The Republican primary season wrapped up last week with Donald Trump crowned the Republican nominee for President in Cleveland. Over the course of the last year, the American public has watched the 16 Republican presidential candidates drop to 1. After listening to a week of gloom and doom about the state of America presented by speakers at the Republican convention, I am reminded of the authoritarian spectacle presented in the first Hunger Games movie.
Trump accepting Republican nomination.For those of you who haven’t seen the first Hunger Games (2012). The movie is set in a futurist society, the Capital of Panem. The leadership keeps the peace by annually hosting the Hunger Games. Participants in the games, called Tributes, are a randomly selected boy and girl from each of 12 districts. The Tributes fight to the death until only one remains in a nationally televised event called the Hunger Games. The Games are kicked off with much fanfare, drawing the viewer in by being both terrifying and fascinating in the leadership’s total lack of humanity. The battle to the last person standing takes place within a televised bubble in which new barriers for contestants emerge on a regular basis, reports of the progress and trials of the teens is routinely broadcast throughout the nation. A solitary cannon boom notifies the nation as each child is killed by another.
President Snow, presides over the Panem and the Hunger Games with an iron fist.This event is presided over by President Coriolanus Snow, the ruthless, tyrannical and primary antagonist. He is a cruel and manipulative dictator who has no qualms about using force to maintain discipline. The Games are intended to give citizens a little bit of hope by allowing the victor to live but not so much hope that citizens revolt.
You may ask what is the similarly between this dark movie franchise and the Republican primary season? The Republican primaries proved to be a hard test not only for the candidates but for the Republican Party. The divisions created during the primaries have recently been discounted by National Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus . But the fracture lines are still there. Many prominent Republican chose to stay away from the convention. Senator Cruz’s caution to the convention goers of “vote your conscience” resulted in boos, personal rejection by mega-funders and media assessment of the fall-out of Cruz’s speech possibly ruining his political career.
Senator Cruz is booed for telling Republicans to “vote their conscience”.In between the opening of the convention and the Cruz political theater, Melania Trump became involved in a plagiarism controversy. Her eloquent speech lauded for it’s sincerity upon close review was remarkably similar to Michelle Obama’s speech in 2008. While imitation is the greatest form of flattery, I am sure the attendees at the convention would not have liked to have Michelle Obama be their guiding light. Mrs.Trump’s speech became the major media story for at least 24 hours. Finally, the story was put to rest when a loyal Trump employee, Meredith McIver, was offered up as the responsible person for the mistake. This tempest in a tea pot is still not over. A major Democratic super pack, the Democratic Coalition against Trump has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging Trump broke the law by using his personal corporation to help with the campaign.
The best parts of Mrs. Trump’s speech were from Mrs. Obama 2008.On the final night of the convention, Ivanka Trump presented a winning view of her father.
Ivanka Trump presenting a positive image of her father at the convention.
She described Trump as a family man committed to gender equally; evaluating workers results rather than positions, degrees, gender, ethnicity or color; understanding the need to make child care affordable and accessible for working women (a position ardently opposed by Idaho Republicans and probably nationally) and committed to making America great again by focusing on results and talent rather than degrees and bureaucracy. Though I strongly disagree with her dad on many of his political positions, I found Ivanka’s portrait of her father quite compelling. To put my faith in Ivanka’s Trump, I have to forget that this is the man who described women during his highly publicized career as fat, pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting and when asked about these characterizations by Fox News Megyn Kelly described her as “a bimbo”. Angry about Kelly’s tough questions during the debate, Trump took to twitter saying, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever. ” (August 7, 2015). These are not comments of a man who understands and respects professional women.
Like the Hunger Games, the entire Republican primary season has been hosted under the magnifying lens created by the intense and constant attention of national media. There is no escape either for the willing participants (the candidates) or Americans. Every sound bite, twitter, picture, comment is captured and reflected out to the world to see. We know who was fired and why, who said what and when. Similar to the Hunger Games, the media keeps score of each day. During the convention, the Washington Post ran a daily analysis of the winners and losers. This constant attention to ever minor and major detail has moved campaigns from a civil discussion of legitimate policy differences to the rancor of realty TV where every day people shout that the opposition should be shot or sent to jail. Conveners at the Republican convention ganged up on each other and on those of us with different beliefs outside the convention as if having a difference of an opinion makes one an enemy rather than an neighbor who pays the same taxes, sends their children to the same schools, drives on the same highways or sits in the same pew at church.
After listening to the Republican presentations at their convention, one would think that Hilary Clinton is President Snow come to life on American soil. In this fiction, Mrs. Clinton is single-handily responsible for every ill in this country rather than one of the most respected women in the world. Scapegoating, laying the blame for societal ills on one person, is much easier than developing cohesive national policy. At the Republican convention, we heard many platitudes about “Making America Great!” and very few specifics about how we would achieve a new unified vision of the future. I wanted to hear specific proposals on how to bring our nation with admittedly many challenges together so we can build on the multitude of strengths we share.
This election is not a reality TV show, it is not a game with winners and losers, it is not a movie with three sequels, it is about what we as Americans want for our future. I, for one, am not yet ready to give up on civil discourse and the ability to look for concrete solutions to the many pressing problems facing us. Like Katniss Everdeen at the end of the Hunger Games, I refuse to follow the rules presented at the Republican Convention. I will not demonize the opposition. I am anxious to hear real solutions to real problems.
Katniss Everdeen, heroine of the Hunger Games, leading the effort at reform by refusing to follow the rules of the Game.
1959 Barbie. An icon for 57 years of America’s focus on women’s breasts and looks, over achievements
First introduced in 1959, over the past 57 years, Mattel has tried to update Barbie to adjust to the times. To that end, the company introduced last week, Barbie for President with a female running mate. This combination is intended to be an inspiration for young girls. “By introducing the new President and Vice President Barbie dolls, the first all-female ticket, we hope to inspire girls to imagine themselves as leaders,”Erin Loos Cutraro, co-founder and CEO of She Should Run, tells Babble.
Throughout her life-span, Barbie has become ethnically diverse, moved from a beauty queen and model to a professional. Her hair originally a classic long pony tail which couldn’t be combed has transformed to long, short, curly, black, red, blonde, silky and brushable to totally changeable. Barbie’s originally stiff body is now flexible.
But one thing that has not changed is her shape. Research suggests that a real woman with Barbie’s figure would be 5’9″, host a 39 inch bust, 17 inch waist and wear a size 3 shoe. Given the wildly disproportionate trunk to base, a real woman with this shape couldn’t walk, would have extremely frail bones, half a liver and probably be anorexic. Mattel is currently working on changing Barbie again by incorporating more diverse body types, though the exact nature of these changes has yet to be specified.
Rather than launching a new wave of socially engaged little girls, Presidential Barbie seems antiquated. This is particularly true when viewed in combination with Jennifer Aniston’s For The Record in the Huffington Post (7/12/2016 ). Aniston writes about unwanted speculation from the media and complains about the objectification of her body in particular and women’s bodies in general. Given these two pieces of evidence, it appears Americans have not progressed very far in their expectations of what an attractive young woman should look like.
I am left in a quandary about what American cultural expectations do to little girls self image. We are pushing young girls in to pursue STEM programs (we want girls to go into math, science and engineering). Women’s sports are on the rise with girls participating in every imaginable activity. Cheerleading is still around but not the sole way for a teenage girl to be involved in a sporting event. Yet with all these changes, Aniston writes just this week “The objectification and scrutiny we put women through is absurd and disturbing. The way I am portrayed by the media is simply a reflection of how we see and portray women in general, measured against some warped standard of beauty”.
President Barbie and her female running mate continue the oddly proportioned Barbie shape.
I would argue the newly released presidential Barbie doesn’t encourage young women to be whoever they want but rather reinforces strongly held cultural beliefs that attractive women sport large breasts, narrow waists and are stilted rather than engaged in life. These icons of American woman have fabulous hair styles and always dress correctly.
The Republican and Democratic conventions are rolling into our media space the next two weeks. Speaking only last night, we learned within minutes of Melania Trump’s presentation that she wore an off-the-rack white Roksanda dress costing between $1500 and $2000. The dress was described as “perfect for the White House.” I am willing to bet we will read about Tiffany and Ivanka Trumps’outfits as well i.e. who designed it, cost and whether the dress looked appropriate for the setting. All three women are drop-dead gorgeous so I can’t image any tacky comments about hair or appearance. I doubt we will read anything about Marco Rubio’s, Newt Gingrich’s or Donald Trump’s suits (what they cost and what fabric they were made of, how did the tie go, did they get wrinkled or hang perfectly on TV).
While snide comments are frequently made about Donald Trump’s hair, these remarks don’t seem to have any traction. In comparison, an article about Hilary Clinton wearing an Armani suit went viral. Mr. Trump’s suits routinely cost at least $7,000 but this does not seem to be of interest to the American public. Sara Palin had a budget of $150,000 to purchase clothing for her Vice Presidential run. Demonstrating that focusing on the importance of women’s appearance rather than just judging individuals based on competence is not limited to party but rather to gender.
Michelle Obama has made being a Presidential wife or candidate accessible for the everyday woman by wearing clothes from Target along with custom designs from high end designers. A gorgeous woman and outstanding representative of America women, Mrs. Obama has also received considerable criticism from the right for “being angry” and emphasizing “being black”. Passionate women when they speak are frequently seen as “angry” rather than committed. One can hardly blame Mrs. Obama for sharing her black experience with all of us when so many of us seem to have such limited understanding of diversity. Brown versus the Board of Education, the landmark decision requiring integration of American schools was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954, five years before Barbie was launched.
More than fifty years later, Americans are still struggling with their vision of women and race. Feminism was largely a white movement and only recently recognized that American women as a group are quite diverse, representing many cultures and colors and have immensely dissimilar experiences. American women’s commonality is their struggle to be seen as unique individuals with vastly under-recognized and under-utilized potential, capable of crafting a great American future. It’s seems time to ditch the long-standing, stultifying stereotypes adopted into our culture many years ago. Maybe instead of saying “Hello” to Presidential Barbie and her look-alike running mate, we all should say”Goodbye” to Barbie and what she represents.
Hillary Clinton, 2016 Presumptive Democratic Nominee for President of the United States
Number 10:Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump. I would support almost any reasonable candidate over Mr. Trump who continues to be a bully, racist and misogynistic. The concept of Mr. Trump as leader of the free world is terrifying. His campaign rhetoric has shown him to be a thin-skinned, unstable narcissist and a pathological liar. Since winning the primary rather than demonstrating he can be Presidential, Mr. Trump has shown a total disrespect for the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers and continued on his path of “my way or the highway”. I deeply respect the Republicans who have refused to endorse him and publicly rebuked his commendation of Judge Curiel, the Mexican-American federal judge overseeing the Trump University law suit.
Most frightening to me is Mr. Trump’s strong support across a variety of income and educational groups in the Republican Party. The Economist in April reviewed Trump’s support and found that he has appeal to Republican voters across all income and education levels.
I have heard supporters of Mr. Sanders say they will boycott the election or write in Mr. Sanders’ name. I would argue this is a dangerous strategy. Given the sluggish economy and the fact that a Democrat has been President for two terms, past voting trends favor a Republican being elected. Mr. Sanders’ remarkable campaign and many victories have demonstrated that the future of the Democratic Party lies in a progressive agenda. We know, however, from Al Gore’s failed presidential run in 2000 that it is possible to win the popular vote and lose the election through the Electoral College. In my mind, Mr. Trump as President is too worrisome to waste a vote.
Number 9: Mrs. Clinton is a Feminine Warrior. I read recently that Hillary practices the yoga warrior pose when she is tired and needs to re-energize for an upcoming event. I was taken by the image of a strong woman rising to battle time and time again.
After more than forty years in politics and advocacy, Americans certainly know all her professional and personal baggage. We quite literally know her dirty laundry. Anyone who was an adult in the late nineties links the names Monica Lewinsky, President Bill Clinton and impeachment proceedings. Former President Clinton’s bimbo eruptions are a tawdry stain on his policy accomplishments as President. More unfathomable to me than President Clinton’s behavior, a known womanizer is Hillary’s ability to get through that dark period still married to the man and to have emerged with an amicable marriage intact.
On the professional front, Hillary has been beaten many times but she never accepts defeat. In 1993, Mrs. Clinton received a bludgeoning for her leadership on a proposed national health plan, a precursor to the arduous battle we are still fighting to provide health care to all. After a grueling primary campaign in 2008, she politely endorsed then Candidate Obama and later agreed to serve in his administration as Secretary of State. Time and time again over her political career, Mrs. Clinton has been pushed down and like a phoenix she has recreated herself and risen again, a proud, regal female warrior ready to do battle for what she believes in.
Number 8: Mrs. Clinton is fallible (and that makes her more human). As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton took responsibility for not providing enough security in the Benghazi Attacks (September, 2012) that led to the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, a friend of Clinton’s. Eleven hours of Congressional hearings on the subject never directly implicated Clinton but given her position of Secretary of State the responsibility for her staff did and should fall on her shoulders.
The Benghazi Hearings subsequently led to the investigations into Mrs. Clinton private server hosting her email account while Secretary of State. Apparently, this was common practice by other high ranking officials in other administrations. For example, Colin Powell used a similar approach to email when he served as Secretary of State. With the gift of hindsight and the Snowden (2013) leaks and numerous mass hacking of corporate accounts such as Target, the naiveté of keeping a personal server for government business seems absurd. But for those of us carrying Blackberry phones for business during this period, these choices don’t seem Machiavelli.
As recently as June 9th, 2016, the email debacle was still being raised as an election issue in Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. Possessing the warrior spirit, Hillary politely told a reporter she would not be indicted and the email problem would not interfere with her presidential bid. She rose to the question with grace and aplomb.
To vote for Mrs. Clinton, I do not have to agree with all of her decisions or actions. I would never assume this level of support for a male candidate. I find it maddening when talking to potential voters who do not support Hillary because she is “untrustworthy”. Would they say the same about Colin Powel (a man I greatly admire) who testified that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. went to war? After all, we didn’t find any weapons but that was the opinion of experts at the time.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has managed to stick the moniker of “lying Hillary” on Mrs. Clinton with some ease. Yet we see Mr. Trump revising his version of the facts and his comments at almost every turn. Only recently has the media begun rapidly and accurately checking his statements. Many of which have proven to be false.
Number 7:Mrs. Clinton is a policy nerd and incrementalist. When campaigning against Mrs. Clinton, Bernie Sanders cited Hillary’s incremental approach to most policy issues as a fault. As a student of public administration, I can tell you that we are a nation of incrementalists. With few exceptions, Americans tend to respond the best and most creatively when in crisis or at war. For example, the transcontinental railroad had been stymied due to bickering in Congress on whether to follow a southern or northern route. The railroad only became possible with the succession of the southern states from the Union allowing Lincoln to authorize a northern passage. Once a decision was made, we were able to overcome all engineering stumbling blocks and become a nation united.
A less successful example of American incrementalism is health care. As a country, we implemented Social Security in response to the Great Depression. But even popular four-term President Franklin Roosevelt was unable to get universal health coverage because of opposition from Republicans, conservative Democrats and organized medicine. President Truman was the first president to strongly advocate for universal health care and his proposal was stalled in Congress. President Lyndon Johnson was successful at getting Medicare approved in 1965 (thirty years after the first discussions began).
Since then, Congress has been slowly expanding Medicare benefits including covering qualifying disabled individuals, improving quality of nursing home care, adding hospice care, drug benefits (with a donut hole) and encouraging preventive care and providing the option to purchase private insurance.
The problems of Obamacare are a direct outgrowth of our nation’s inability to implement the “Grand Idea”. Harris polling indicates that a large majority of Americans believe every American should have access to health care. Unfortunately, we are unable to agree on the details. The same poll found that 87 percent of Democrats and only 33 percent of Republicans favor a universal health care system (Harris Poll, September 8 2015).
While Americans may want to hear grand ideas in presidential debates and speeches when it comes to moving a policy agenda forward Americans proceed at a snail’s pace (thirty years to get to Medicare and almost fifty years of refinements have not resulted in full coverage for Americans). The fact that Mrs. Clinton is an incrementalist is not an indictment of her politics but rather a high compliment to her clear understanding of the difficulties of implementing policies in a large diverse nation with many viewpoints and a fractious, politically divided, stonewalling Congress.
Number 6: Mrs. Clinton is inclusive. My family is inter-racial. I have an adopted daughter from China. My sister has an adopted daughter of Mexican and Native American descent. My sister’s daughter was married for a period to an undocumented Mexican man. Together they had 3 darling Hispanic children, ages 7, 8, and 9.
My niece and nephews visiting Boise from Colorado.
These children are American citizens. While my niece is now divorced, the ex still has joint custody of the children. In summary, we have a very complicated multi -cultural extended family. But we represent the future of America. We are a diverse nation and becoming more so by every day. It is our very diversity which has traditionally made us a strong country. Mrs. Clinton attracts large numbers of black and Hispanic voters because these groups see opportunities for economic and social equality consistently pushed by Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is interested in developing road blocks to forward mobility of all while creating a divisive culture. Other countries have discovered to their peril that exclusionary policies lead to social unrest and ethnic violence. We are already beginning to see this response by Hispanics at anti-Trump rallies.
Hillary Clinton dancing with Hillary Anjoela Makabikwa an immigrant from the Congo
Number 5:Mrs. Clinton recognizes that women’s issues are family issues. The demographics of American families have been shifting for many years. The Pew Research Center (Census data 2013) has found that four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a single mother who is either the sole or primary of these breadwinners. The median family income for single mothers — who are more likely to be younger, black or Hispanic, and less educated — is $23,000. The transformation of black families clearly highlights the changing dynamics of American families. In 1950, 18% of black families were headed by a single woman today that number is 68% of families. This is the reality of American children, especially low income children. They are growing up in families headed by their mother with an income at or below poverty level. Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for a family of three in 2016 is $20,160.
Mrs. Clinton throughout her forty year political career has advocated for expanded, high quality day care, expansion of pre-k education, educational opportunities for women and equal pay for women. The issues on the surface appear to be “women’s issues” but with the transformation of the American family these issues are fundamental to providing a strong beginning for most of America’s children, particularly America’s low income and ethnically diverse children.
Number 4:Mrs. Clinton wants to build bridges not walls. There are two primary philosophies about how to approach U.S. foreign policy. The first is protectionism and isolationism. The second is that our community is the world and we must be strategically engaged globally. The isolationist/protectionist approach worked well for America when we were a young nation, expanding across a vast continent. But Pearl Harbor and our entry into World War II was a wake-up call that United States could not depend on the boundaries provided by the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans for its primary protection. Our safety as a nation required that we develop strategic alliances globally. The arrival of the internet has brought further globalization. The destruction caused by 9-11 was a devastating way for Americans to learn that we sometimes harbor enemies on our own soil. We know from Orlando this week, that we continue to harbor home-grown enemies within our borders.
The choice this election is unequivocal. Mr. Trump has emphasized repeatedly his protection/isolationist approach to foreign policy. He has been clear about building a wall to keep undocumented Mexicans out of the U.S. He has suggested that entire ethnic groups such as Muslims are not welcome in our country. I believe both proposals, a wall and mass screenings, will be extremely expensive and cumbersome to implement. Assuming these polices were implemented, I’m not sure that our country will be any safer. I am sure both proposals will create further enemies both within and outside of our country. I personally do not believe that isolationism/protectionist approach is the way to keep America safe. Developing strong allies across borders and creating a global community with shared goals united against terrorism both within and outside our borders seems like a better approach to me.
Mrs. Clinton has consistently demonstrated her willingness to reach out to other nations and cultures. When Mrs. Clinton served as 67th Secretary of State, she became one of the most traveled Secretaries of State in American history. She visited 112 countries during her four-year tenure, and logged enough miles to span the globe more than 38 times.
Number 3:Mrs. Clinton has vast experience at the state and federal levels and executive and legislative branches of government. President Obama in his video endorsement of Mrs. Clinton for President said “I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.” (June 8, 2016). Need I say more?
President Obama endorsing Hillary Clinton for President
Number 2:Mrs. Clinton is a well-respected international icon. Hillary is well known throughout the world for her roles as politician, diplomat, and as an international champion for opportunities for women and girls. Her list of awards throughout her forty year career fills pages including many honorary degrees awarded worldwide. The awards vary from having a tulip created in her honor in by The Netherlands (1994) to receiving the Mother Teresa Award, the highest civilian honor given by Albania (1999) to the Chatham House Prize, Royal Institute of Internal Affairs, London (2013) for “driving a new era of diplomatic engagement and for her particular focus on promoting education and rights for women and girls.” Of particular interest to me was that Mrs. Clinton topped the list in Gallup’s most admired man and woman poll in 2015. This win was her fourteenth in a row and twentieth overall. She has held the top spot in the poll longer than other woman or man in Gallup’s history of asking the question.
Number 1:Did I mention, Mrs. Clinton just happens to be a woman.
With David Letterman gone, we now have to develop our own Top Ten Lists. Below are my current Top Ten Reasons NOT to Vote for Donald Trump:
Number 10: No one, not even Mr. Trump, knows why Mr. Trump, decided to run for president. The rumor among political correspondents is that he wanted revenge for serving as the butt of jokes at a White House Correspondence dinners.( See Seth Meyers, Saturday Night Live Comedian’s presentation on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Km4R377s4M)
Number 9: By ridiculing every intelligent woman he encounters, Mr. Trump is the first presidential candidate to start a war, the gender war, while running for office.
Number 8: Mr. Trump tell lies faster than Pinocchio. Eight in 16 hours documented by the Washington Post, April 29, 2016.
Number 7: Mr. Trump’s main source for guidance on foriegn policy is watching TV (The Fiscal Times, August 17, 2015).
Number 6: If elected, Mr. Trump will have four years to continue lobbing insults at people, places, and things through his twitter account. (See New York Times, updated April 4, 2016: “210 people,places, and things Donald Trump has insulted on twitter”).
Number 5: Building walls to keep people out is so-o-o passé as foriegn policy. After all, China built the Great Wall over two thousand, two hundred years ago.
Number 4: Trump shares a bully bromance with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin has called Trump “bright and talented” and Mr. Trump has acknowledged Putin’s strong leadership skills. Mr. Trump’s admiration is somewhat surprising since Putin has jailed his critics, journalists and activists, shut off gas to the Ukraine and rest of Europe and sold weapons to Al-Assad.
Number 3: Mr. Trump can’t count. More Mexicans have left the U.S. in recent years to return to Mexico than have come to the United States (Pew Research Center). Mexican immigration is decreasing because of declining birth rate, socio-economic factors and an aging population (Politifact, August 6th, 2015). Mr. Trump continues to assert despite these statistics that “people are pouring across the border.”
Number 2: Like a reality TV show on the Home and Garden Channel or a fish out of water, Mr. Trump is a master of the Flip or Flop. Recently, Mr Trump said he could be “flexible” on his immigration policy because we need “talented and highly skilled people” in this country. “In terms of immigration and almost anything else, there always has to be some, you know, tug and pull and deal,” (Mr. Trump, March 3, 2016, Fox News Debate).
Number 1: If elected, we’d be foreced to see Mr. Trump’s hair, strangely akin to golden, spun-sugar, cotton candy from a carnival regularly on the nightly news.
Mr. Trump having a bad hair day. The wind whips his hair up like a sugary dessert confection.
The last game of the University of Idaho 2016 lacrosse season was a loss to Boise State University. For a loosing season, however, there were a lot of wins. The Lacrosse End-of -Year Banquet turned out to be one of the most surprising wins from my vantage point. This was a season that took great fortitude. Fourteen young men played 12 games against teams in the Men’s Collegiate Lacrosse Association (MCLA) from much larger, better funded programs such as Simon Fraser, Canada (lacrosse is the national sport), University of Washington, Brigham Young University, University of Utah, University of Oregon, and Oregon State University. The U of I ended the season with 10 losses and 2 wins. But we learned at the banquet, most college teams would not even take to the field without at least 20 players to allow for substitutions. To compete in a major conference with only 14 players and play every game was truly remarkable.
14 member team
Vandal Pregame Huddle
My son, Scott, was recognized as one of 3 seniors on the team. First year, head coach James Courter, talked about Scott’s high energy pursuing a finance/accounting degree, serving as president of his fraternity and playing lacrosse. Coach Courter remarked that Scott has an outlook he labeled “SPA”, superior positive attitude, in all situations. Courter described how when he first met Scott, he found Scott’s smiling demeanor somewhat disconcerting. Courter would be talking about something serious the defense needed to do and he would look up and Scott was smiling. Courter said by the end of the season, he came to learn that Scott just takes on anything with a smile (not a bad trait in life).
Scott exhibiting SPA with Coach Courter
The biggest surprise to me at the Lacrosse Banquet was not the kudos from the Coach for the team and volunteers but the Coach himself. Thirty-one years old from Florida, Courter moved to Moscow, Idaho for a part-time coaching position just to get into college coaching. An outstanding college defensive player in the large eastern lacrosse divisions, Courter played lacrosse at Providence from 2004-07 leading his college team to NCAA Tournament appearances in 2004, 2006 and 2007. He earned Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAAC) Defensive Player of the Year honors as a senior in 2007. Since graduating, Courter has worked his way up in coaching from assistant program director of a youth lacrosse program, to head coach of a high school program, and finally to head coach at the University of Idaho. His vita tells me Courter absolutely loves lacrosse. He has travelled across the country to work for a pittance for a team with no funding for scholarships or even the power to get the University to allow them to use the much ballyhooed Kibby Dome during inclement weather. Courter’s resume also reflects a tremendous tenacity to stay with the sport while climbing the difficult to access college coaching ladder.
Courter is tall, slim, losing some of his hair. He came to the banquet microphone with a slightly wrinkled shirt and tie coming unknotted.
University of Idaho, firs-year, head coach, James Courter
He is obviously uncomfortable speaking to groups from a podium. But his presentation was outstanding, not because of the delivery, shaky at best but because of the thoughtful content.
He gave the three team captains a map, a compass, and whistle. As we all know who do any backpacking, this is survival gear. However, Courter is from Florida not the wilds of Idaho. He never alluded to the true function of the equipment in his presentation. Rather he talked about metaphors, he had learned from his father. For success in life, one needs to have a mental map of where you want to go. But that map needs to be tempered by a heart which serves as a compass. Is the map taking you in the right direction in terms of your moral compass, the ability to know what is right or wrong and act accordingly. The whistle can serve two functions; first, stop the action that is not going according to plan or second, alert others that you need assistance.
I spent the weekend reflecting on Coach Courter’s remarks to his captains. The metaphors of map, compass and whistle resonated for me because of my degrees in public administration and my life-long career focus on government and politics. I have sat in many meetings where the map would have been much easier to develop and follow if we did not have to be concerned about the moral implications of the plans we are developing.
In my own neighborhood in recent months, St. Lukes Health System, the largest employer in Idaho has developed a master plan over many years to expand their Boise campus by closing off one of the main streets, Jefferson. The administrators at Lukes have seemed surprised when the neighborhood has raised an outcry about the blocking of a main bike artery and their failure to ensure the plan was pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Given the outcry, St. Lukes has subsequently revised their plan, hosted numerous neighborhood meetings and recently sent out post cards to the neighborhood. But it would have been much easier if Lukes administration had started their plan with not just what is easier and most efficient for St. Lukes (map) but what does the community’s moral compass tell us would be the best approach for serving the East End. Final decisions have not been made on this issue. The East End neighborhood was very effective at bringing out their whistles quickly and loudly when they were not involved from the beginning. The neighborhood protest about the unfairness of not being involved from the beginning was shrill and loud, significantly slowing down the approval process.
We have another example of the map, compass and whistle metaphors in our national government. In the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court was established as the final arbitrator of whose map and moral compass should be followed during any period of American history. The Republican majority in the U.S. Senate have delayed confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice in the hopes of electing a Republican Presidential candidate who will appoint a justice closely aligned with their conservative moral compass. In other words, their map for the rest of the year is delay. During this interim period, the Justices are not able to rule on many controversial issues because they have a tie vote between liberals and conservatives. The fact that the Republicans in the U.S. Senate have essentially negated the power of the court by not allowing a replacement should concern citizens of both political parties. This is a fundamental violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Republican Senators are allowing their partisan strategy to interfere with their moral principles. Without a strong referee, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, the potential for unintended consequences and long-term harm particularly to vulnerable populations is great. Right now in our country, there is no one in place to enforce the whistle.
In the end, these three simple metaphors, a map, a compass, and a whistle provide a measure of who we are as individuals and a country. A key question for each of us every day is: How do we develop a positive, ethically grounded future with the ability to ask for help or stop ourselves when we have gone too far?
The Global War on Morris (Simon & Schuster, 2014) is a political satire written by Congressman Steve Israel, Democrat New York. My first thought when beginning Morris was how a 13-year Congressman has time to write a novel, particularly a representative who headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. On second thought, maybe the debacle of the last congressional elections for Democrats can be credited to Congressman Israel focusing on his novel rather than elections. The current deadlock in Congress has probably given all 435 Representatives and 50 Senators tremendous time on their hands to engage in creative writing, playing cards, hunting with Supreme Court Justices or other hobbies, since it is clear they are not engaging in the art of politics . The act of political civility as I understand it requires endless conversations in the arena of ideas with the goal of identifying compromise solutions. With no willingness to collaborate, there is plenty of time for personal ventures at the public expense.
But I digress, Mr. Israel’s book is a work of fiction crafted by taking headlines of the War on Terror during the the Bush/Cheney administration and loosely linking these actual stories into an amusing narrative. All of your favorite Republican henchmen during the period, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Tom Ridge are alive and well in the story line. Vice President Dick Cheney is hunkered in an underground bunker, a Machiavellian puppeteer controlling American’s views on terror. The ultimate goal is not to protect the country from would-be terrorists but to beat Candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election.
I read the book because New York Mayor Bill deBlasio recommended it in the Wall Street Journal’s, Books of 2015 “Who Read What”. I realized once I started reading that the WSJ endorsement was probably a shameless plug from deBlasio for his Democratic friend, Israel, from upper New York. The recommendation also provided an easy way for the Democratic leadership to spoon feed readers in a humorous forum fundamental constitutional issues of privacy and civil right bludgeoned by the War on Terror.
Morris, of the title, is an unassuming, nondescript Jewish pharmaceutical salesman living a routine existence with his overbearing wife Rona, a clinical social worker. These two conventional, average, liberal New Yorkers become mistaken as American terrorists by Cheney and his crew through a series of bizarre and comical mistakes and poor life choices. As is true of many things in life, the real villains manage to escape while Morris becomes embroiled in an endless round of red tape and bureaucratic nonsense. Rob Reiner & Andrew Lenchewski are adapting the Israel book into a cable comedy series. If you don’t enjoy reading, you may soon be able to see the plot on television.
While Israel is writing in the theater of the absurd, two real-life points jumped out at me. First, I know Vice President Cheney personally.
The author knew Dick Cheney when he was first elected to Congress before he turned to the dark side.
He is from my home stomping grounds of Wyoming. When he first ran for Congress, he was young and unknown. I remember receiving a phone call asking me to host a house party for Cheney at my rented bungalow on the fringe of gentrified Cheyenne, Wyoming. The caller said, “We are having trouble identifying people to support a younger, unknown candidate.” Cheney, of course, went on to win the election. In my executive job, I remember visiting him in Washington where he always had time to see Wyoming constituents, particularly those who had helped him get elected. I also remember running up steps of the stadium at the University of Wyoming football game as Representative Cheney was coming down them. He called out, “Hello, Julie.” So what do we learn from these little tidbits from my past. First, everyone starts somewhere. It is still possible in this country to start out as an unknown candidate and over a long, successful career end up as a Secretary of Defense, corporate titan, and Vice President of the United States.
We also learn that people change. I have turned into a liberal as I age and see the haves becoming wealthier and have not’s becoming a permanent underclass. My Democratic friends in Wyoming tease me mercilessly about my support of Cheney but then my sister and I were also Goldwater Girls back in the day. The same can be said of Cheney. The man, who was gracious at a rental house party, saw and knew his constituents by name and rose to power in an unlikely manner, seemed to move to the dark side as his career jettisoned. The lesson here is not that I moved towards the light and he moved towards the dark but rather in life there are many opportunities to change. I heard a wonderful presentation on homelessness a few weeks ago and one of the featured speakers when queried about the potential of the homeless to improve said quite clearly, “My approach to homelessness is based on my belief in redemption. No matter how many drugs a person has used or how long they have been homeless, redemption is possible.” Now in my 65th year, I see where every day there are opportunities to choose the light or dark and we each must define and build our own personal trajectory.
Second, we learn from the tyrannical vision of the unfettered Federal government, that as Americans we do have some very real concerns about the balance between protection of privacy and the need to know to keep us safe. I have to admit that I have not been in favor of Apple’s opposition to providing the FBI with information about how to unlock the San Bernardino shooter’s cell phone. These people are known killers who willfully shot their co-workers in a planned attack. The haunting question remains are there others out there waiting their time to strike? If so, is that information contained in the cell phone data? The Global War on Morris reinforces Apple’s position. A government with complete access to our personal information and without any oversight body could quickly germinate into an authoritarian regime seeking out anyone who disagrees with it. I am not sure what the correct answer to the balance of personal privacy versus terrorist among us is. But after reading the book, I do agree with Apple CEO Tim Cook that this decision must not to be taken lightly.
Apple versus the FBI raises important questions about the right to personal privacy versus the government’s right to know.
June 2014, we took a 7 day road trip through Alaska.
We travelled to Alaska in June, 2014 on a family vacation. While many of our friends have seen Alaska on cruise ships, we chose to fly into Anchorage, rent a car and see the country side up close and personal. I had seen a driving trip outlined in Sunset Magazine that we used as our guide. The Sunset Magazine described a 10 day Grand Tour. Since we only had 7 days, we opted for our own self-guided “Taste of Alaska” tour. I booked everything in advance. During the tourist season spontaneity in terms of lodging is not a good idea. We flew into and spent our first night in Anchorage. You know you are in Alaska when there are signs on the walls going into the motel, “Watch out for Moose!” This was at a Clarion Inn in the center of Anchorage.
Over our seven day adventure, we drove from Anchorage (one night ) to Denali (3 nights), Denali to Talkeetna (1 night), on to Seward (2 nights) and back to Anchorage (1 night ) out early the next morning on Alaskan Airlines. We did not want to spend our entire trip in the car so we cut Fairbanks out of the itinerary. Anchorage to Fairbanks is a full day’s drive as is Denali to Seward. From Anchorage to Denali is a 5 hour trip. Time estimates are based on regular driving. Since we had gone to see Alaska, our travel times took much longer as we stopped regularly to take in majestic views, watch animals, or visit Alaskan communities.
Alaska is visual delight!
We saw many gorgeous sites and dined on delicious food. After all, who couldn’t like fresh salmon every night unless you are a vegetarian? While I may choose to share with you other parts of our fabulous trip in future blogs, this blog is focused on the fickleness of the Alaskan electorate. It seemed appropriate given that the presidential primaries are in full swing.
While traveling Alaska, we learned why Sarah Palin was such a popular Governor of Alaska. One small community in Alaska has elected a cat their Mayor for the past 19 years running. Given Alaskans elect house cats at the local level, not surprising they would elect a mountain lioness like Sarah-Governor. Claiming to be able to “See Russia from your porch” is formable campaign rhetoric, especially to a population that thrives in vast expanses of unfenced territory where there are more wild animals than people.
Talkeetna (population 876) is a historic village at the base of Mount McKinnely. The community serves as the take off point for climbers who plan to scale the mountain.
Mount McKinnely in Denali National Park
The town is presided over by Mayor Stubbs, a cat. Stubbs is 19 years old and has been honorary Mayor since he was kitten. Town lore is that Stubbs was elected Mayor by write-in vote when the citizens of Talkeetna did not like the human candidates. Those of us watching the Republican Presidential Primary season can certainly understand the populist rebellion against all the candidates. Stubbs long retention in office is attributed to his appeal to tourists (30 to 40 people visit him every day).
When we went in Nagley’s General Store where Stubbs resides, we were told we could take pictures but couldn’t bother him because he gets tired of all the attention. Stubbs has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, and CNN. The media’s obsession with Stubbs, demonstrates the media will do anything to generate political stories.
Mayor Stubbs in his prime.
Stubbs got his name because he does not have a tail (though he certainly has many tales). Like many politicians, Stubbs has had his share of burdens from constituents. He’s barely survived an attack by a canine, placing him in the animal hospital for 9 days and resulting in donations from all the world to pay for his care. He has also been shot at by BB gun-wielding teenagers. Taking the ole’ saying out of the pan into the fire literally, he has fallen in deep fryer (which thankfully was turned off at the time).
If you are experiencing political discontent over the current presidential primary cycle, think about writing in your favorite cat when you vote. After all, the domestic cat has shown throughout its long history that it is able to learn, problem solve, adapt to their environment, acquire new behaviors based on new situations and communicate effectively. These characteristics sound like excellent skills for any politician.
Your other alternative is to act like a cat, ignore primary season and plan an early spring trip to Alaska. If you go, you will find yourself creating wonderful memories of glaciers, mountains, wildlife and unique Native cultures.
We saw both brown bears and Grizzlies while in Alaska.
If you happen to stop by Talkeetna to meet Mayor Stubbs, take the time visit Talkeetna Spinanch Bread, an airstream trailer serving great grub. Your stay wouldn’t be complete without breakfast at the Road House, known for it’s bigger than life pancakes for almost a 100 years.
My sixteen year old daughter had surgery last week for a torn ACL. While she was recuperating, we found ourselves watching a variety of movies. One of them was “Woodlawn” (2015) based on the true story of Tony Nathan a gifted, black, high school football player, who attended Woodlawn High School in Birmingham, Alabama, 1973. Woodlawn experienced federally mandated busing to enforce integration. The film opens with black and white news footage of buses burning, President John Kennedy speaking, personal stories from black people on the devastating impact of segregation and shots of the huge crowds at Billy Graham revivals. There is also footage of Alabama Governor George Wallace, a Democrat, (demonstrating that idiocy and meanness have no party boundaries) proclaiming,“I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
The premise of the story is that forced integration was not going well at the school until Hank Erin, a total outsider, converts nearly the entire football team, black and white, to Christ. The team’s spiritual conversion subsequently transforms the coach, the school and the community. Mr. Erin was part of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, an international non-profit Christian sports ministry based in Kansas City, Missouri. The unseen star of the movie is Christ. The finger pointing up in the movie posters does not symbolize “We’re number one!” as I always thought but “Our Power comes from the one above!”
The pointed finger symbolizes our power comes from God.
The narrator of movie, the Woodlawn team’s coach, describes Woodlawn as a miracle.
After watching the movie, I starting thinking about when over the past couple of weeks have I seen God show up. I pray every day, go to church on Sundays but I am somewhat of a doubting Thomas. I believe in God but am also frequently asking where is He? Upon reflection, I have seen a recent very public instance of God on earth.
Pope Francis denouncing Presidential candidate, Donald Trump’s policies on immigration as “not Christian” is a triumph for social justice. Trump’s harsh campaign promises to deport more illegal immigrants and build a wall along the border, may resonate with an angry populous. Remember, George Wallace’s line in the sand on segregation got him elected 4-times. But political rhetoric and Christianity are not the same. Trump immediately fired back that the Pope is “Disgraceful”. I believe the opposite. Pope Francis represents— grace in action. He cares for the poor, washes the feet of prisoners and speaks out on issues of social justice.
Pope Francis meeting with crowds in Mexico.
No reasonable person could think hunting down and routing out Hispanics from their homes at night, loading up truck loads of Mexicans at gun point in a military maneuvers, breaking up families since children born to illegal residents in America are U. S. citizens, could be seen as Christian acts. The logistics of financing, building, and maintaining a massive wall along the Mexican border are ludicrous.
Trump is a brilliant man. He knows the challenges of putting these proposals into action. Trumpism is an effort to capitalize on the anger many Americans feel about the course of our country.
Donald Trump is a brilliant man, capitalizing on America’s fear.
This same anger was around in the early seventies with start of desegregation. Status threat is a sociological concept with real life consequences. When people’s lives are not going as they hope economically they feel threatened, angry and find someone to blame and lash out at. The targets of their anger may be minorities, homeless, refugees, but almost always the target is someone less powerful. Current economic inequalities are further complicated by global terrorism. We have become a nation of avengers, security zealots, and foreigner-phobes. Trumpism provides a constant, shrill message to rally the masses rising to a crescendo on Election Day. I am not a political forecaster. I do not know if his tactics will be successful. They have certainly gained him international attention.
I do know that Trump’s America is not one of Christ-like service to our neighbors and community. I am not a Catholic. But with the selection of Pope Francis, Christians throughout the world have had the opportunity to see God’s boots on the ground on a regular basis.
I realize now that I started this blog with the wrong question. God is always there. The right question is, “What happens when Christians show up?The answer is miracles!
Sarah Palin and potatoes both emanate from Idaho. Yes, it is true! While Sarah is identified with Alaska; she was born in a small northern Idaho town, Sandpoint, population 7,000 people. Shortly after her birth, the Palin family moved to Alaska, her main home stomping grounds. However, Ms. Palin did return briefly to Idaho for college when she attended Northern Idaho Community College and eventually graduated from the University of Idaho with a communication degree. She is ranked as the most famous University of Idaho Alumnus on Ranker.Com right above former U.S. Senator Larry Craig. For those of you who don’t follow Idaho politics, Craig is best known across America for defending a potential homosexual pickup in a men’s restroom by “Having a Wide Stance!” As you can see from this very short list, the University of Idaho is desperate for celebrities.
I am fascinated by Ms. Palin. As the 2008 Republican Party nominee for Vice President, alongside Arizona Senator John McCain, Sarah’s selection to the Republican ticket created a series of firsts including first Alaskan and first woman to be on a Republican national ticket. She is also the first former beauty queen to be on a national ticket, having placed first in Miss Wasilla Pageant playing the flute for talent and subsequently coming in third in the Miss Alaska Pageant. We know from the 2008 Presidential campaign, Ms. Palin is a lightning rod for controversy. Even when competing in beauty pageants, hullabaloo is not far from Sarah’s side. She reportedly won the Miss Congeniality award in the Miss Wasilla contest, but this is disputed by another contestant and former classmate of Palin’s. Apparently, the oxymoron, “the contested Miss Congeniality” is not surprising when Ms. Palin is in the mix.
As a Palin watcher, I have learned over the years that Sarah has many versions of reality, none of them easy to dispute because most of us have such a hard time understanding what she is trying to say. Sarah’s star rose again last week (January 19, 2016) when she endorsed Donald Trump for President on the campaign trail.
January 2016, Palin and Trump on campaign trail, 2016
If you watch the endorsement, you’ll see Sarah sporting a dazzling Dolly Partonesque, spiky sequin sweater, shouting out a strange rambling of disconnected thoughts on how to make America great again. The New York Daily News described her word salad, almost unintelligible rant, as “gaffe prone”.
Sarah has become a national icon of the Tea Party largely because of her tendency to transform complex public policy into a string of zeitgeist slogans with pithy punch lines such as, “Mr. President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.” (March 8, 2014). This trait has made her easy fodder for comedians. Some of the best political humor, I have ever watched was Tina Fey’s comedic sketches of Sarah on Saturday Night Live (SNL) during the 2008 presidential campaign. Sarah once again provided the inspiration for a Tina Fey reprisal of the Trump endorsement on SNL, January 23, 2106. The New York Times described the skit as “brilliant parody!” Dressed in the same black and silver spiked sweater as Palin, Fey ended her sketch with the zinger, Sarah had endorsed Trump as a quid pro quo for a Trump cabinet appointment, “I belong in a cabinet! Because I’m full of spice and got a great rack.”
Saturday Night Live, Fey and Hammond as Palin and Trump, 2016
While many view Palin’s wacky speech patterns consisting of slogans, rhymes and new words as a sign of ignorance or inability to use the English language correctly, I believe history may prove she is one of the great malapropoists of our time. A malapropism is the misuse of a word through the confusion with another word which sounds similar, sometimes resulting in ridiculous speak. An everyday example of malapropism is “the numbers don’t jive” when the correct wording is the” numbers don’t jibe” In the first “ jive” means lively dancing and so the statement would only be correct if we were watching Sesame Street and colorful, performing numbers were being used to teach children to count. In the second example, “jibe” means the numbers are not in agreement and if you are an accounting major and have this problem, you may be in danger of flunking the test.
The most brilliant example of Sarah’s use of malapropisms is the word “refudiate”. Until Sarah Palin arrived on the scene, this word did not exist (Even today, my spell checker thinks it is still not a word). The word is a mixture of “refute” and “repudiate”. When one refutes something, they prove something is in error or false. When one repudiates something, they deny any connection to something such as a family member. Sarah started using the word “refudiate” in 2010 in a TV interview, challenging President Obama to “refudiate” the NAACP’s charge that the Tea Party had racist elements (NPR, August 6, 2010). She also tweeted the word, asking peaceful Muslims to “refudiate” violent Muslim acts. The word became the salvo of conservatives who argued that refudiate shows a commitment to refute the liberal agenda while repudiating (defeating) liberals at the polls. In the midst of a raging pundits controversy about whether this was an example of Sarah’s failure to grasp the English language or her ability to be clever like a fox, Sarah complimented herself by tweeting; “English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!” In November 2010, the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD) agreed with her by listing “refudiate” as the 2010 new word of the year. The NOAD editors wrote in a release: “From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used ‘refudiate,’ we have concluded that neither ‘refute’ nor ‘repudiate’ seems consistently precise, and that ‘refudiate’ more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of ‘reject.’”
During the Trump endorsement, Sarah once again treated us to a variety of malapropisms. She referred to members of Emily’s List, the pro-choice, Democratic women political action committee, as a “cackle of rads”. Cackle replacing either gaggle or cabal, I’m not sure which and rads replacing radical. The image of cackling, radical women similar to a group of old crones is not a pleasant one. In three words, Sarah managed to slap progressive women down with a spiteful imagine and appear as if she wasn’t even aware of her rhetoric.
My favorite word from Sarah’s Trump endorsement was “squirmish”. This word is an adaptation of “squirm” to wiggle because of discomfort and “skirmish” to brief fight sometimes part of a larger battle. But I was left perplexed and disturbed that Ms. Palin, a leader on the national stage, would described the Syrian conflict, resulting in more than 330,000 causalities and uprooting more than four million people as a squirmish. To quote Ms. Palin, “,And you quit footin’ the bill for these, nations who are oil-rich, we’re paying for, some of their squirmishes, that have been goin’ on, for centuries. Where they’re fightin’ each other and yellin’ Allah Akbar, callin’ jihad on each other’s heads forever and ever. Like I said before, let ‘em duke it out, and let Allah sort it out!
I think a better use of the term squirmish is as a descriptive noun for the 2016 Republican Presidential Race. All of the candidates are making me squirm (uncomfortable and wanting to break free) with their personal attacks on each other and the media, trivializing of complex issues and hate messages directed at Muslims and refugees. So far the primary season can be viewed as a series of skirmishes (small contests) leading up to the great battle, the Republican National Convention. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to have “squirmish” used to describe this year’s Presidential race in future U.S. Government text books. But right now I would like to refudiate all of the Republican Presidential candidates.
The Republican primary season wrapped up last week with Donald Trump crowned the Republican nominee for President in Cleveland. Over the course of the last year, the American public has watched the 16 Republican presidential candidates drop to 1. After listening to a week of gloom and doom about the state of America presented by speakers at the Republican convention, I am reminded of the authoritarian spectacle presented in the first Hunger Games movie.
Your stay wouldn’t be complete without breakfast at the Road House, known for it’s bigger than life pancakes for almost a 100 years.
My Private Idaho 