Oh, Ye Flinty-Eyed Bankers

It’s still too early to talk about how to re-build America’s fourth largest city. When we do get started, the debate will probably go on for several years.

That’s what happened in New Jersey and on Long Island and in the New England towns hit by Hurricane Sandy. Zoning codes were changed, infrastructure standards were tightened up, and even some building codes were strengthened so that new roofs and windows could withstand higher winds.

But there are a couple of problems that will have to be dealt with before that happens in Texas. Some have been overstated, others have been understated. Some are not even being talked about at all.

What should be getting our attention, of course, is the need to shelter 10,000 or 15,000 or 30,000 people for a year or two. I doubt if Houston has that much vacant housing on hand.

I saw what happened on Long Island, in a little town called Riverhead, when a storm came and a small pond overflowed and the runoff from hundreds of acres  of farms in the area created a flood that flowed downhill and left a dozen or so homes on Horton Avenue with flooded basements, ruined cars in the driveways and a major pollution problem.

A few people left to move in with relatives. Others stayed in the part of their home that was undamaged and dealt with black mold and contaminated private wells in the best way they could. Eventually, the  most-damaged homes were condemned and the people moved away, and the street was rebuilt. It took years and millions of dollars in FEMA money. Just for a dozen houses.

Somewhere along the way, people began to recall that,  back in the 1930’s, the neighborhood had a name. It was called “The Bottoms” because back then it flooded regularly. Then, there was a long dry spell and people build houses on the once-swampy land.

Does anyone know how much of Houston has been covered up with asphalt and concrete in the past 30 years, or how much of its housing and businesses were constructed on land that is within a flood plain? Look it up. And, while you’re doing it, look at the city’s building codes and its zoning code.

Which you can’t do. The city does not have a zoning code, although there are a lot of local rules that act in the same way a zoning code would, more or less. When the hurricane hit, we saw the “less” part in action.

Now, most of the damaged homes in Houston were not covered by flood insurance, at least according to all the media reports. And, as far as I know, there are no code changes being considered if the property owners can get a new mortgage and decide to rebuild. Heck, it’s their money and their right.

That’s where the flinty-eyed bankers come in. Governments deal with financing in one way, private citizens in quite another. Cities and states can issue bonds for public works projects, and can go to a bank that holds 50 or 100 million dollars in municipal funds in low-interest accounts and say, as the President would: “Let’s make a deal for a loan.”

Well, there are some differences with Mr. Trump. Let’s just say George Bush could have done that with a bank that does business in the United States and leave it at that.

The point here is that if you own a flooded or damaged or destroyed home, you don’t have much of an asset. And not to make a joke, but your existing mortgage has to be paid off, too. You are literally and figuratively under water.

Now, the City of Houston has to make some big decisions. So does the state of Texas. Things like what structures should be rebuilt and where to put them, and what new provisions have to be made so that the replacements won’t flood out and repeat the current tragedy.

Build new waterways, new dams, and elevate all the buildings? It’s tougher to solve the problems in Houston than it was in New Jersey, because you don’t just have to strengthen the shoreline. You have to protect the whole, flat as a pancake 627 square mile city from the rain. 

Then there’s the question of how much rainfall do you have to protect the city from. Is Hurricane Harvey a once in a thousand year storm, or are other storms - maybe not as big, but pretty close in size - going to be coming a lot more often. Could the climate be changing?

There are some ways to try to evaluate the answer to that question, but lots of Republicans in the current Congress either do not  believe the climate is changing, that burning oil and coal have anything to do with it, or that future plans for storm protection measures should include factoring in rising sea levels caused by an increase in global warming.

Now, no one can say for sure that the warmer waters of the Gulf of Mexico fed Harvey and that other weather patterns changed by global warming resulted in the storm sitting in one place for days and days. But, the mood among those Republicans seems to be simple - it never happened before and it may never happen again, so don’t plan for it.

Except, of course, it has. Harvey is the third 500-year flood to hit the Houston area in the past three years. That means a storm expected to hit the area once every 500 years has come to the area three times in three years.

Well, maybe Congress will just see the light and give up plans to build the wall on the Mexican border. Instead, they can use that money to build a big, beautiful red umbrella - a really big one - to cover the 627 square miles of Houston. There would even be room on it for a really big message. One full of hope and optimism.

I suggest “Make America Waterproof Again.”

The Counter-Puncher

Well, a lot has been happening lately. Of course, you could say that on any day of the past six months. Or, for those with a deep sense of history, for the past year.

And it seems to have a lot of people confused. What is he doing next? Why is he doing that? Who will be next to go? What’s happening in Texas? Endless questions to ponder, with more to come.

We really need some clarity here. So, as a public service, here is the secret decoder ring to explain everything that is coming out of Donald Trump’s White House. And it’s no great secret. After all, he’s given us the secret lots of times.

He is a counter-puncher.

Let that sink in a bit. Donald Trump waits for someone to attack him, or - if its quiet - he pretends that someone has attacked him and those he holds dear - and then punches back, hard. And, like a lot of schoolyard bullies, he is really good at finding the flaws in his opponents. Or, even worse, turning their strengths against themselves.

But, you can’t be a counter-puncher when there is nothing to punch against. 

Now, in the endless angst of the moment, it’s hard to see that. There is always an opponent, always a target. It’s a little hard to see the truth underlying the immediate controversy, which is that without his endless attacks Donald Trump doesn’t really stand for anything. Except maybe pronouns.

Huh?

Well, let’s look at his “Make America Great Again” caps. Doesn’t tell us anything about what he considers great would be, or who would benefit. Does it mean we balance the federal budget, eliminate homelessness and poverty, straighten out problems with health care, vastly improve a failing public education system, or all of the above?

I admit those answers would be hard to put on a cap, but a hint would be nice. Maybe a different hint every day.

ASIDE - As a public service, I just looked up the price of a Make America Great cap on line. The Trump Outlet sells them for $19.99. Walmart sells them for $9.99. And the bid price on eBay was $2.26.

Now, let’s get back to the main point. Our counter-punching president needs an opponent. Without one, he has to invent one, or attack things he believes his base hates. Things like minorities, gays, transgender people, people who believe in a religion that is not his, foreigners and Mexicans who don’t want to pay for his wall.

That’s what happens when you are a counter-puncher. With no enemies, he’s just an empty shadow.

If you think that’s too harsh, give me one original plan he has proposed, a single idea that can be carried out. Not the kind that says “I’m a leader, do what I tell you.” A plan that says something like this: “North Korea is an unacceptable danger, and China is enabling them to get stronger every day. So, we are going to stop all trade with China and with all nations that trade with them until the situation is resolved. Of course, this will severely harm our own economy, and probably sink the world into a deep recession, but that is the price I and our nation are willing to pay.”

Or how about this: “Illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from hard-working Americans. So, I want to make hiring them a federal offense, and any employer who hires one will face at least six months in jail and a $10,000 fine. Now, I am turning ICE loose to hunt down those farms and factories where they work. It will end our problems in six months.”

Now, that’s leadership. With nouns.

Now, between the hurricane and Hillary Clinton’s book, I am sure our president will have weeks and weeks of tweets to confuse and entertain us. But, he may not get to use them all.

Remember, Congress will be back in session soon.  Then, the hit list of his real enemies will be posted. You know, the one listing the treacherous Republicans who are keeping him from getting a debt ceiling extension, a new budget, a tax cut for the wealthy and the need for 60 votes in the Senate to get some controversial motions passed.

My only question is: will anyone be surprised? 

Preserving our Southern Heritage (a modest proposal)

 As President Trump pointed out to the nation, not all the people marching in Charlottesville were neo-Nazis or members of the KKK. There were also many fine people, he said, who were simply worried about the loss of those beautiful statues of Confederate generals and the loss of their heritage and history.

It got me thinking. Some really deep thoughts.

Of course, the history of our nation is not a simple story. It is inspiring, it is remarkable and it is full of contradictions. Good people do bad things. Bad policies end up doing good things. 

And you can’t base your opinions on just an elementary school textbook or some educational video. I’m not the only one who has pointed out that the fine Schoolhouse Rock video on “How a bill becomes a law” doesn’t tell anyone about Mitch McConnell or how the legislative process can get derailed by partisan politics.

But, before we go looking for those fine people in Charlottesville  - worried historians all - and a possible solution to their problem, let me add a disclaimer or two.

First, our Southern colonies had quite a lot to do with the formation of the United States of America as we know it today. Virginia isn’t known as the Home of Presidents for nothing - more of them came from Virginia than any other state.

Southerners have done more than their share in taking up arms to defend our country, and when the Civil War was breaking out, the North first looked to Robert E. Lee - who had an outstanding career in the United States Army - to put down the rebellion.

We won’t bother mentioning that slavery was written into the Constitution, any more than mentioning that racism has been a problem in the United States since our nation was founded, and that is still the biggest problem our nation faces.

I don’t think you can have a country that thinks equality for some is a guarantee of a good life for all, and I don’t think that we can brag about equal opportunity - or complain that people are not working hard - unless we all have the same chance at a good education and good health care.

This isn’t really an off-topic observation. After all, the heritage that those good people in the park - whose message was lost in the rioting - was that the South was built on slavery and we should be allowed to remember it. The beauty of the lost cause. The glorious fight. Things like that.

Well, things were beautiful on a lot of plantations. Just look at Gone with the WInd if you doubt it. Silver was always polished, the grounds were immaculately maintained. And there was always a slave or two around to cook and clean and help the plantation owners to get dressed in the morning.

Ah, but how do we celebrate that heritage? A statue of Robert E. Lee on a horse just doesn’t do it.

Well, some places do a better job than others of telling that story. But, to really get the understanding of that part of our Southern heritage, I feel the only thing to do is open a real Slave Market.

Now, with modern sensibilities, we can’t auction off slaves of only one race. In fact, I don’t think anyone should be forced into slavery, at least not for long. Maybe a month or two.

And, here’s just the way it should be done. First, every other month, a call would go out to all the people who are concerned about preserving the beauty of their Southern heritage, asking for volunteers.

Of the thousands of people who will no doubt volunteer, a lottery would be held and a dozen or two would be selected to go on the auction block. Men, women, children - it wouldn’t matter. Families might be auctioned off together or split apart, depending on demand.

Now, to keep things fair, all the property of the volunteers would go into an escrow account overseen by a state-appointed grand master, with the power to buy or sell or invest as they see fit. Local government is probably the best way to make that appointment.

So, what happens next? Well, we auction off the volunteers. The winning bids would go to the state, into a special fund. Half the money would go to historic renovation projects, and half would go to reducing taxes. We’ll take ten percent off the top to cover overhead.

When you buy a slave, they would of course be shackled. You would have to sign a contract promising to feed and dress your slave and to give them a place to sleep indoors.

How they would be treated after that would be up to the winning bidder. After 60 days, the slave would be freed, and since the slave was not a person while they were in involuntary service, no civil or criminal charges could be pressed against their master or mistress.

Our heritage, again.

But, on the bright side for the two-month slaves, when it is all over they would have the opportunity to talk about their experiences at local schools and libraries, and reflect on the subtle differences in Southern culture from a personal level not seen in our nation for more than a century.

We can always keep our parks beautiful by bringing back chain gangs.

Had Enough Yet?

Had Enough Yet?

Well. it has finally come down to this.

I thought the breaking point wouldn’t come for another few weeks, not until Congress got back into session and had to fight over the debt ceiling, an infrastructure bill, a new federal budget or, perhaps, take another whack at health care.

Instead, we get the heavily-burdened camel that is the Republican Party getting weighed down just a little bit more, with one thick, possibly final straw named David Duke.

Tragedy comes back to American politics, this time as a farce. A serious one, one that resulted in the death of an innocent young woman and a whole lot of injuries, one that will leave a residue of questions in a proud Southern city, and one that has lots of people looking in the mirror and being forced to face what they see.

But, nonetheless, it is a farce. Who would have believed that the deep passions of some people In Ohio to protect a statue of a confederate general in a park in Virginia could lead to a national resurrection of a neo-Nazi movement?

So, since I try to start all of my blogs with a question - and of course I know most of the answers - let me ask one more. And, let me address it to all the people who, in their hearts, express their political party in two words, not just one. The question: is it time yet?

Let me explain the “two words” thing first. A lot of people say “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat.” A few proudly say “I voted for the Green Party” and deny any responsibility for the government they helped elect.

But lots of those Republicans and Democrats will also call themselves by some other name as well. Jewish Republicans. Irish Catholic Democrats. Existential Greenies (just a little joke).

In one way, it is a proud effort to express support for two active political groups at once. But, in another, it’s a way of saying “I don’t really fit in.” We may all be Republicans or Democrats, but I know some of you don’t accept me because of my religion or race or some other identity group

Well, here we have a president who seems to be appealing to his base. To me, we have a powerful, spoiled schoolyard bully who can’t admit that he ever did anything wrong, and that all his opinions - no matter how wrong they may be - have got to be supported 100 percent by all the people on his team.

Maybe it’s time for another one of those roundtable meetings where all the members of his cabinet talk about how great an honor it is to serve The Donald.

But, now that our president has run down his list of enemies and has started attacking his supporters - and is insisting on 100 per-cent loyalty to his whims - maybe now is the time for some self-realization.

You can’t be a Jewish Republican. That’s swearing allegiance to two different things. There is only room for one. Now, you can’t even be a Trump Republican. That’s two things as well - time to choose just one!

But his daughter? But his son-in-law? Well, that’s family. And it’s not like they have said anything really harsh about him. Or anything mildly harsh about him. Certainly not in public.

And I know that our president has said he loves the Jews. And he loves the farmers. And he loves the coal miners. And he loves the small businessmen. And he loves small-town fairs in every state where he held a primary.

And, just look at what he has given all those people since getting elected. After all, he’s half way through his first year in office, which is supposed to be the most productive time in a four-year term. Nothing, you say?

Well, there are no road bills. He is working quietly to raise health insurance premiums by building a fire of uncertainty under the insurance market. And, he is working on a really fair, really good tax bill that will raise revenue and lower taxes at the same time.

Raise your hand if you think anyone making less than $100,000 a year will save enough money to buy a car every three or four years because of that tax cut. Raise your other hand if you think that lowering the taxes on a business will mean that the money saved will go into pay hikes for the workers.

And, raise your third hand if you think that the President will bring peace to Afghanistan, that his son-in-law will bring peace to the Middle East, or that his daughter will bring peace to the West Wing.

So, we get back to the question - Is It Time Yet?

In this case, is it time to actually raise your voice. Is it time to call your Congress person and tell them that it’s time to say something about our national problem, and say it loud enough and in a place where it will be heard by  lots of other people.

Or go to a town hall meeting, and point out that all those people running as Republicans haven’t said anything about what is going on in Washington. If they think it’s not important or not appropriate, tell them to run as Independents.

Maybe it’s time for all those Italian-American Republicans and even the few Black Republicans to to let the party leadership know that it better decide what it stands for, and what it will not accept, and do it really quickly.

It’s no longer enough to run against Hillary.

Summer Rerun Time

Now that Washington has gone into Summer reruns - the President is away in New Jersey and Congress is looking for new reasons to blame Hillary Clinton for its lack of accomplishments - it’s time to take a pause and look at some things that seem to have slipped by almost unnoticed.

And to ask why? Or, maybe, how did it happen?

Clearly, North Korea is too important to make it to this list of overlooked things. Climate change isn’t there, either. Too many people are talking about it all the time. Health Care is in a kind of suspended animation - think of it as a Congress-induced coma - and we’ll wake up one day this fall, or more likely next fall, when saving health care for millions of people will mean a better chance of swinging election results.

We could look at the deteriorating state of race relations. Or, more appropriately, the deteriorating race relations in several states. Or sexism in the workplace, especially the techno-wonk workplace.

But, as we go through a time where lots of things are happening and nothing actually changes - heard that before, didn’t you - I think I have a chance to look at an issue that keeps coming up, over and over again, which is really important.

It is one great issue which has been fought over for - well - for all of my life, and from what I read. for a long, long time before I was born. It’s something everyone has an opinion about, and - if I get it right - something that everyone reading this will use as an excuse to get  mad at me,

But, fearlessly, I plow ahead. Let’s look at college admissions, and certain accusations by our federal Attorney General that some colleges in some places are using an admission process which is unfair to white students.

Important? you ask. Well, look what we get from colleges and universities when they turn out the best and the brightest. (No, not the Bay of Pigs or our seemingly endless war in Vietnam). We get things like medical advances, enough food production to keep our nation going as farmland keeps shrinking, plastics, genetic research. Really great video games and FX movies. Deep understanding of cultural changes across the world. New appreciation of history. Warnings about global warming that our politicians often ignore. Good things like that.

Now, we all know just what the ideal of college admissions is. Or, at least, what it should be. Take the best students. Give them the best courses. Graduate the future leaders of our nation, and the captains of industry, the scientists who will cure all kinds of diseases and the artists whose fame will last down through the centuries.

OK. That’s a couple of thousand people for the freshman class.  Add the players on the football teams, those truly talented in math and science, the outstanding historians and musicians and the really energetic mascot at the basketball game, and you have a good 20,000 or 30,000. Enough people to fill the whole class at one or two of our larger public universities.

So, what about the rest of us. What kind of chance do our kids have when they have to compete against others who have an unfair advantage?

Well, let me suggest that we flip the question. What kind of a chance to those undeserving kids - the ones who can only get into the college we want our kids to get into with help from the government - have against our fair advantages?

How’s that again? Fair advantages?

Well, let’s say that every college has the absolute right to set its own admission policies, to take in anybody they feel is appropriate. Just take the best students, just like they did in the good old days.

But, wait. In the good old days, there was no college education for most of us. Certainly not for the middle class, because there really was no middle class. There were nobles and princes, artists and clergy, and - after a bit - the really wealthy.

Yes, in the good old days, the colleges admitted the children of the people who got their names put on buildings, or who were part of the Royal family. Or who were strongly recommended by the clergy. Kind of like the way it is with the service academies, where you get in on the recommendation of your local Congress person.

We do have public colleges, of course, but most of them only really started growing when World War II ended and lots of GI’s came home with guaranteed educational benefits. Public colleges grew to meet the demand, since you couldn’t expand Yale or Harvard to take 10,000 times as many students.

Go from the 40’s to the 50’s and the 60’s, and college education began to be seen as the ticket to a really good job and a really good life. And soon everybody wanted to get in.

Well, not everybody, but a lot of teenagers. Lots more than could be admitted.

That’s when we began a national dialogue about fair admission policies. You know, how should colleges pick students for their freshman class.

Well, in truth, a lot of colleges don’t do a good job in deciding who should get in. I remember going to a freshman orientation assembly - it was typical, I think - and our college president (a distinguished scholar, by the way) told us to look to our left, then look to our right. “One of you won’t be here in four years to graduate,” he said. At the time, I remember hoping it would not be me, and I don’t recall wondering why the college didn’t do a better job of picking its students. And, the college drop-out rate hasn’t changed much since then.

Colleges are still looking for well-rounded students, student leaders, students who had worked hard to serve their community, students with special skills, students who were the first ones in their family to go to college and, of course, students who could get loans to pay their tuition. Stick good SAT scores in the middle of that list somewhere.

Well, is that fair?

Very few students who applied to college back in the day came from really bad public schools. It’s still true today. Certainly, their college enrollment test scores were a big red flag they would not do well, which reflected overcrowded classes and poor teachers in their high school as much as the ability of a single student applicant. On the other hand, some school districts boast that most of their graduating seniors are getting into college. And, they add, to the college of their choice.

Now the really best colleges - proud institutions such as Yale and Harvard and MIT - reject a lot more students than they accept. Yale, for example, took in 6.9 percent of its 2017 freshman applicants, while Harvard accepted 5.2 percent. Princeton was just as exclusive, accepting 6 percent. Meanwhile, the University of Michigan took in 24 percent, NYU accepted 27 percent and the University of Pennsylvania had a more-exclusive 9.1 percent admissions rate.

In other words, for every four students who applied to NYU, one would get in. For every 20 potential lambs seeking admission to Yale, one would get in. That would certainly end the unfairness. Baaa, baaa, baaa.

In short, lots of students did not get into any of those schools. On the other end of the scale, community colleges across the nation accepted lots more qualified applicants, and run special remedial programs to help the ones who were cheated out of a decent high school education because they had the misfortune to live in a place that did not have good high schools, or because they lost a year because of a physical problem or, maybe, because they were just late bloomers.

Fair? Well, depends on which side of the divide you live in. And I am not arguing that going to a community college is a bad thing. In a lot of cases, it’s a highly affordable first step toward a four-year degree, or the place to get enough professional training to have a really good life.

But, back to the question of whether it is fair to discriminate against white students. Well, the answer is likely to be yes and no. I just can’t argue that there is no such thing as discrimination, or that discriminating against one student is the flip side of discriminating in favor of another one.

The real problem is that, if you discriminate in favor of getting someone into Yale’s freshman class, you are discriminating against 20 other people, while if you discriminate in favor of getting one student into NYU, you are only discriminating against three others.

But, after you make it truly impossible for any disadvantaged student to get into a good college - as the Attorney General wants - there are still three out of four kids not getting into NYU, and 19 out of 20 not getting into Yale.

That really makes it more fair, right?

So, what to do? We could just say “hands off” and let every college and university decide who gets in, without any fear or favor from the government. A really good technical school - the ones who are working big time in Artificial Intelligence and self-driving cars - would only take in the smartest geeks. (We can still argue how many of them would be women, but that’s another issue). Fair?

A really prestigious Ivy League school might simply decide its endowment is short a couple of billion, and hike its tuition so much that only the richest people could afford to get in. Fair?

Or, let’s say that you want to put a really good football team out on the field, one that will keep money pouring into the athletics department and let its coaches lead a somewhat shady and clearly immoral lifestyle for years. They can give big scholarships to the best athletes in the nation, and make lots of promises that may not come true once those students leave school. But, the players get admitted. And, someone else doesn’t. Fair?

Now, I will stipulate that most people have worked hard to get where they are in life. Even if they inherit a multi-million dollar real estate business from their parents, they have likely spent a lot of time doing things that take effort or thought or just good luck. In any case, do something long enough and it could be classified as hard work. Even Willie Wonka got to retire.

Ever look closely at some attractive actress schlepping around the country, doing interview after interview to promote a picture? By the 20th or 25th cable show, doing the same thing and answering the same questions just isn’t worth the free bagels in the green room.

Now, I know that the payoff for working really hard in some jobs is a lot bigger than working hard in others. And I know that lots of people will never get the opportunity to get a chance to work at really good jobs.

Just look at the statistics. The single biggest indicator of an infant’s chance of success in life is the income level of his or her parents. And, the idea of upward or downward mobility in society - as measured by a whole bunch of things - is really small.

Sometimes, you know when a game is rigged. Kinda like when the political reformers find out that the biggest reason for change in some elected offices is death of the incumbent. Let’s not dwell on that too much. Senility is in a race to be the third biggest cause.

So, where does that leave our nation’s Attorney General in his quest to stamp out unfairness to white people? Well, it still implies that a college can favor any other white student over the one who did not get in. And it may imply that you can favor Asians or Saudi princess over white students, or at least give them co-equal competitive advantages.

And don’t even think there might be something in the idea that the student body of a college should look a little more like the town or city or state that the college is located in. Or, maybe, even the whole United States of America.

Like I asked at the beginning, Fair?