeing Syria.  The problem had its beginnings a few years ago when Assad began the wholesale killing and torturing of his own people.  People initially began to flee to neighboring Middle East states and as the problem grew many refugees are making their way into European countries.  The second problem the world faces is the emergence and growing power of ISIS.  As ISIS has moved from Iraq into Syria, it has further aggravated the refugee problem as more and more people flee the area to escape getting caught in the crossfire between Assad’s forces and the attacking ISIS army.

I am going to deal with the second problem first, the growing strength of the ISIS forces.  Here in the United States, we are frustrated that both the Iraqi Army and the Syrian freedom fighters lack the will to take on ISIS.  We have seen the Iraqi Army melt away as they are confronted with a smaller and less equipped ISIS army.  We asked ourselves why these Iraqi forces cannot mount a concerted offensive against the forces of ISIS.  We are inclined to contrast this failure with the success that our Founding Fathers had against a much larger and formidable English army.  This same frustration is aimed at the small bands of Syrian freedom fighters who are battling ISIS in Syria.

But the comparison to the American Revolution is misguided.  The media asks why are these armies so unsuccessful in fighting the evil force that threatens their country.  We expect the Iraqi army to carry the fervor of the American patriots when in fact, they are fighting one evil only knowing too well that they will be returning home to a war ravaged country that is in the midst on an non-ending civil war.  Is it worth dying for a country that is filled with corruption and where life is threatened by daily sectarian bombings?  Or, are we expecting more recruits to join the independent Syrian forces to battle ISIS knowing that one day they must return to fight the battle with Assad and his tyrannical forces?

It is accepted opinion that  ISIS will only be defeated with a coordinated effort between ground troops and supporting military airstrikes.  ISIS is well entrenched in several metropolitan areas and we need ground forces going door-to-door to defeat this menace.

How about if we asked these refugees to join a fight for a better life for them and their families?  How motivated would these fighters be if they knew that a home, a community peace and prosperity would be a real option for them and their families?  I am proposing the United States agrees to accept up to 50,000 (of course, vetted) refugees and their families with the stipulation that they must join the United States Army for a three year stint and be required to fight the terrorist group ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The recruits’  families will be given asylum in the US and be provided a home, schooling and health services immediately.  After the soldier completes his or her three year service, both they and their family are awarded citizenship in the United States.

We would have an army on the ground fighting ISIS, composed largely of Syrian refugees, fighting in a country that they know well and understand  using the most advanced military equipment, employing sophisticated military strategy and backed  by U.S. air power.  We give our military leaders the full arsenal they need to defeat ISIS.   We can continue this battle against ISIS bringing in a second 50,000 (of course, vetted) refugees to America until ISIS is clearly defeated anywhere they exist in the world.

I believe that the new refugees and future citizens who have just defeated the “existential threat” to our country will immediately earn the respect of their fellow country men and will be welcomed with much more open arms.  The is a policy that should be popular with both Democrats and Republicans and the required  legislation should pass easily n Washington D.C.  It is a strategy that allows us deal with the mounting refugee problem while dealing with the growing threat of ISIS.

We can already hear the drumbeats to the 2016 Presidential election and if we cannot hear them, at least MSNBC has its ears to the ground and reports relentlessly on all the major breaking stories on this election just under three years away.  MSNBC has already anointed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic front-runner for the next presidential election.  I think that most of us have to agree with this pre-campaign choice.

However, when I examine my feelings about Hillary, I am less than enthusiastic.  Yes, of course, I recognize the the historical significance of having our first woman president and I do not want to diminish or tarnish that event.  This event is long overdue in American politics.  But, I would like to get behind this first woman president because I strongly believe in her policies and applaud her political achievements.  I want to believe that she is the best possible candidate for the position and would lead the country with the values and policies that I can applaud.

I believe that Hillary Clinton was a good Senator but not an outstanding Senator as she was too focused on political concerns and often went with the majority as opposed to leading the charge on more controversial or more philosophical positions.  So Hillary worked to bring new businesses to New York during her first term.  She worked to bring forth legislation that would assure equal pay for equal work.  She worked to get dollars to re-build New York City after 9/11 and to get funds to help the first responders, but she voted to go to war in both Afghanistan and then Iraq giving Bush unlimited war powers.  We know this vote on Iraq might have cost her the 2008 presidential nomination.  Hillary voted in favor of the Patriot Act and then again for its renewal.  It was only in 2007, maybe looking forward to the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, when Hillary started calling for the troops to come home from Iraq.

But my biggest concern with Ms. Clinton was her record as Secretary of State.  I cannot think of an State Department initiative that improved the US relations with any of those countries where tensions exist between the US and a foreign nation.  The relationships with Iran, North Korea and Syria deteriorated during her tenure.  Relations with Russia or China remained cool and no progress was made at all working toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians and tensions continued throughout the rest of the Middle East.  We only have to look at John Kerry’s first year as Secretary of State to see a more active and results-oriented foreign policy.

This leads to the question of who else might be a viable Democratic presidential candidate for 2016 and surprisingly, the Democratic Party does not have a dynamic, articulate progressively thinking individual with national recognition.  There is a total void of viable candidates after Clinton.  I like Ron Wyden, but feel he would get demolished by the Republicans in a national campaign.  Neither Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein have made it to the national stage and my favorite Ed Rendell has faded into oblivion after leaving his governorship.  Please V.P. Biden, spare us the embarrassment of a presidential campaign.

This all leaves us Hillary by default.  During the next couple of years, Clinton can play it safe by hiding in obscurity as she is safely out of the limelight.  However, if she is running for president, then I would like to see her come out of the shadows and lead the Democratic Party starting now.  This means going public and urging her party to extend unemployment benefits to the “99ers”.  This means calling for the re-instatement of Head Start and food programs for poor child.    This means fighting for the reduced Defense budget.  This means being an ambassador and force for change now.  I really do not want Hillary be default, I would like to get Hillary by demand.

Dear Howard –

Guess whose birthday is rapidly approaching?  No not Sasha’s…no not Maliya’s either. That’s right, Barack’s big day is this week.  Can you believe that this absolutely wonderful man, great husband, loving dad and adequate president is turning 51 this week?

And, what do I get for a man who has everything in the world…….including power, fame, a standing army, a 747 at his disposal etc.  Somehow a new tie or CD or new wallet seems a little lame.

Therefore, I thought I would raise $300 million for his re-election campaign.  This would be such a welcome birthday gift for Barack. It would free him up from having to run from speaking to a Jewish organization one night to raise a few million dollars to then jumping on a plane to fly to the Mid-West to speak before a large labor union the next night for a few more million before jumping on another plane only to fly out to the West Coast to have dinner with George Clooney and a few friends for a few more million.  Barack would love not to have to go back to Wall Street and make all kinds of promises to weaken Dodd-Frank to get the Street’s financial backing for this political campaign.  And think of all the time to actually make foreign and domestic policy freed from the time constraints of raising campaign funds.

So I am asking each of Barack’s 100 million supporter to give $3 each for his re-election campaign.  This would be the best birthday gift for any president running for re-election.  Please help me make this a birthday Barack will not forget.

Michelle

P.S. Please keep this quiet as I do not want to spoil the surprise.

I am watching the seventh game of the World Series this past Friday and my wife comes in early in the game and asks who am I rooting for.  Being a pretty typical American sports fan I usually root for the under-dog or the under-dogish type team.  “I guess that I am rooting for Texas as I feel bad that they have never won a World Series and St Louis has 10 World Championships.”

“What!!!! How can you root for Texas? ”  I thought that I was about to get a lecture about the superior managing ability of Tony Larussa versus the abilities of Ron Washington at a critical moment in the game.  I thought it was going to be pointed out that the Cards can score without getting the ball out of the infield.  Maybe I would hear the praise of the Cards pitching staff over their opponents.  Could be as simple as the color of the uniforms?

“I am not sure that I could root for Texas,” she says. “Didn’t Texas give us George W Bush?  Isn’t Rick Perry from Texas.  Isn’t Texas one of the states lowest in educational performance of its students.  Doesn’t Texas rank lowest or near the bottom in healthcare and air quality?    I would like to see the Cards “execute” the Texas rangers one player at a time.  Didn’t  Texas consider seceding from the country?  Maybe the Rangers can secede from Major League Baseball.

Touche’.

In this country there is separation of church and state.  However, there is no separation of sports and state.  Congratulations Cards.  I was there for you from the middle of the seventh game on.