Author: Henry

My kids, all of whom are brighter than the average lightbulb, were no exception to the “Kids are curious” rule. As a good father I learned early on to answer all their questions truthfully and thoroughly. 

Take Santa Claus, for example. 

One day one of my kids found out from a friend that his mother had been a little more wistful than truthful in explaining the bearded giver. And I had been way too busy re-reading the back of the cereal box to contribute. 

The power of giving?  I can explain that any day of the week. The notion of being thankful? In a second. But Santa? Uh….

The news from his friend devastated him. And us. Until the dog started barking in empathy and then chased the cat straight into the Christmas tree, which shed ornaments like snowflakes (except with more noise), which led to a few well-expressed sentiments from his mother, which made my son laugh. 

Which happily ended the discussion about Santa.

His mother and I were so devastated by his sadness that no more children were produced for what felt like years. And then we had two at once, which, I explained to him, was a result of waiting so long.

Having lots of kids has taught me the art of explaining things I knew nothing about. 

Electricity, for example. “Dad?” he asked one day at around four years old, as I tucked him into bed, “how does a lamp know when to turn on and when to turn off?”  

“Easy”, I said. “The magic in your back.” I walked over to the wall switch and leaned against it. “Let me show you.” I rub my back up and down against the switch and Presto! – the lamp turned off and then on.

“Oh.” He nodded thoughtfully. Then, “Dad? The switch is too high for a little kid. How do I turn it on and off?”

“You call me or your Mom.” I gave him a kiss good-night and turned off the light with my magic back on the way out. 

Or take toilets. By four, he knew how to use one, but hadn’t really considered how they worked until one day when I was changing his new sister’s and brother’ diapers. 

“Ew!” he said. “That smells, Dad!”

“Yes, it does”. I said. “It’s worse than smelly fish. That’s why we teach kids about the toilet as early as possible.”

“Boy, I’m glad you taught me about toilets!” Then, “ but how do they work, Dad? And where does it all go?”

My first thought was to run and get his mother, but I controlled my fear. “Well”, I said, “that’s hard to explain”.

“And what about the pee-pee. Does it go to a different place than the poo-poo?”

“Uh… no. It all goes to the same place”. I took him into the bathroom. I raised the lid of the toilet. “See down there?” I said, pointing to the water.

“That’s where it goes” – closing the lid – “and then, we turn this handle” – turning the handle – “And…” a great whishing sound filled the room. 

“…That’s the ThroneMan taking it all away!”

“What’s a ThroneMan, Dad?”

“He’s the invisible King of the bathroom. He keeps the toilet clean.”

“But…where does he put all the —?”

“—That’s one of the mysteries of life, Korwin.” I say sagely. “Like where flies go in the winter or why ice cream tastes so good.”

I thought that ended the discussion until early last week, when I was in the Children’s Section of a book store and discovered two in a series of new children’s books called The Invention Hunters. One explains electricity, the other machines, including toilets. Both are aimed at kids 4 and up. 

It was very upsetting.

You see, the kids in the books are the smart ones. The grownups, The Invention Hunters, are doofuses. They tumble down from a rocket-ship house in search of new inventions for their Museum of Inventionology. Everyday objects trigger intense curiosity – and childlike guesses – from them.  A little girl and boy (looking suspiciously like a 4 year old I once knew) patiently explain how these things work.     

My favorite part is the picture of a fish going down the toilet.

(The Invention Hunters was written and illustrated by a constantly curious ex-four year old, Korwin Briggs, and published by Little Brown and Company.) 

When the Women’s Team won the World Cup on Sunday there were cheers of “USA!, USA!” from players wrapped in US flags and fans sporting red, white and blue.  

But then came a second cheer, a full-throated chant from the crowd: “EQUAL PAY!, EQUAL PAY!”

This team did more than win a World Cup. They increased awareness of the pay disparity between men and women.

They are paid 60% less than the men’s team, the one that didn’t even qualify for the 2018 Men’s World Cup. So, in March, they filed suit against the US Soccer Federation for gender discrimination, a move that reverberated well beyond the world of soccer.

Today, even well paid women make only 81% of what men make, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 1979, it was 62%.

Let me introduce you to the three, economicly middle class women, who were in their prime in 1979, at 30 years old. The names are changed for obvious reasons – dignity being the biggest – but these are real women.

In 1979, “Suzy” was 30. She worked as a secretary throughout two marriages and did most of the work of raising a daughter. Two divorces later she has a small nest egg. She makes around $9 an hour at a women’s clothing store and gets discounts.  The store limits her hours to 29 a week to avoid giving her benefits, even sick days. In slow times, they drop her hours down to 20 a week or less. The most she can make, at 29 hours, is $1044 a month. So she works a second job cleaning houses at $80 to $125 a day. That, and a net of $860 in social security a month, has to cover food, car, rent, taxes, utilities, etc. When she is too old to work, she will have only the $860 a month.  She is 70 years old.

“Alice” started an accounting firm with her husband. They paid him more than her to save on social security payments. They were divorced 30 years ago when the kids were in high school. Her social security, after deductions, is around $800 a month, so she works three jobs: bookkeeping, care-taking old people (“a Granny Nanny”), and delivering meals at night. Those three jobs average about $12/hour or $1920 a month. With social security that’s $2720 a month before taxes. She will have only the $800 when she can’t work. She is 73.

“Anne” immigrated to the US in her 20’s with one suitcase and a degree in nursing. But she wasn’t licensed in the US so she worked for an American nursing degree, which got her a nursing job paying  $4/hour. She married and worked on a horse farm. After divorcing, she worked and paid for a Master’s degree in education. She now teaches at a private school. She has three sources of income: teaching, tutoring after school, and renting out two rooms of a small condo she bought. She has one more year to retirement and, with the sale of her condo, can afford a small house in Florida. Relative to the other two, she did well. But the school gives no pension. Her long career and master’s degree paid off with social security income of around $2000 a month. But that’s all she’ll have when she can’t work. She is 74.

While women like these were being paid less than men, they were also paid nothing for home-making and raising children after they got home from work. 

The impact of paying women less than they’re worth, less than men with similar jobs, isn’t simply a matter of conscience; it’s also a matter economics.

Being paid 62% of a man’s salary in 1979 has compounded over 40 years, even as the disparity went down. Today the cost of an “old folks” home, is between $4,000 and $9,000 a month. These three women do not have that kind of money and never will, even as costs rise. 

Today there are five 85 year old women for every two 85 year old men. By 2050, in 30 years, the elderly population will double to 80 million. Sure 81% of men’s pay will help, but the disparity will still compound. And women will still suffer in their helpless years.

Those soccer players will no doubt get equal pay and get it this year. But what about their mothers, aunts, teachers, grandmothers and other loved ones?  And what about your mother, your aunt, your children’s teacher, your grandmother, and other loved ones?

That’s the difference between dignity and fear.

There was a lot of yelling at the debates last week. Bernie (“I-have-to-yell-to-hear-myself”) Sanders and Elizabeth (“Fight! Fight! Fight!!) Warren led the pack, but there were others, I think. It’s hard to remember what ex- Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said while Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Bill de Blasio shouted for attention.

But there was substance, too. 19 of the 20 candidates were highly qualified and smart enough to be President. (Really? Marianne Williamson, an author?).

“But remember who they’re trying to replace…” you might say into your sleeve. 

Snicker if you will, but look what happened to a pretty good line-up of Republican candidates in 2016. Trump destroyed them, methodically, charismatically, and ruthlessly – even as Republican pros laughed. When he took on Hillary, Democrats laughed all the way to the losers’ circle.

Today, Democrats’ fear and anger at Trump permeated their recent debates.

Which is exactly what Trump wants. It’s part of his trap, folks, the same trap he’s set for years, first in business, now in politics.

Here’s how it works:

Step 1 – “The Big Splash”: Start with a big splash. Then rally allies by convincing them they’ll make a big splash, too – and tons of money. 

Business example: getting Atlantic City to back his casinos, manipulating New York to allow Trump Tower, getting banks to give him risky loans. 

Political example: the splashy escalator ride in Trump Tower; Christy, Romney, and others thinking they’d be in the Cabinet.

Step 2 – “The Put Downs”: demean and ridicule the opposition at every turn. Make schoolyard insults a fearsome weapon. Attack ruthlessly, without letup, until the opposition’s initial fear evolves into matching anger.  

Business example: Attacking the banks in Atlantic City, attacking regulators in New York City. 

Political example: the destruction of Bush, Rubio, and Cruz in 2016; insulting NATO, Trudeau, Kim Jong Un, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc.

Step 3 – “The Outrage”: When the opposition finally explodes and chaos reigns, look around in shock. Be Claude Rains in Casa Blanca, “I’m shocked, shocked to find my opponents so childish and angry!” 

Business Example: When his casino went down, he blamed Atlantic City. 

Political example: His shock, shock at Europe, Mexico, and Canada for standing up to him.

Step 4, “The Conciliator”: As anger and chaos rain down and everybody just wants it all to stop, suddenly become the grown-up in the room. Offer conciliation – and less than you would have in the first place. The adversary is so exhausted, he accepts it, gratefully.  

Business Example: The banks funding his Atlantic City fiasco accepted 10 cents or so on the dollar, because it was better than losing everything if Trump declared bankruptcy; New York let him replace the Commodore Hotel with the Grand Hyatt, because the Commodore had fallen into disrepair, effecting the area all around Grand Central station.

Political example: Stopping the attack on Iran, the tariffs on Mexico, pausing other tariffs. 

That’s how the Trump Trap works. And he’s about to apply it to the 2020 election.

Democrats are susceptible because of our primary system. Primary voters are the extremists of their party. They know the issues long before moderates are even aware of them. They’re usually angry at the status quo.

In 2016, Republican primary voters had many qualified candidates, but they chose a complete novice instead, a man who won by tapping into his base’s anger at urban elites. He used his base’s kind of insults and their kind of language to kindle their kind of outrage, then rode it all the way to the White House. 

Democrats had only two candidates, and one controlled it all.

This year, roles are reversed. The Democrats have 25 candidates. Most are fearful and angry at Trump, and about to fall into his trap again. Trump is the sole opponent (sorry, Gov. Weld).

Step 1 – “The Big Splash”: He turns the July Fourth holiday into a Trump day by making the Lincoln Memorial celebration his celebration.

Step 2 – “The Put Downs”: Shouts of “Fake News” and “Socialism!” fuel his base’s anger at the Democrats, and fires up Democrat’s anger at him.  

Step 3 – “The Outrage”:  During most of the general election, he further weakens EPA rules, locks up more immigrant children, threatens more tariffs, military action, etc.,  ramping up anger and chaos.

Step 4 – “The Conciliator”:  Toward the end of the election he softens his rhetoric, expresses sadness at a divided country, and talks about healing the nation’s division.  The Democrats sputter like Bernie Sanders at a Koch Brothers convention. Swing voters, fearing socialism, the press, angry Democrats, and general chaos, swing back to Trump.

The trap closes.

That is what Democrats need to think about, and now.

The last two nights of television were mesmerizing, not because they included dramatic shoot-em-ups or humorous “reality”, but because each night 10 real presidential candidates supplied real answers to real questions. 

Granted, a lot of the spontaneous remarks were planned, but they were still well stated.

For example, on Thursday night, several candidates tried talking over each other and words flew around like fireworks. That’s when Kamala Harris “spontaneously” came out with  “Hey, guys, you know what? America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we’re going to put food on their table.”

That shut down the fireworks… for a several whole seconds.

Elizabeth Warren took part in the wrong debate night… Well, maybe. Her moral outrage at Trump, Big Business, and Republicans stood out on Wednesday. It would have been drowned out by Bernie’s high volume self-righteousness on Thursday.

Also on Wednesday, Beto O’Rourke was about as compelling as a boy scout at a drinking party. Tulsi Gabbard (rep from Hawaii) was credible. Jay Inslee (Washington Governor) very impressive with real governing experience. John Delaney (rep from Maryland) was pragmatic and smart (he described calling hospitals in Maryland to ask about Medicare-for-all; they all told him they’d go broke if that was their only source of income).

Bill de Blasio was… New York obnoxious, I guess. it would have been interesting to see Bernie and Bill on the same night, two shouters going at it. 

(Wow! how about a sequel to these debates? How about a Bill- Donald-Bernie WWE takedown!).

Overall, Wednesday was kind of boring, though. Without Warren, I might have read a newspaper.

The Thursday team learned from the Wednesday team. They came out swinging – primarily at Trump – but also at Biden.  

Kamala Harris sucker-punched Biden, by first saying she knew he wasn’t a racist, then, by accusing him of racism by bringing up 1) his somewhat admiring remarks about Eastland and Talmadge – two racist senators from the 60’s and 70’s – and 2) his attempt to throttle school busing. While he had explanations for both, they were more detailed than he had time for, not to mention a little weak. So, the audience was left wondering if he is a racist. Kamala packs a powerful punch.

She kept the Anita Hill hearings in her quiver, possibly for another debate. But be warned, candidates, this is a take-no-prisoners competitor. 

Buttigieg is refreshing as a candidate. He’s very smart, forthright, and well spoken, with unexpected humility. He didn’t dodge the police controversy in city of South Bend: when asked why he didn’t have a more racially diverse police force he said “Because I couldn’t get it done”.

(Just for one delicious moment, imagine Trump answering a question like that).

Michael Bennet, Senator from Colorado, was reasoned, sensible, and highly experienced, as was John Hickenlooper, former Colorado governor (must be the mountain air). 

Who the heck was Marianne Williamson? Her chyron said “author”. Are we now so desperate, we’re running authors for President? If so, I’d rather hear from John Grisham or Tom Clancy. They’re way cool.

Harris won the night, narowly, in my view. Biden’s gaffe last week will have lasting impact. Had he simply apologized for opposing busing, he would have won. But hubris can complicate a 46 year career. He represents a more hopeful time, a prouder time. His age didn’t show as a flaw; it showed as wisdom, patience, steadiness – qualities that have been sorely missed. He may not be up to the political fighting of 2019. But, particularly in view of the swipes from some of the younger candidates, he reminds us of what we miss in a leader.

But the coolest part of either night, for me, was the audio mess-up on Wednesday. When Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie and Jose Diaz-Balart took a break and were replaced by Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd, their mics weren’t cut, so their back-stage chit-chat competed with Maddows and Todds’ on-air questions. Confusion reigned everywhere. To fix the audio, NBC took one of the longest commercial breaks on record. Now that’s drama.

In an earlier life, I worked in TV, including remote (out of studio) production. In all that time, including remote productions for NBC, I never saw anything like that.

So… a computerized audio board hiccup? FOX hacked the production truck? Trump sabotage? A Putin spy? Hmmm.

The debates were cool. But, hey NBC – what happened to the mics?

Although I can’t anticipate everything that will be broached in the Democratic debates this week, I’m sure Joe Biden will get a lot of heat for his recent boast about his ability, in his early years as a Senator, to get along with segregationist Senators James Eastland (D-Miss.) and Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.). In his telling, he also joked that Eastland never called him “boy”, just “son”.

That boast and the “boy”/“son” comparison immediately short-circuited the entire Democratic grid. 

New York’s Mayor and Democratic Presidential candidate Mayor Bill de Blazio: “Eastland thought my multiracial family should be illegal & that whites were entitled to ‘the pursuit of dead n—–s,’ ” 

California Senator and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris (“If those men had their way, I wouldn’t be in the United States Senate and on this elevator right now.)

New Jersey Senator and Democratic Candidate Cory Booker: “Vice President Biden’s relationships with proud segregationists are not the model for how we make America a safer and more inclusive place for black people, and for everyone.”

de Blasio and Harris are absolutely right. Eastland and Talmage did carry the standard for repulsive beliefs.

But Cory Booker’s was absolutely wrong. Biden’s relationships with Eastland and Talmage were, in fact, a model for making this country “safer and more inclusive place for black people, and for everyone.”

Here’s why.

First, Senators don’t get to choose other Senators; their voters do. So if 1970’s voters in Mississippi and Alabama were racist (which they were), they would probably send racist Senators to Washington (which they did).

Second, Biden had two choices: work with Eastland and Talmadge on issues that didn’t involve race or refuse to work with them on anything because they were racists. If you look at Congress today and over the last few administrations, you can see the cost of refusing to work with people whose beliefs you abhor: dysfunctional government.

Congress in the 70’s, in contrast, got things done.

Biden’s comment about being called “son” instead of “boy” showed he’s either inured to racism at a base level or has never understood it.  

It marked him as “The White Man” in the race and will stick to him like dog poop on a shoe.

But that doesn’t negate his point about reaching across the aisle – in politics or life.  

Which brings up a much larger question: when is someone’s political, religious, or secular beliefs so abhorrent that we stop discussion and go to war? That is not an idle question: Oregon had to shut down their state house last Friday “due to a militia threat”. Why? Because of disagreement – not over racism – but over a climate change vote.

Republicans and Democrats used to get to know each other outside of Congress – at cocktail parties and such. That’s the atmosphere Biden was citing. Now they don’t mingle. So the only thing they know about each other is that they are either friends or enemies. There is no trust and no way to build it. 

Which makes governing almost impossible. Not all differences in today’s world are as black and white as racism. 

I have no use for Donald Trump as a person or President, for myriad reasons. Ditto Pence, McConnell. I have friends who do like all three, though. These friends are honest, kind people. Should I reject their friendship because of their politics? Should they reject me because of my politics?

A lot of people today would say yes to both questions. But that would obviate the other qualities that we like in each other. Our choice of friends would be reduced to one area: political preference.

Here’s an irony: my other friends, those who also dislike Trump, Pence and McConnell, are also honest, kind people. Really. Both groups have very similar values outside of politics. 

Would Biden have hung out with Eastland and Talmadge if they weren’t Senators? I doubt it. But the fact that he had to look past their racism to other qualities, or not do his job, allowed him and them to govern.  

What we lack in Congress and in personal relationships now, is that. Not all differences are as black and white as racism, Nazism, etc. Disagreement over climate change is just one example. And refusing to debate leaves one ugly alternative. 

I don’t know whether Biden will or should be elected. I just hope that whoever wins has the ability to see the difference between black and white and grey.