A hundred years ago in the aftermath of the then unspeakable carnage of World War I, William Butler Yeats published a frightening poem known as “The Second Coming.”  A portion reads:

Do not these lines reflect where we are today? “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”  If I could change the world, I would ban Twitter.  It seems like every politician, every athlete, every Hollywood celebrity has a Twitter account and inflicts 160 character diatribes which are faithfully reported by the political and celebrity press.  It is hard to “love your neighbor” when your neighbor turns out to be a nasty, angry, bullying and ill-informed brute with a Twitter account.  There should be informed and spirited discussion with respect given to our adversaries but now – in the memorable phrase of one of my classmates – we experience only “drive by shouting.” 

The current state of American politics is, at best, disarming.  The Democratic Party veers left while the Republican Party is in the thrall of Donald Trump.  The national media prefers one over the other and, while there are repeated calls for bipartisanship, none appears.  Maybe it is time for a new party.

I believe the “center” desires that new party.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats have political insights that are valid but both are captured by their extremes.  What will the new party look like and what might it espouse? 

It seems to me that there are a number of issues that may command a majority.  They include a commitment to environmental stewardship, a return to financial probity, policies to address income inequality and bolster the middle class, a foreign policy commitment to democratic ideals backed up by military readiness, a reasonable immigration policy and a reassertion of the rights of individuals against the demands of government.

These are my ideas to start a discussion.  Others will disagree and have different ideas.  The point is to listen to one another.  If you plow through this overly long post, please share your thoughts. 

Environmental Stewardship:  One current political characterization is that Trump supporters are climate deniers and captives of the fossil fuel industry.  How then to square the comments of one of the president’s staunchest supporters in the impeachment drama who explained that he did not come to Congress to argue with a thermometer?  I think most people are convinced that global warming is real and needs to be addressed.

Of course, every weather event is now attributed to “global warming” which does not explain the various weather events of the last thousand years. 

Both Germany and Japan have sworn off nuclear reactors while France remains fully committed (I understand Japan with its tortured history starting in 1945 but am completely flummoxed by Germany which has given in to its Green Party).  It is hard to understand the objection to nuclear reactors as a solution to global warming because they are a solution.  40% of the electricity in the Baltimore area is delivered by a nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs Maryland.  Hence, coal, gas and oil are not burned for that 40%.  This is not to say that there are not issues with nuclear power, the principal one being the disposal of the fuel.  However, scientists now believe that the nuclear fuel can be recycled and used in future “breeder” reactors.  This surely seems a path worth pursuing. 

Another solution would be trees and more trees to ingest the CO₂.  Here, I’m talking about trillions of trees to be planted around the world.  In the United States, why not a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) such as created by FDR during the New Deal?  One can envision any number of young people willing to give a year or two to this tree nurturing enterprise particularly if their student loans could be diminished.

And imagine if the Chinese government decided to flex its totalitarian muscle (again) and require the planting of trees.  Say each person is required to plant and nurture 5 trees under pain of going to “re-education camps.”  Result:  8 trillion trees.

For all of the criticism of fossil fuels, I think they are necessary if we are to see an increase in living standards throughout the world.  What if the global warming CO₂ emissions could be captured and rendered harmless?  Craig Venter, who was one of the first to map the human genome, has isolated bacteria found in the sea which “eats” CO₂.  We need to think about and develop technical fixes so that fossil fuels can remain productive.

Financial Probity:  The failure of the federal government to properly order its fiscal affairs is alarming.  The national debt now exceeds $22 trillion which is 107% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.  As a share of the economy, the Gross National Debt is higher than it has been since 1947 in the aftermath of World War II.  And the numbers are expected to get worse as the Congressional Budget Office currently estimates that over the next decade the country will add another $12.2 trillion in debt.  That will make each person’s share well in excess of $100,000.

The Democrats were always being accused of “tax and spend.”  The Republicans who issued that warning have adopted the mantra of “borrow and spend.”  Not only is the federal budget completely out of whack but Social Security and Medicare are also woefully underfunded.  We didn’t get here overnight so it seems reasonable that we should begin a long gradual path to restore fiscal sanity.  Say we begin a 30 year program to bring things back to where they should be.  Everybody needs to give a little and it won’t be painless but our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be the better for it.

In Maryland, there is a group called the Spending Affordability Committee, which meets prior to each legislative session, and determines the percentage amount that the state budget can be increased.  The budget committees comply with this spending limit.  Maryland ‒ like most states ‒ has a requirement that the state budget be “balanced.”  Those two ideas, if adopted on the federal level, would restrain the spending impulses of Congress which now have no limit.   Maryland has a coveted AAA bond rating and still has robust spending on needed programs.

A major redesign of the tax code will make the return to balanced budgets easier.  There is no reason that Warren Buffett’s secretary should pay taxes at a greater rate than he does.  The principal reason for this is the favorable treatment given to capital gain income as opposed to wage income.  This, of course, contributes to the wealth inequality in our society since it is the wealthy that are most favored by this tax rate.  If we tax income then all income should be taxed no matter how earned.

There are “sacred cows” in our tax code that need to be sacrificed.  They include the home interest deduction and charitable deductions.  If we were to take away these “deductions” (and countless others), we could increase revenue.  Already, these deductions are less valuable than a few years ago since the recent tax bill significantly raised the “standard deduction” so the advantage of itemizing is greatly diminished as the “standard deduction” is a better deal.  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the number of “itemizers” will fall from 46.5 million to 18 million.

There are any number of possible “fixes” to both the revenue and spending side of the budget but, first, there must be a shared commitment to move to a balanced budget by 2050.

Individual v. Government:  Almost immediately after the ratification of the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights was added to the document.  These “rights” are contained in 10 Amendments, which are a series of protections granted citizens from the intrusion of the new federal government.  They include freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, the right to assembly and to bear arms, protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.  Each person’s life, liberty and property is protected and criminally accused persons are granted procedural rights.  So that nothing was left to chance, the 9th and the 10th amendments state that any rights not explicitly specified remain with the people or the states and are not the province of the federal government.

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the case of Rowe v. Wade which held that the “right to privacy” allowed a woman the absolute right to have an abortion in the first three months of her pregnancy with restrictions allowed after three months.  This issue has effectively divided the two major parties, with the Democratic Party being in favor of the “choice” position and the Republican Party in favor of the “right to life” position.

I agree with the opinion of the legal scholar John Hart Ely who wrote in the Yale Law Journal that Rowe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”  Today, such an opinion ‒ no matter how well founded ‒ would be an automatic disqualification to serve on the Supreme Court.  The only safe testimony is to say either (1) that you agree with Rowe or (2) Rowe is settled law and you won’t overturn well established precedent.

How to settle this divide?  The first thing we do is ignore the proponents on either side and attempt to discuss the issue without the waving placards.  We should all start the discussion by first reading an article in The Atlantic (December 2019) by Caitlin Flanagan entitled “The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate.”  It is a failure of our current politics that one party takes the pro-abortion side and one takes the anti-abortion side.  There are many “right to life” Democrats and an equal number of “choice” Republicans.  We need to make this discussion nonpartisan and to approach it with the respect it deserves.

And what about other privacy issues?  Should we not be concerned with the rights given to the federal government to monitor telephone conversations and emails as a result of the 9/11 tragedy?  In the end, we need to remember that the authors of the Bill of Rights were concerned about the new federal government.  They never foresaw the size and extent of the current federal government but the spirit which animated the Bill of Rights should be rediscovered by us as we deal with our federal government.

Immigration Policy:  It was abundantly clear 30 years ago that immigration rules needed to change.  The first indication was that ‒ in almost every business from Walmart to Home Depot ‒ signs were written in both English and Spanish.  Indeed, in the late 1980s there was a spate of generally unsuccessful bills filed in state legislatures requiring English to be the recognized language.  A very long time ago, Walmart and Home Depot knew better and so did most road construction contractors who hired supervisors who could speak Spanish. 

The current nonsense about building a wall will, hopefully, end with the presidency of Donald Trump.  Still, there has to be a coherent immigration policy because the people are coming and, moreover, we need most of them.  The notion that only “educated” people should be admitted is shortsighted.

For those already here, we need to create a path to citizenship.  The first step would be a path for a person brought here illegally as a child.  This includes the industrious, friendly and helpful proprietor of my local dry cleaner.  He arrived at 14, is now 26, married and a dad of two girls who, of course, are U.S. citizens.  He would welcome that pathway.

For those not here, we need to secure our borders but we need to admit those who will be productive.  Perhaps, a rule that no new admitee can qualify for governmental benefits for 5 years even though they will be required to pay all taxes.  Such a rule will, at least, keep the ACLU busy.

We need to return to an attitude of welcoming immigrants.  That is not to say that there are no rules, but it is to say that it is hard to be an immigrant; one has to be very motivated to leave home, family and friends.  With such motivation, it should come as no surprise that most immigrants succeed here.

CAN THE CENTER HOLD?

The optimist in me says yes; the pessimist in me says no when considering the current state of political discussion.  But if we give up “drive by shouting” and return to reasoned, but still animated discussion, then I think there is a chance.

In Maryland, a group called the Kirwan Commission has recommended a $4 billion dollar a year improvement in the Maryland public education system.  The gist of the Kirwan Report  is that Maryland has a “mediocre” educational system despite being the fifth wealthiest State in the nation.  Moreover, it is a “mediocre” system within the United States which itself is “mediocre” on an international basis.  Major corrections are needed to develop a “world class” educational system.

The Maryland State Department of Education has released information indicating that 53% of kindergarten students are not academically or socially prepared for kindergarten.  For those of you who thought that kindergarten was the introduction to school for children, think again.  While Kirwan endorses many other changes, its solution to the “kindergarten problem” is a voluntary “full day” pre-K to adequately “prepare” 4 year-olds for their 5 year-old experience in kindergarten and “full day” pre, pre-K for economically disadvantaged 3 year-olds.

Where to start?  What sort of test is used to determine the social skills of a 5 year-old?  Not too long ago, having proper social skills meant the ability to play with other kids or your cousins without a call to 911.  Skeptics might say that the average 4 year-old probably doesn’t need a full day of “school.”  Some play, a snack, a nap and maybe an hour of Sesame Street should do.  However, there is considerable sentiment for full day pre-K which parents may like because it solves many child care issues.

Despite the gloom and doom of the Kirwan Report, less than 10 years ago Maryland was ranked as having the #1 public education system (K-12) in the country for three years in a row.  How it went from #1 to “mediocre” in such a short period is nowhere explained. 

The Kirwan recommendations have been embraced by the Democratic leadership of the Maryland General Assembly for passage in the upcoming 2020 General Assembly.  Republican Governor Larry Hogan is opposing the $4 billion price tag which he maintains will lead to substantial tax increases.  Hogan was elected on an anti-tax message in light of tax increases initiated and passed by his Democratic gubernatorial predecessor to pay for an earlier round of public educational enhancements enacted (2002) as the result of the Thornton Commission which – among other things – established compulsory full day kindergarten for all 5 year-olds.

The State Teachers Union made its first television ad buy saying that passing the recommendations are crucial for Maryland’s children.  Advocates are criticizing Hogan for raising “dark money” to oppose these recommendations.  Unions supporting Kirwan are suggesting new taxes on corporations and, of course, on millionaires.

Lost in the political rhetoric, is an examination of the pre-K component.  They say that the “devil is in the details” and the details indicate that the Teachers Union is intent on making sure that the pre-K education occurs in public schools so that the new teachers can become dues paying members.  

Presently, the pre-K world is run by private entities.  Kirwan changes that model.  While the recommendations call for the pre-K education to include non-public schools, those schools must have a similar “quality” as the public schools. 

My sister just retired from her 34 year career as a “pre-K” teacher.  By all accounts, she was remarkable with her students.  However, she would not qualify under the Kirwan plan as a “lead teacher” (bachelor’s degree and a “certification” in early childhood education) and neither would her school if she remained employed.

Does this matter?  Well, of course it does.  My sister’s students paid to attend her school.  Kirwan provides that a family of four making $77,250 or less would attend the new pre-K schools for free (with the state shelling out $12K a year per child) and families making less than $154,500 would receive a subsidy for attending the new pre-K schools.  Meanwhile, my sister’s school would not receive any “free” or “subsidized” students until a properly certified teacher was in place.  Net effect:  Some schools may be up against the wall and their students may be going elsewhere threatening their financial viability.

So what’s the problem?  Isn’t it better to have “quality” pre-K schools?  That begs the question of whether a newly minted college graduate with an early childhood education “certification” from the Maryland State Department of Education is a proxy for pre-K “quality.”  I would take my sister anytime as she had far more experience with youngsters.  She raised three sons and, for decades, taught youngsters in beginner swim classes.  She had “kid sense” which – to my mind ‒ is essential for a pre-K teacher.  

And if many private schools will draw the short straw, others will get no straw at all.  The real losers are the home daycare providers who are allowed up to eight kids but provide no substantial educational component.  So a working parent with a 4 year-old (or, in some cases, a 3 year-old) will now have the option of either “free” or “subsidized” pre-K which will be offered, as a practical matter, in a public school.  

So you say: “Is this an anti-union screed?”  Not really, but it is intended to show certain bad effects of public employee unions.  Unlike industrial unions, public employee unions are intimately involved in electing the “management” with whom they bargain.  When the Teachers Union approaches for an increased pension or more pre-K, the legislators who say “yes” are guaranteed an endorsement, PAC money and, in many cases, poll workers in their next election.  In Maryland, unions like SEIU (Service Employees International Union) have been remarkably successful in targeting independent state senators and replacing them with robotic acolytes.

The pre-K component of Kirwan is an $800 million a year expenditure which will require new teachers, all now candidates for union membership.  And for those who say that teachers unions favor “quality” education, that is true only if the “quality” occurs in the monopoly of public schools.  Otherwise “quality” be damned.  Consider the following:

1. Proposals for “charter schools” favored by African-American parents in failing school districts:  The public education establishment led by the state teachers union has undermined them in Maryland at every turn.

• Aid to Catholic elementary schools with excellent academic outcomes for kids in failing school districts:  Absolute opposition.

• Parental school vouchers:  Mass the army in opposition, descend on the Legislature, and tell legislators that their opposition will determine their electoral fate.  God knows the parents aren’t smart enough to determine the best school for their kids.

The political swack of the national teacher unions is nowhere more evident than in the current preening for support by Democratic presidential contenders.  Some are absolutely opposed to charter schools (inner city parents be damned) and even the “moderates” say more constraints are needed.

Sadly, we have poured billions into the public educational system in the last 20 years in initiative after initiative (No Child Left Behind, Race To The Top, the Common Core Standards, the Every Student Succeeds Act) and yet we have not achieved any improvement according to the latest study.

It may be that money is not the real solution.  Training teachers to teach may be one silver bullet.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a standardized test given every two years to measure 4^th and 8^th grade achievement in Reading and Math.  The most recent results show that one State made more progress than any other State.  If you guessed Mississippi (yes, Mississippi!) you would be correct.  “4th graders in Mississippi are now on par with the national average, reading as well or better than pupils in California, Texas, Michigan and 18 other states.”

Maybe it’s time to reassess what we are doing. In doing that reassessment, let’s ask the people in Mississippi first, parents second, working teachers third, all other constituencies next and the unions dead last.

We pretty much have been told the names of the villains in the opioid epidemic.  They are the companies such as Purdue Pharma, Johnson and Johnson and a number of others which pushed doctors to prescribe opioids for pain without disclosing their addictive nature.  They are defendants in thousands of lawsuits brought by states, municipalities and individuals.  By far, the biggest name is Purdue Pharma which is owned by the Sackler family whose original patriarch was Arthur M. Sackler.

Mr. Sackler died 8 years before the opioid, OxyContin, was marketed by Purdue Pharma, a company that was owned by his brothers.  Purdue Pharma is the defendant in numerous lawsuits and is now being taken into bankruptcy as part of a deal with numerous states and municipalities to resolve a majority of those claims.

The Sackler name – once admired – is now the object of derision.  Since 1997, the Louvre’s Collection of Persian and Levantine artifacts has been housed in a wing known as the Sackler Wing of Oriental Antiquities.  The wing was made possible by the donation of $4 million toward construction by Arthur M. Sackler.  The Louvre has now removed the Sackler name from the wing which he built and to which he donated 1,000 objects.  The Louvre apparently believes that the Sacklers should be ashamed of their “dirty” money but it is not now ashamed of taking that money nor has it made an offer to return it.

And the Louvre is not alone.  Numerous museums ‒ in a righteous display of sanctimony ‒ have indicated that they will not take any Sackler money in the future but none are planning to return that already taken.  Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) recently requested that the Smithsonian Institution remove the Sackler name from the Asian Art Museum saying “it has no place in taxpayer-funded public institutions.”  The Senator did not say whether the construction money ($4M) and donated objects (about 1,000) should be returned. 

So the opioid epidemic is laid at the feet of the drug manufacturers and their overly aggressive marketing of opioids.  They are, as a practical matter, the only deep pocket defendants available and they are guilty as charged. 

But are others to blame?  You betcha!  How about doctors who were not attuned to the addiction problem and patients who were given opioids for pain but then continued after the pain was gone because they were either addicted or wanted to stay high.

The “butterfly effect” is the popularization of a theory developed by Edward Lorenz to the effect that a small change in one state of a deterministic non-linear system can result in massive changes thereafter or, as expressed more commonly, the fluttering of a butterfly’s wings in Western Africa can ultimately deliver Katrina to New Orleans. 

The “butterflies” in the opioid epidemic were three groups.  One was the American Pain Society (APS), a professional association of healthcare providers involved in the treatment of pain; another was the U.S. Veterans Administration and – perhaps most importantly – a group called the Joint Commission.  These three groups were just what the doctor ordered for the sales people at Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufacturers. 

In 1995, Dr. James Campbell, in his Presidential Address to the APS, proposed that pain be considered the “fifth vital sign,” the first 4 being temperature, pulse, blood pressure and respiration rate.  Unlike the first 4, there is no objective measurement for pain and so the patient is asked to rate their pain on a 0 to 10 scale.  Dr. Campbell’s proposal was accepted by many in medicine but nowhere was acceptance more important than at Veterans Administration hospitals and at the Joint Commission. 

The Joint Commission published a book in 2000 for purchase by doctors as part of required continuing education seminars, and that book cited studies claiming that there was no evidence that addiction is a significant issue with respect to opioids.  In addition, the Joint Commission published its “Pain Management Standards” in 2001 giving a momentous lift to pain as a fifth vital sign.

What is the Joint Commission?  The Joint Commission is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization that accredits more than 21,000 U.S. health organizations and programs.  The great majority of U.S. state governments recognize Joint Commission accreditation as a condition of licensure for the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements.  All member healthcare organizations and laboratories are surveyed every 2 to 3 years and accreditation is then renewed if justified.  Joint Commission accreditation has been criticized as not actually improving patient outcomes as well as for the fact that accreditation is rarely denied even when there are serious problems.

However, one thing is sure:  Joint Commission accredited institutions follow its rules and standards.  As someone who has been in several hospitals, physician related clinics and rehab facilities plus too many doctor visits to mention in the last five years, I can attest that my “fifth vital sign” has been asked and re-asked about continually.  In hospitals and rehab facilities, the 0 to 10 question on pain is asked at least once a day (and sometimes 3x a day on every shift change).  And, you guessed it, the best medicines for serious intractable pain are opioids.

Opioids were a true breakthrough for patients with intractable and disabling pain.  Their addictive qualities were not originally explained and, for some people, addiction is still worth the relief and improved function they give.  However, for too many people addiction is a very real problem and must be addressed.

Arthur Sackler’s name may be removed from other institutions.  Meanwhile, the Veterans Administration and the Joint Commission continue to chug along although both have been involved in lawsuits over their opioid practices and recommendations.  The APS has filed bankruptcy in order to avoid responsibility in the opioid lawsuits.  While these groups will certainly contribute some monies to settle lawsuits, it will be far and away much less than perhaps merited.  The reality is that these groups set the table for the opioid epidemic.

Finally, back to Paris.  A small demonstration precipitated the Louvre’s action.  Protesters unfurled a sign in front of the iconic glass pyramid reading “Take down the Sackler name.”  This proved too much for the Louvre to resist, once TV cameras captured the “optics” of the Sackler association.  Arthur Sackler’s widow has complained ‒ to no avail ‒ that he was long gone and not involved with the sale of OxyContin.  Perhaps she should stop complaining and be grateful that the French no longer use the guillotine on those who have fallen out of official favor.

I first obtained a Maryland driver’s license in 1963 when I was 16 years old after my father taught me how to drive a stick shift and I passed the test, the worst part of which was the parallel parking.  A few months later, I passed another teenage milestone by crashing into a stopped car at a traffic light while coming home from someone’s Junior Prom.  I insisted that the brakes had failed but my father’s mechanic assured him that the brakes were in proper operating order and that I probably had pumped the gas pedal and not the brakes:  one of many discussions that I “lost.”

So since 1963 – with the exception of a few years when I was out of state attending school – I’ve had a Maryland driver’s license.  So, to my surprise, I received a letter in May of 2019 from the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration which stated that to keep my license in good standing I was required “to present proof of age and identity, Social Security, and two proofs of Maryland residential address, in person at your local branch by June 12, 2019.”  Moreover, failing to meet the new requirements could result in a recall of your Maryland driver’s license or identification card.  So, at age 72, I needed to prove a number of things in order to keep a valid Maryland license which I have had for well over 50 years.

What’s this all about?  Well it turns out that the validity of your license is now determined by the federal Real ID law which was passed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  Anyone who does not comply may not enter a federal building or fly on a commercial airplane. 

If your driver’s license has a star in the right hand corner, you are Real ID compliant.  Maryland got with the program in 2007 but apparently made its share of mistakes (indeed, apparently a million mistakes aided by the Federal government which kept changing the rules).  I was given a driver’s license with a star but the May 19^th letter called me back to “prove” that I deserved the star. 

Essentially to merit a star, you must prove that you are a United States citizen, provide proof of the date of your birth, validate that you are part of the Social Security system and provide proof of your residency in the state where the license is issued.  So I, like approximately a million Marylanders, had to bring documents to justify our star (at first the local paper reported that 60,000 Marylanders were affected but that number, in subsequent issues, was raised to 800,000 and apparently the real number was 1 million).

When the Real ID law was passed there was vociferous objection from both the right and the left.  Tea Party Republicans objected on the grounds of privacy.  Liberal groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, also objected and contended that the information would be “consolidated into a national database” which could be used to track individuals.

My objection is different:  the numbskulls (here’s looking at you Congress) who passed this law have accomplished nothing except to saddle state governments with excessive expense and ordinary citizens with yet another bureaucratic hassle.  Additionally, the law does nothing to effectively fight terrorism.

It turns out that of Maryland’s almost 5 million licensed drivers, a little over 2 million are Real ID compliant.  So if you just want to drive a car, you have no need to be Real ID compliant and what it really amounts to is that you can’t fly commercial airlines without the compliant identification.  (Elaine S. Povich, “Maryland Isn’t The Only State Facing Problems With Real ID,” Baltimore Sun, September 9, 2019). 

Now, you might ask:  “what about the terrorists?”  I suspect the terrorist who wants a Real ID will be quite able to prove the necessary requirements as obtaining false identification documents is a cottage industry on the Internet.

Consider this possibility.  Somewhere in the 2,000,000 Marylanders with acceptable Real ID there is a terrorist.  She has secured the necessary identification information to obtain a bona fide Real ID.  Now ‒ armed with the necessary identification ‒ she is able to board an airplane.  Why, in God’s name she would want to do that, given the fact that cockpits are now reinforced and federal air marshals are on flights is anybody’s guess?  The likelihood of a terrorist with a suicide vest getting on a commercial airliner is just a tad north of extraordinarily unlikely.

Now consider the possibility of a terrorist in the almost 3,000,000 Marylanders without a Real ID.  That terrorist is free to drive around the country and free to buy the necessary components of a car bomb and ‒ while he can’t get into a federal courthouse – he can certainly park his explosive laden car next to the courthouse a la Timothy McVeigh.

Most of my friends who had to visit the MVA had about the same response.  “It wasn’t so bad and I was out of there in under an hour”.  My response is “that was an hour that you won’t get back and that did nothing to ensure your safety.  And, by the way, how long did it take you to locate your birth certificate?”

There are many people who think the government is the problem.  I am not one of those as I believe some government programs are wonderfully run and quite effective (Social Security and Medicare to name two although both are woefully underfunded).  But the Real ID law is an example of politicians purporting to do something when, in fact, they are doing nothing except driving up expense and anxiety.

The response to the 9/11 tragedy has been, in the main, not particularly good:  Real ID law, the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq.  Politicians make frequent mistakes and citizens allow them to do so when they feel insecure.  Osama bin Laden was successful – not only in killing 3,000 people on 9/11 ‒ but in making many insecure and less likely to challenge really dumb ideas.

In 1967, a Mike Nichols film “The Graduate” summed up the future for the new college graduate played by Dustin Hoffman with a single word:  “plastics.”  To review the scene, go to:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk .

If produced today – given the regular news reports of whales ingesting large amounts of plastic ‒ the phrase would be: “no plastics.”

Item 1: The European Union and Canada are banning “single use” plastic in the next few years.  What is “single use?”  Well, as it turns out, it’s just about everything that is made of plastic.  More on that later.

Item 2:  New York State recently enacted a five cent levy on plastic bags.  Maryland has now banned Styrofoam so the containers for carry-out food at restaurants and the drinks at Maryland Dunkin’ Donuts will now be made of paper. 

Item 3:  A Baltimore City Councilman has just proposed a ban on plastic bags and a five cent levy on paper bags. 

Item 4:  On June 12^th the New York Times reported that a grocery store in Vancouver, British Columbia was using plastic bags with embarrassing lettering such as: “Into the Weird Adult Video Emporium; the Colon Care Co-Op and Dr. Toews’ Wart Ointment.”  The notion was that shoppers would be embarrassed to walk out of the store with such bags.  However, this appears to have backfired as shoppers demanded more of these bags.

What has changed in the last 50 years?  All of these efforts are an attempt to “save the environment.”  To be eco-friendly, one has to swear off plastics.

Now how did all this plastic come to be?  And is it really that important?  Well, look around your house.  Peer into your refrigerator and pantry and count the plastic containers and you will easily get to 10 in each.  Go to the bathroom where, egads, plastic rules:  shampoo, conditioner, body lotion, liquid soap, floss containers, toothpaste tubes, deodorant and multi-vitamin “bottles” and your electric toothbrushes. 

In our house, it doesn’t stop there as the new windows are plastic clad and the ceiling of the wraparound porch is made of plastic material as are the railings.  And no decent plumber would be able to do the job without PVC pipe; nor would any automobile manufacturer be able to achieve miles per gallon goals without the substitution of plastic for former steel components.

Why is plastic everywhere?  The answer is simple enough: it is in many respects a superior material, economical to produce and a better and more efficient alternative than what went before.  And, to boot, the “carbon footprint” to produce plastic is considerably more eco-friendly than, for instance, steel or galvanized pipe.

But plastic does have a downside.  While most plastics can be “recycled,” some are more difficult than others and plastic is not “biodegradable” in the way that other materials are such as wood (although I bet that steel and galvanized pipe don’t exactly collapse).  And then, of course, there is the plastic bag in the tree visible to all who are standing on the paper bag while looking up.

What happens to these plastic and paper bags?  In my house, the plastic bags are sometimes reused but usually end up in the trash.  Paper bags are sometimes used as trash liners and either end up in the trash or in a recycling bin.  In many cases, both plastic and paper are carried to the landfill.  

So, in the words of a political phrase from a generation or two ago:  “Where’s the beef?”  Well, the anti-plastic person says:  “But plastic does not biodegrade like paper.”  The pro plastics person responds: “Who cares, both are in the landfill which, in due course, will become a park or a green space or a golf course.”

The switch away from plastic to different materials is costly and produces alternatives that are not nearly as effective as the plastic they replace.  The shiny bright legislators who proposed the Maryland Styrofoam ban were quite eager to say that Maryland was “first” to ban Styrofoam.  Never mind (1) that the principal product of a Maryland company employing 700 people (in high unemployment areas) was the manufacture of Styrofoam or (2) that they had become the stalking horses for the lobbyists for the paper industry who were enthusiastically applauding nearby.

There is some irony in all of this.  The Plastics Crisis Alliance recently announced in Facebook ads that cigarette butts are the most prevalent non-biodegradable items found in the ocean which – if that is the case ‒ may call for a name change for that group.

Now what about so called “single use” plastic?  A group called the Plastic Free Challenge on its website says “Single use plastics, or disposable plastics, are used only once before they are thrown away or recycled.  These items are things like plastic bags, straws, coffee stirrers, soda and water bottles and most food packaging.”

Think about the term “most food packaging” in this definition when you amble around your local grocery store to see what’s affected.  Obviously, the meat and seafood section would have to be redone as would the vegetable aisle, the bread aisle, the soda and water aisle, the dairy, ice cream and orange juice coolers, any product with a see-through window as well as anything in a plastic container.  One effect of a “single use” ban:  glass back in business.

Why ban just Styrofoam when you can get everything with the term “single use” plastic?  Groups like the Plastic Free Challenge maintain that plastics are responsible for human cancers, infertility and other diseases.  Even allowing for hyperbole, color me unconvinced.

The current political campaign against single use plastics is wrong headed.  An H. L. Mencken quote seems apropos:  “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simple, direct and wrong.” 

Can we live without plastic?  Obviously we can as it did not become a staple of our lives until recently.  We also can live without automobiles and electricity but the question is – should we?  If we ditch cars and return to horses, you can bet that some group will begin complaining about methane emissions from the droppings of millions of horses.

So what to do?  Here is a modest three point proposal:

1. Use plastic wherever it is a superior alternative and increase our plastic recycling efforts.  Indeed, even the hated Styrofoam can be recycled;

• Encourage landfills since these are the places where almost all our “stuff” ends up and, even here, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, there is a decided environmental benefit to be gained.  https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas;

• Call Vancouver for your bags since humor is the necessary antidote to all the doom and gloom.

This post was originally written in October 1967, a few days after my grandfather died.  It appeared in the Notre Dame student newspaper, The Observer.

The only word for the old man was “amazing.”  A product of the fish markets of Baltimore, he had voted for Al Smith in ’28, Roosevelt in ’32, and supported Joe McCarthy in ’54.  He had taken his wife and six kids through the Depression in good style and yet was unable to figure out his income tax.  He loved the Orioles, despaired with the Senators, and carried on a love affair with Lord Calvert whiskey for the last 30 years.  We had always called him Pop.

Pop finished third grade and then his education started.  When asked what he did, Pop would say he was a “nipulator” – his fractured version of “manipulator” – meaning that he did whatever he had to do to make a living. 

There is often a tryst that develops between grandfather and eldest grandson.  Sometimes they share the same cigarettes and the same liquor by the time that grandson reaches the age of 17.  That’s the way it was between Pop and me.  For the last three years we had always puffed and sipped in the bedroom discreetly out of sight of all relatives.  Off and on at every Christmas and Easter we had been secret companions.  Pop had brought the Lord Calvert and I contributed the forbidden Winstons. 

I suppose that the head of every dynasty is toasted and feted for his wisdom and love.  Pop was like this too but there was something different.  I think everyone believed that there was something a bit satanic about the old guy and perhaps that’s what made him so human and so good.

Pop had loved the good Catholic from New York in ’28 and had probably voted for him five times.  But Smith lost and forgot to take Pop with him.  Pop lived in Washington and Mr. Hoover was now in the Capital City and Mr. Hoover’s friends were coming to see his inauguration.  Come March and the old man was in the taxi service for the grand swear in.  Mr. Hoover’s friends streamed into Union Station and Pop was ready and willing.  “To the Willard, you despicable cur” and to the Willard they went, sort of.  The grand old hotel of the cosmopolitans sat on one side of Pennsylvania Avenue.  Pop would let one of his charges out on the other side, bid them a fond farewell, take their Republican money, and utter a salutation to the President elect.  All that they had to do was pick up their valises and trot across the street.

That act is a virtual impossibility when the new man comes to town; to cross Penn Ave. takes the guts of a Kamikaze, the strength of a work horse, and the daring of a Tennessee rum runner.  The old man would look at them with a twinkle in his eye and wish them a hasty death as he sped back to Union Station.

After Mother died less than a year ago Pop had gone downhill.  He had to be put in a home and everyone was about to give up his spirit.  But Pop still had a lot of fight in him.  He demanded release.  My own father, worried after a 3 a.m. phone call, had gone to rescue him.  He found the wily old codger at the front door with his suitcase, attired in his pin stripe suit with that impeccable diamond stick pin.  As he walked toward him the old man had fainted into his arms, frantically murmuring that he had to leave.  Halfway home Pop had sat up, lit a Winston, and inquired whether he was a good actor.  That’s just the way he was.

A couple of days ago Pop was rushed to the hospital.  They thought he was dead in the afternoon but by 6 p.m. he was up and at them.  He was ready to leave.  At 9:25 the next morning Pop was dead, victim of a massive coronary attack.  Over the weekend the old man was laid out and buried from his parish church in the Southwest section of the city that he had known, loved and “nipulated.”  Pop had gone to other people and other places.

This quote is from the revolutionary, “Dick the Butcher” in Shakespeare’s Henry VI.   Apologists for lawyers insist that Dick disliked lawyers because they insured the rule of law which Dick wanted to abolish.  Most commentators say that Dick thought that lawyers insured the triumph of the rich over the poor. 

Current opinions about lawyers have not changed much.  Google the term “lawyer jokes” and you will get many including the following: 

Q:  What do you call 25 lawyers buried up to their chins in cement?

A:  Not enough cement. 

Some lawyers do truly admirable work such as freeing the innocent from wrongful imprisonment.  Most lawyers are like white collar plumbers in that they keep all sorts of legal matters flowing properly.  Then there are the “TV lawyers”, aka, ambulance chasers.  Many of them are members of the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the American Trial Lawyers Association).  I am sure that many of you, like me, immediately think of the word “justice” each time you see one of these lawyers making their televised pitch!

There are often complaints about fees charged.  Tone deaf lawyers, in turn, complain about their plumber’s rates because of the lack of formal schooling, ungrateful that the toilet now works.

Any reader of a national publication regularly sees “Legal Notices” such as appeared in a February 2019 issue of Time magazine.  That notice provided:  “If you purchased Asahi-brand beer between April 5, 2013 and December 20, 2018, you could be eligible for a payment from a class action settlement.” 

The gist of this lawsuit is that the beer in question was advertised as being brewed in Japan when, in fact, some of the beer was brewed in Canada.

If you purchased the Canadian brewed beer, you are entitled to up to $10 per household.  In order to make a claim, you must file a claim form by May 3, 2019.  Actual payment will be based on the type and quantity of the Asahi beer purchased ($0.10 per big bottle, $0.50 per six pack, $1.00 per 12 pack and $2.00 per 24 pack). 

And how does one “prove” the purchase of Ashai beer from Canada in the last five years?  And assuming one could prove the purchase, your total reward would be no more than $10.

So you ask ‒ what kind of nonsense is this?  The defrauded “beer drinker” may receive up to $10 but the attorneys who brought this lawsuit are asking for fees and expenses of $765,000.  Moreover the Settlement Administrator who will sort through the claims will receive up to $300,000 in fees and expenses.  Could it be that the lawyers and the Settlement Administrator have been through this exercise before? 

Did the Canadian beer taste better or worse and really does it matter at all?  Chuck Thompson, the now deceased radio voice of the Baltimore Orioles, used to say after each victory “Ain’t the beer cold!”  The real question here is not whether the Canadian beer was “cold” but why a court is entertaining such claims and rewarding the lawyers bringing them.

If you are an Asahi beer drinker, time to order more cement.

It is said that a “stopped clock” is correct twice a day which means that it is correct for two seconds out of 86,400 seconds.  Nevertheless, it is correct for these two seconds.

Trump is a serial liar and speaks to our “worst angels” and not to the “better angels” called forth by Abraham Lincoln.  Nevertheless, he is correct on one thing:  China.

So, why correct on China?  One law enacted in the 1970s was a requirement that goods sold in the United States should bear the country of origin.  The notion was that American consumers would prefer “Made in the USA” goods.  As it turned out, American retailers and consumers deserted American goods for the cheaper variety.

One of the first industries to lose jobs to foreign competition was the apparel industry.  The loss started in the 1970s and is now almost totally in place.

The result:  I am writing this clothed in a tailored shirt made in China, an expensive sweater also made in China, jeans made in Mexico, socks made outside the United States and even my Fruit of the Loom underwear was not “Made in the USA.” 

And if you think that the “China” problem is limited to apparel, check the next time that you buy an alarm clock, a vacuum cleaner, a hose, picture frames or household items.  What I call the “China” problem really is about the production of almost all “stuff” used by Americans outside the United States.

President Xi Jinping is intent on making China the world’s leader.  As Trump withdraws to Fortress America, Xi reaches out to the world.  His biggest effort is the “Belt And Road Initiative” which is an extensive transportation (air, rail, road, sea) infrastructure linking China to Asia, Africa and Europe.  It is the fabled “Silk Road” on mega doses of steroids.  Xi has the advantage of a “command economy” where he is the commander; at the same time commands can be wrong and Xi is not infallible and may well overreach.  Remember the China “one child” policy which totally misfired so that now there are very few to support the very many retirees.  China’s current “Social Security” system is so bad it makes ours appear to be over-funded even though ours will see deep benefit reductions by 2034 if there are not significant changes.

Trump’s main “talking point” is the persistent trade imbalance between China and the United States.  As the “bull in the china shop,” he will produce nominal results but China is in for the “long game” and knows that Trump is gone in a few years.  Xi has already indicated that he will purchase over $1 trillion of American goods in the next three years to remedy the trade surplus imbalance. 

Trump “tweets” this a “GREAT” win and it is an improvement.  But it is not enough because America needs to be as committed to the “long game” as Xi and China are.  Xi’s commitment on the trade surplus is really a throwaway to quell a temporary political problem.  An increase in soybean exports to China may help red state farmers but it is not a “long game” solution which must involve protecting “intellectual property.” 

China obviously considers the 21^st century to be “China’s century” just as the 20^th century was the “American century.”  The Beijing Review reflects official Chinese policy and stated (1/28/19) that “China and the U.S. are the world’s chief political and economic actors.” The European Union doesn’t even merit a mention much less India or Japan.

The United States manufacturing base was decimated over the last 40 years, leaving many hollowed out American communities.  But, the economy also created different types of jobs. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Dell, Amazon and countless others did not even exist when the outflow of jobs from the apparel industry started.  Hence the current concern over China stealing “intellectual property” is real and needs to be rectified.

Trump has neither the discipline nor attention span to solve the “China” problem.  He will be on to the next “tweet” and taken to the cleaners by the Chinese in the “long game.” However, other Americans can and will take up the Trump slack.

The United States Government needs to do two things to remain in the “long game”:  (1) restore a semblance of proper trade balances and, more importantly, (2) encourage and protect the biotechnology, artificial intelligence and computer economy where America excels.

As to the job of the present and future, America has three assets that will allow it to stay in the “long game.”  Two reside in our present educational system. 

First, America has world class colleges and universities aided by Federal research funding.  Second, elementary and secondary school teachers started – many years ago – to emphasize STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education efforts.

Third, hardwired in the American culture is an entrepreneurial ethos which starts trillion dollar companies in garages and dorm rooms.  In America millions of “nobodies” believe they can be “somebodies.”

My bet is that the state run “command economy” of China will falter and the entrepreneurial economy will survive and create meaningful jobs for the grandchildren of American textile workers.

Will everything then be “hunky doory”?  No, but at least some relief may be in sight for the American middle class.