The Pandemic Paradox

As we end this tumultuous year, 2020, which has been defined by the coronavirus, deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 are approaching 330,000 from over 19 million confirmed cases. These numbers understate reality because not all cases and deaths have been diagnosed.

Why did it turn out so, the infections accelerating this fall as the weather turned colder and the U.S. responded with que será, será and a shrug?

The Paradox

The pandemic is a paradox which the country has not been able to solve.

Many who are infected with COVID-19 have no symptoms, many have mild symptoms, most recover — yet the virus is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., the cumulative death toll the same as the population of Salt Lake City or Birmingham, according to Scientific American.

The highly contagious disease spreads largely by close contact among people and, in some cases, transmission across longer distances. Limiting gatherings with others avoids exposure, by definition. When that is not possible, wearing a mask to reduce the probability of either inhaling the virus or expelling reduces the risk of infection. Yet government and business policies implementing these steps, either as regulations or simply recommendations, have been decried by some as unconstitutional infringements on personal liberty.

The life of an infection is relatively short — weeks — yet the U.S. has not been able to contain it after 11 months. It has consistently spread across the country, infecting all regions, even those knowing for months it was coming. December — not yet history — has been the worst month for deaths since the first peak in April.

Confirmed COVID-19 infections in the U.S. Source: Johns Hopkins University, 12/30/20.

Why is this pandemic such a paradox, when the U.S. has the medical expertise, the infrastructure, and financial resources to counter it? Why is it so difficult to manage, when other countries have demonstrated strategies that work?

I’ve concluded we lack government leadership, a coordinated and unified response, and both community and individual resolve. These interconnected deficits, amplified by a vocal minority of naysayers, have created a controversy about wearing masks and a false either/or choice between reducing infections or sustaining the economy.

What Can We Do?

Eleven months in, can we do anything to mitigate this tragedy or must we await the country being vaccinated, accepting the collateral infections and deaths while hoping they don’t affect us personally?

I think the following steps would yield measurable improvement, reducing infections and death until enough of us are vaccinated for the country to reach herd immunity. These steps must be implemented consistently across the nation, a “united we stand, divided we fall” strategy.

1. Stay in place for 14–21 days to minimize new infections.

The idea is for everyone to stay in place to let the current infections play out without causing new infections.

The incubation period for COVID-19 infection is 5–6 days average and up to 14 days, according to the World Health Organization. The BMJ reports data from culture studies indicates people can become infectious 1–2 days before feeling symptoms and will remain infectious for up to seven days. CDC guidance is a person with a mild case of COVID-19 remains infectious for “no longer” than 10 days after symptoms appear, while a person with a more severe or critical illness will “likely” be infectious for no more than 20 days.

The life of the infection defines the time we need to stay in place. While some exceptions will be required — seeking medical care, getting groceries — wearing masks and reducing the number of people in stores will reduce the probability of infection.

Everyone staying in place must be done nationally at the same time; otherwise the virus will cross borders and spread from areas with high infection to those with low infection — just as we’ve seen it cross the country this year.

2. Quarantine international travelers entering the U.S.

As other countries and some U.S. states have done, incoming travelers must quarantine for an appropriate time to minimize the risk of bringing in the virus and spreading infection.

A 14-day quarantine has been the norm, based on the incubation period for infection, although this time could be reduced if the quarantine is combined with testing.

Our near-empty hotels can provide the rooms, meals, and testing centers for travelers.

3. Implement a multi-layer testing strategy.

The foundation of a multi-layer testing strategy is in-home antigen tests with near real-time results, with a protocol of one or two tests per week per person following the national stay-in-place period. This policy would apply nationwide, for anyone going to public places (e.g., offices, stores, churches).

If a test is positive, the person quarantines while confirming the infection with either additional in-home antigen or local PCR tests.

Although the antigen tests may not be as accurate as PCR tests, they can be widely accessible, and the near real-time results will enable anyone infected — especially if they are asymptomatic — to protect others from becoming infected. See RapidTests.org.

Ideally, the test results would be reported to public health officials to provide community data on the positivity rate. To balance individual privacy with public health, the data — even from a positive test — could be reported anonymously (by zip code, perhaps). Someone with a positive test could be asked to contact local health officials. Anyone becoming seriously ill will presumably show up at a hospital.

4. Provide additional economic relief.

Given the economic impact of staying in place, adding to the year-long effects, it’s reasonable for the federal government to provide additional economic relief: unemployment, rent and mortgage assistance, and business support. Considering this national disaster, the “cost” to the federal deficit is an investment in the economy, particularly with interest rates so low.

---

I believe if this strategy had been employed in the spring, when the coronavirus was first spreading in the U.S., the number of infections, deaths, and attendant economic devastation would be considerably less than what we’re living through. Had we been united around a nationwide response, the virus would not have been able to dance through our patchwork of local and state plans and political divisiveness.

While Operation Warp Speed’s development of vaccines is heartening and will, hopefully, enable us to return to a more normal life by the end of 2021, we have a long winter and spring to endure. A strategy built around these principles will alleviate the nation’s suffering near-term.

SARS-CoV-2 won’t be the last pandemic to threaten the globe. Developing such a strategy will help us better prepare for the next time.

Caveat: I claim no medical expertise. Nonetheless, I think the framework is a sound approach and should be appropriately tweaked to reflect the latest medical knowledge of the virus.

This post also published on Medium.

Milestones

On this day, Monday, December 14, I note several milestones worth remembering:

Joe Biden was officially elected president and Kamala Harris vice president with the vote of the Electoral College — actually 50 separate tallies, one in each state. The totals were 306 to 232, coincidentally the same split as in 2016, when Donald Trump was elected.

The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, developed by Pfizer, were given across the U.S. after the FDA approved use of the vaccine late Friday. The U.S. has ordered some 100 million doses, enough to cover 50 million people, each requiring two shots 21 days apart. Vaccines being developed by several other companies are being tested, with Moderna’s version set to be reviewed by an independent panel of the FDA this Thursday.

That is a hopeful sign in the face of the grim milestones that more than 300,000 Americans have died of COVID-19, over 110,549 are now in the hospital, and 1,358 died so far today, according to data on The COVID Tracking Project website.

---

Another positive milestone would have been President Trump conceding the election and graciously congratulating the new president and vice president. He didn’t. Even before the election, he was claiming voter fraud and a stolen election, offering no proof to support his wild claims. Is Donald Trump delusional or just a massively sore loser, intent on destroying as much of the government as he can on his way out of Washington?

The Man Who Would Be Emperor

It has been a week since the presidential election was called for Joe Biden, after Pennsylvania pushed him over the 270 requirement to 279 electoral college votes. Arizona and Georgia have since been called for Biden, bringing his electoral vote count to 306 — coincidentally, the same number Donald Trump won in his 2016 bid for the presidency.

Yet, a week after Joe Biden was declared the president elect and 10 days after the election, President Trump has not conceded nor has he congratulated the president elect.

The president’s Twitter feed is a stream of false claims the election is being stolen from him:

Yesterday afternoon, the president gave a briefing at the White House, lauding his administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus pandemic. At one point he implied his administration would end, the only hint he’s given:

Ideally, we won’t go to a lockdown. I will not go — this administration will not be going to a lockdown. Hopefully, the — the — whatever happens in the future — who knows which administration it will be? I guess time will tell. But I can tell you, this administration will not go to a lockdown.

He took no questions, retreating back into the White House after delivering his prepared remarks.

Beyond my incredulity and anger, I wonder about the personality and mental health of a man whose sense of self won’t admit loss or failure, a man who promotes a blatantly false reality.

Is this a calculated strategy to keep the more than 70 million who voted for him in his orbit, to hold onto his power over roughly half the country and the Republican party?

I find it as maddening that most of the Republicans in Congress are kowtowing to the president’s falsehoods, choosing fealty to the president and party ideology over loyalty to the Constitution and the norms of our democracy.

The functioning of a democracy requires good will, trust, and norms of civic behavior. While we’ve suffered an erosion of those values since well before Donald Trump was elected, he has amplified them by his intentional disrespect for virtually all of our civic norms.

Except for the grace of God, reflected in the votes of the American people and honest election officials, Donald Trump would be emperor.

The 2020 Presidential Election

Four days after the 2020 election, with votes still being counted in multiple states, Pennsylvania pushed former Vice President Biden above the 270 electoral votes needed to become president-elect. The major news organizations — even Fox News — quickly reported that Biden won the election.

The news, via text from my daughter, immediately brought relief after the uncertainty of the past four days, then tears as I felt the significance of this outcome following four nightmarish years, where the president’s policies and actions have been so discordant with my values.

President Trump has not conceded the election, his campaign still challenging the vote counting in various courts. The last time the president spoke publicly, he argued his win was slowly being stolen. I don’t expect a gracious concession speech and am concerned about steps he may take between now and the inauguration to further his policies and protect himself, his family, and inner circle from future legal action.

As I write this, the Washington Post website shows Biden received 74,493,496 votes, President Trump 70,342,725, 50.5 percent to 47.7 percent. The expected “blue wave” did not happen. The Democrats did not flip the Senate, although the upcoming Senate runoff in Georgia offers an opportunity. They lost seats in the House. The country is clearly divided. Although he amplified the divide, Donald Trump did not cause it. He gave a voice to nearly half the country who feel unheard, discounted, disrespected. Let us not forget the pain those Americans feel, mirroring my own feelings the past four years.

Had Joe Biden not become the Democratic nominee, had it been a more progressive candidate such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, I suspect President Trump would likely have coasted to a second term. I hope this registers with those who have been pushing for the country to adopt very progressive policies. We do, indeed, need more access to health care; lower cost educational options post high school; action to address climate change; recognition of dominant white, male power and steps to broaden access to power; police reform; and on and on. However, building consensus in a divided government will require the Republicans to be open, the Democrats to be humble.

That Joe Biden will become the 46th president — who emerged from a primary with some 24 candidates and built his campaign around uniting the country and being a president for all Americans — leads me to ponder whether there is a providence governing the course of human events. Of all those candidates, he has the temperament to unite the country and the governing experience to build bridges across the disparate political ideologies.

Largely overshadowed by the presidential protagonists since she was selected, except for the debate with Mike Pence, Kamala Harris makes history with several demographic firsts — first woman, first woman of color — and is likely positioned to repeat those firsts as future president.

I hope, perhaps naively, that the focus of our leaders will now shift from this divisive election to collectively address the many problems before us: the coronavirus, recession, inequality, extreme weather, international instability, and on and on. Who, in God’s name, would want this responsibility?

(Nevada has now been called for Joe Biden, bringing him to 279 electoral votes.)

Two Countries, Two Very Different Responses to SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-19, the virus causing rampant COVID-19 infections around the globe, is the greatest scourge to the country’s health and economic well being as any threat during my lifetime. As disturbing and puzzling as how the virus attacks the body — its spike protein able to penetrate human cells to replicate — is the country’s psychological response to the pandemic.

Assuming no attempts to mitigate the virus, an infected person is estimated to spread the virus to 5.7 others (R₀ = 5.7), which makes it highly contagious, particularly since someone carrying the disease often shows no symptoms ¹. While most people do recover, the number of deaths from the virus in the U.S. has reached a staggering 250,000 since January 21, when the first U.S. case was reported.

That dichotomy — most recover yet many die — may help explain why our society is struggling to develop a national strategy and the will to carry it out. The failure to develop and deploy an effective strategy to address the pandemic falls on the president. When confronted by a national challenge, we look to our president to marshal the country’s response and secure citizen commitment, particularly if we are asked as individuals to sacrifice for the good of the nation.

Tragically, President Trump’s response has been confusing and contradictory. The accelerated campaign to develop a vaccine, known as Operation Warp Speed, is his best effort, as a vaccine will have the greatest long-term effect reducing infections and deaths. Unfortunately, as the pandemic arrived in the U.S., the administration was inconsistent and ineffective coordinating the manufacturing and distribution of an adequate supply of PPE, largely leaving the states to compete with each other for scarce supplies. He favored the states with Republican governors and criticized Democratic governors and mayors for their quarantines.

From the bully pulpit, the president downplayed the seriousness of the virus and the best steps to prevent infection, undermining the use of masks through his words and the actions of his administration. The lack of masks and social distancing at the White House ceremony nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court arguably led to the president’s own infection with COVID-19, as well as multiple people who attended the event.

His contradictory and bellicose messages have obfuscated the seriousness of the pandemic and amped a strain of American individualism and distrust of government, a “you’re not the boss of me” attitude. His tweets and campaign speeches calling for the “liberation” of states and cities imposing quarantine measures fuels this dangerous ideology.

The president has consistently claimed success fighting the pandemic. During last week’s presidential debate, he said, “We're rounding the corner, it’s going away.” Yet the data shows the falseness of his words. The ineffectiveness of the president’s hollow claims and his wanton disregard for scientific guidance is quite obvious comparing the COVID-19 infections in China and the U.S.

Does this data confirm the president’s claim that “it’s going away”? Source: 91-DIVOC and Johns Hopkins.

China was slow to respond to the initial outbreak in Wuhan. When it did, it imposed a severe lockdown across the country, from 23 January until 8 April in Wuhan (ending sooner in other parts of the country). While the accuracy of China’s official numbers is questionable, it’s hard to argue the country’s infections were as high or as prolonged as those in the U.S.

Although its authoritarian quarantine was draconian, China did a far better job containing the virus. The country’s economy has reopened and is recovering. We are still struggling to limit the spread as SARS-CoV-2 propagates across the country. Surely our democracy can do better than we’ve done.

Coda

Today, appearing on CNN’s State of the Union, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said, “We’re not going to control the pandemic. We are gonna control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigation areas.” He said the pandemic can’t be controlled “because it is a contagious virus, just like the flu.” ²

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 ↩︎
2. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/25/white-house-chief-of-staff-controlpandemic-432236 ↩︎

Promises Made, Promises Kept?

With just a few weeks until the election, The Daily podcast examined the promises made by candidate Donald J. Trump and which of those he has fulfilled during his term as president. Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, provided this scorecard:

Promises Kept

• Cut taxes, both corporate and individual.
• Reduced regulations, including environmental and financial.
• Increased defense funding.
• Banned travel from five Muslim majority countries.
• Increased ICE enforcement, including separating families and restricting the ability to request asylum.
• Building portions of a wall along the border with Mexico.
• Drove the ISIS caliphate from the land they had captured.
• Reduced the number of U.S. troops in the Middle East.
• Criticized foreign alliances (e.g., NATO, World Health Organization), withdrew from international agreements (Iran nuclear deal, Paris climate accord, and the Trans Pacific Partnership), and threatened or implemented tariffs on trade with various countries.
• Negotiated an updated trade agreement with Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA.
• Filled many judicial vacancies, including soon to be three Supreme Court justices.
• Eliminated the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate and joined a lawsuit filed by the states to repeal the entire ACA, to be argued before the Supreme Court right after the election.

Promises Not Kept

• Restore American manufacturing jobs.
• Eliminate the U.S. trade deficit with China.
• Eliminate the national debt, which he promised to do within eight years. Even excluding the pandemic, it increased due to the tax cut and increase in defense spending.
• Repeal the ACA and replace it with a plan "far less expensive and far better."
• Complete the wall along the southern border and have Mexico pay for it.
• “Drain the swamp,” i.e., eliminate Washington corruption and self-dealing.

Failures from Unexpected Events

• Leading the nation's response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to minimize both the economic impact and deaths — now approaching 225,000 Americans dead and some 8.5 million infected.

My Scorecard

I found Peter Baker’s summary informative and useful, as it provides a tally of the president's promises, “successes,” and failures. The days since the presidential election and Donald Trump took the oath of office have been so chaotic and dystopian, I have been overwhelmed and don’t have an organized, coherent list of what has happened. So this gives me something to review and critique:

Taxes — The corporate tax cut went too far, and I wonder whether the claim it would lead to a reinvestment in America and more jobs has proven true. The individual tax cuts highly favored the wealthy; I feel they should have had a tax increase.

Regulations — No doubt some federal regulations are burdensome and deserve to be eliminated. Bureaucracies tend to overreach. However, aggressively cutting environmental regulations, as the president has done, impairs our already late and meager response to climate change. Eliminating the financial regulations enacted after the 2008 “great recession” seems like a quid pro quo from lobbying by banks and investment firms, which will likely lead to a similar financial catastrophe in the future.

Immigration — Having seen the contributions by immigrants to this country, I vehemently oppose the president's anti-immigrant, American first orthodoxy. It has led to dehumanizing and inhumane policies, particularly for those in marginalized communities. Building a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border, while symbolic, is an ineffective solution to the challenge of managing the flow of people looking for an opportunity to live the American dream.

America First — While globalization causes dislocations in industries and those who work in them, my belief is globalization and “free” trade collectively benefit the globe, including the U.S. and, admittedly, me. Ideally, the world would see itself as a common humanity rather than nationalistic silos competing in a zero-sum game. Governments should help those hurt by economic disruptions with “safety net” policies and programs to assist them learning new skills and making transitions to new roles, perhaps in other regions of the country. Just as common technical standards enable global data communication, fair agreements governing the environment, health, and trade benefit all. As we've seen, the weather and viruses don't stop at borders.

ACA — President Trump's actions to repeal the ACA with no replacement — despite his frequent promises of a wonderful plan coming within just a few weeks — seems motivated purely by Republican pique over the ACA and, particularly, the animus for President Barack Obama. This policy is likely the most hurtful to the American people, reflecting a callous disdain for every person's right to access health care.

COVID-19 — The number of infections and deaths in the U.S. compared to other countries reflects a failure in presidential leadership. No, we could not have avoided the pandemic, but a coherent national response could have coordinated resources, directing them to the hardest hit areas; funded emergency manufacturing of PPE; kept public awareness and protocols aligned with the evolving scientific understanding of the virus; minimized public complacency; and avoided the blue/red divide over masks and “liberating” cities and states from policies intended to reduce the spread — ultimately yielding fewer American deaths. Wearing masks became a political issue largely because President Trump regarded it as unnecessary and a sign of weakness, making it a controversy.

Drain the Swamp — Coupled with the president’s personality and temperament, this is arguably his most egregious violation of the norms and ethics of office. His self-dealing led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives, and his overall philosophy of avarice is reflected in the controversies surrounding his businesses and the many resignations by members of his administration for ethical lapses.

Values — I’ve always expected the President of the United States to be a living symbol of the values America aspires to achieve. During my life, no president has lived up to that ideal; yet, despite their politics, a number have moved our country closer to these values: Lyndon Johnson pushed civil rights legislation, Richard Nixon created the EPA, and Barack Obama effectively bet his administration to giving all Americans access to health care. Tragically, Donald Trump’s boorish persona and actions are antithetical to the values of a government of, by, and for the people. Instead, his values align with the sovereignty of the individual and the pursuit of money, power, and sex.

I couldn’t believe Donald Trump was a serious candidate for president, I was astonished when he became the Republican nominee, then heartbroken when he won the presidency. Since he assumed office, each day has brought a dismaying example of how this country’s principles are being undermined by a kleptocracy and a man who believes he is all powerful.

Given the deep divide in the country, I’m unsure whether those who view Donald Trump as I do will be able to prevail in the election. If we lose, I fear the next four years will seriously wound this country.

Whose Day Is It?

While talking with a colleague Friday, he mentioned our day off today, referring to the federal holiday designated as Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples Day, wrying adding something about rewriting history.

Although his comment triggered me, I resisted the urge to give him my “fair and balanced” opinion, which would likely come across as a lecture. So I obliquely acknowledged his statement, understanding he feels like he’s walking across a political minefield during these highly contentious times.

So rather than lecturing him, I’ll think aloud here.

A long-used adage says history is written by those in power. Growing up, I internalized Columbus Day as celebrating the “modern” arrival of Europeans on the vast American landscape, which led to the European colonization of the continent, the birth of the United States, and my forebears coming in search of better lives. Arguably, I would not be here had Columbus not sailed west in search of a more direct route to the Indies.

The other side of the story is when Columbus arrived, the land was already occupied by many tribes of people. Over the coming centuries, the European settlers and United States government disenfranchised them of their rights, sought to erase their “primitive” cultures, and forced them to move to restrictive reservations. That meets the definition of genocide: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.”

Ironically, Columbus Day was first designated a national holiday not to celebrate the arrival of Christopher Columbus, rather as a one-time celebration to placate Italian Americans and ease diplomatic tensions with Italy. The holiday was declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892, following the murder of 11 Italian immigrants in New Orleans. At the time, Italian immigrants were seen as outside America’s racist view of itself as white and Protestant. Columbus Day didn’t become an annual federal holiday until 1968, possibly as much a celebration of Italian-American heritage as commemorating the arrival of Christopher Columbus.

Returning to my colleague's comment, celebrating Columbus' arrival in the Americas without acknowledging the sins his journey unleashed is truly rewriting history — or hiding those chapters in the basement so we don’t tarnish our view of the perfect American experiment. Our treatment of the indigenous peoples is among the sins we have yet to atone for as a nation.

U.S. states celebrating Indigenous Peoples Day
(Native American Day in South Dakota)

Source: Kaldari
License: Creative Commons Zero, Public Domain Dedication, CC0

American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism

Independence Day

I am searching for America, a country divided.

I see one side hearkening to a time when people knew and accepted their place in this land of no castes, striving through independence and hard work to raise a God-fearing family and live a comfortable life, working in the coal mines and factories of American industry, the manufacturing engine that created the consumer society.

The other side wants to add chairs around the table, so all have a seat no matter their skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, belief in God or no god. All at the table have equal dignity and the opportunity to pursue the fabled American dream through freedom and hard work.

Langston Hughes, the Black writer and social activist whose work spanned the first half of the 20th Century, movingly captured this divide in his poem “Let American Be America Again.” He begins,

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Hughes goes on to paint a vision of the country living up to its founding ideals:

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine—the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Come November, we’ll learn how America sees itself, our values reflected through the peoples’ votes.

---

Read the entire poem Let America Be America Again.

The Wikipedia biography of Hughes describes his ancestry, tragically too common:

Like many African-Americans, Hughes had a complex ancestry. Both of Hughes' paternal great-grandmothers were enslaved Africans, and both of his paternal great-grandfathers were white slave owners in Kentucky.

---

Also posted to Medium.

Time to Eliminate DACA

On Thursday, the Supreme Court stopped President Trump’s move to rescind DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a policy announced by President Obama on June 15, 2012. Reflecting a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court ruling only said the Trump administration acted improperly when it terminated the program, by not adhering to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court considered “only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action” and concluded it failed to do so. This ruling, while positive, leaves the door open for the Department of Homeland Security to resume its effort by beefing up the argument for rescinding DACA.

A permanent resolution to the DACA limbo lies with Congress passing legislation — assuming the president signs it or Congress overrides a veto — providing permanent legal residence and a path to citizenship for those in the DACA program. As the House passed legislation last June (the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019), the responsibility falls to the Senate.

To encourage Senate action, I sent the following letter to Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, and a slightly modified version to Republican senators Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Mitt Romney (Utah).

Subject: Legal Status and Path to Citizenship for DACA Participants

While the Supreme Court’s ruling this week provides a reprieve for those who have enrolled in the DACA program, the decision does not provide a permanent solution for the children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents and grew up here —most now strengthening American society.

It’s time for Congress to pass legislation to provide those participating in DACA with legal residency and a path to U.S. citizenship, ending their Kafkaesque limbo.

As you know, the House of Representatives passed the Dream and Promise Act last June, one year ago. The Senate must now act — and do so before President Trump marshals a renewed effort to address the Supreme Court’s concerns and rescind DACA. In your role as Majority Leader, you have the responsibility to put this on the Senate’s agenda.

Words Not Frozen in Time

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that firing someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal, as is any such discrimination occurring in the workplace. Surprisingly, six of the nine justices supported the ruling — including Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts, whose views are typically conservative — and Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

This ruling comes as a positive and much-needed sign amidst a long discouraging political climate, particularly the Trump administration’s pushback against transgender rights. While this case only applies to workplace discrimination, it does affirm LGBTQ rights, advancing them with this as precedent for the next case.

What I find fascinating about this case was how the court assessed the core question. The justices were asked to decide whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to gay and transgender people. Title VII of that law prohibits workplace discrimination for race, religion, national origin or sex. The court’s ruling says “sex,” as used in the law, does apply to gay and transgender workers.

Justice Gorsuch’s argument and logic make sense:

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex… It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

Writing in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that in 1964, when the law was passed,

Discrimination “because of sex” was not understood as having anything to do with discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status… Any such notion would have clashed in spectacular fashion with the societal norms of the day.”

I find this to be true, certainly his statement about the societal norms in 1964. It’s highly unlikely anyone in Congress was thinking of advancing gay or transgender rights when the bill was drafted and passed. If any were, they were prophetic.

What’s amazing is this ruling shows, once again, that language is not frozen in time. While its meaning may not literally change, the meaning adapts to the time. While virtually no one in 1964 thought Title VII encompassed sexual orientation or gender identity, Gorsuch’s logic is convincing: the language does apply.

Just as the words “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence apply to all, even as the nation’s founders excluded slaves when writing those words arguing for independence from Britain.

The brilliance of this irony is that our words often mean more than we realize. With time and grace, we can live into them.

A Lesson in Humility

My urge to write about the times we’re living in seems constantly thwarted by the ongoing cascade of events, each triggering my anger and increasing despair over the state of American society and those who govern us. Yet before I collect my thoughts to write a blog post, another event erupts on the news, dominating the news cycle and fueling the social media fires. President Trump is usually at the center of my anguish, if not originating the conflagration, then aligning with it, and critiquing what used to be the norm for behavior as just being politically correct.

Timber Hawkeye is one of the people who inspires me. I find insight in applying Buddhist principles to life, particularly its teachings about the self and our unity with the universe. Timber Hawkeye articulately distills these principles into a secular frame, and I find his perspective helpful in refining my own philosophy of living a constructive and contributory life.

Tying these two apparently unrelated threads together, Timber Hawkeye (TH) held a live chat session today, inviting participants to submit questions. One of the exchanges was an aha moment for me:

Question: Can you explain the lessons we are to learn by having someone like Trump as our president?

TH: Well, he didn’t get there by himself; he has the support of millions of people, so let’s not project all of your dismay onto one individual and look at the whole picture and what concerns you, which, if I understand correctly, is the fact that half the population doesn’t see the world the way you do. And that upsets you?

Response: He is divisive and mean with his tweets and not a role model for school-age kids — comes across as a bully, in my opinion.

TH: I suggest you add the words “according to me” to each of your statements in order to keep your own ego at bay. When you say “he is being divisive,” add the words “according to me” at the end, because according to half the population, he is trying to unite everyone.

Do you see the benefit of adding the words “according to me” to the end of everything you say, and perhaps asking “according to whom” when you hear someone else’s statement (don’t do this out loud, necessarily, but pause and think of the source)?

Anther person: So changing the wording, you’re answering for yourself and not assuming for others?

TH: It’s bigger than “not assuming for others.” It’s knowing that your viewpoint is yours alone, that there’s no Universal Truth, and that if you believe there is, notice how it’s always conveniently your own.

Another person: Adding “in my opinion” puts the accountability for the thought onto the person versus the source.

TH: Yes, it’s something I try to remind myself all the time: never speak from a place of knowing, always from a place of learning.

The moral of this story: never assume nor claim my truth is universal. When I speak my truth, clarify that my words are just mine, my viewpoint open to discussion and learning.

Reflecting on the Coronavirus

From time to time — less often than I would like — I collect my thoughts in what I call an “audio postcard” that I send to my kids. It fulfills my desire to keep in touch and share something meaningful, meaning something that might be worth listening to in a decade.

As we’re in the midst of a global societal shutdown caused by a virus only 120 nm in diameter,¹ a crisis “forecast” yet not experienced since the 1918–1919 Spanish flu pandemic, I have been thinking about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and thought I would share my thoughts.

This was recorded on March 29. Tragically, the numbers of infections and deaths are far higher today.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus ↩︎

What’s the Point of Blogging?

One of my goals hopes this year is to rejuvenate my personal blog.

That raises the question why? What is my motivation, what am I seeking? Immortality via the web? Readers? The internal satisfaction of crafting a thought, an idea, and expressing it well?

Probably all three, although I tell myself the point is to write for myself, as a way to formulate my ideas and then revisit and test them in the future.

Om Malik, a well-known tech blogger who founded GigaOM and now writes for himself at Om, recently wrote about an exchange with writer Craig Mod. Malik writes:

I shared my own resistance to writing in a world that is drowning in words. It can feel like pouring water into the dead sea. Mod’s take surprised me. He said to basically forget about what is in the world, and to focus inward and look at what’s important to one’s self. Let the writing be about your inner thoughts and your interests. Let it be about what drives your soul and your thinking. After all, that is the only value I can bring to the internet, crowded as it is with opinions.

Thanks for the clarity and encouragement.

The Kindle Chronicles Podcast

Len Edgerly, creator and host of The Kindle Chronicles podcast, invited me to be his guest on this week’s episode. Despite my surprise, as I’m not his typical author or Kindle-related guest, I agreed and am glad I did. We had a wonderful conversation, which you can listen to here:

Len and I first met at a Podcamp Boston conference, where he gave a presentation about podcasting and his workflow with The Kindle Chronicles. Following the conference, I began listening to his weekly episodes and haven’t missed one.

What's A Citizen To Do?

I'm feeling pretty powerless and dejected by the impeachment trial of President Trump. Through the investigation and impeachment in the House, the Republicans in both House and Senate have shown abject fealty to a president who would be emperor. While the senators are not allowed to speak during the trial, the other voices defending the president seem to be even more amplified and strident.

While I think the president is, without question, guilty of obstruction of Congress, I do see a defense for the charge he abused his presidential power: while the president’s attempts to use Ukraine and hurt the likely Democratic candidate for president were inappropriate, his actions may not justify removal from office. Yet no Republican has acknowledged that his actions were inappropriate. The talking points say the impeachment is a Democratic “coup” to overturn the 2016 election.

Compounding my frustration with the Republican response is knowing the acceptance of presidential power afforded President Trump would not be extended to President Obama, nor to a successor from the Democratic party. To wit, Mitch McConnell refused to grant a hearing for President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, and Republicans claimed President Obama’s DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program was an abuse of presidential power.

Fairness and reciprocity are strong values I hold, and blatant hypocrisy weighs on me physically. What’s a citizen to do?

It now seems the only hope of learning the truth — aside from awaiting the long judgment of historians — is for the Senate to call witnesses who have first-hand observations of the conversations and actions that led to withholding military aid to Ukraine. Four Republican senators are viewed as sufficiently moderate to at least consider voting to call witnesses: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah. So I sent each the following email:

Your Role in the Impeachment Trial of President Trump

Dear Senator,

While you were elected to represent the citizens of your state, your role in the impeachment trial of President Trump is to represent the citizens of the United States in accordance with the Constitution.

As a citizen observing the House of Representatives’ investigation that led to impeachment, I have no doubt that the President is guilty of obstruction of Congress. The evidence that his orders prevented the House from hearing from potential witnesses and reviewing all relevant documents is indisputable.

The evidence supporting the first article, abuse of power, is strong. Based on the President’s history in office, I have little doubt he has abused the powers of his office — and will continue to do so if unchecked. Nonetheless, I understand others believe otherwise. Hearing from the members of his administration who were involved in the Ukrainian discussions and withholding of military funding, such as John Bolton, should confirm this abuse of power or support the President’s claim that he is innocent.

I urge you to vote to call witnesses and gather additional documentation as part of the Senate trial, a logical and timely step to seek the truth about the President’s actions and motivation in withholding military aid to Ukraine.

As a member of the Senate, you stand on the threshold of history. I hope, for the sake of the country, you will choose the Constitution over fealty to the President.

Respectfully,

Gary Lerude

The Dismal State of Our Political System

Politics has never been a landscape of kind discourse. Policy disagreements quickly decline to ad hominem attacks on an individual holding an opposing view.

President Trump has uniformly used this tactic to demean anyone disagreeing with him, probably thousands of times since declaring his candidacy on June 16, 2015. When he was elected President, I hoped the enormity of the election and dignity of the office would inspire him to shift his behavior. Unfortunately, he remains truculent, not hesitating to dishonor the dignity of anyone caught in his diatribes.

The President of the United States retweeting a disrespectful caricature of the Senate Minority Leader and Speaker of the House was inconceivable until Donald Trump was elected. Now it’s normal.

Although the factionalism of our politics started long before Donald Trump’s ascendency, his standard of behavior has condoned further deterioration of the already rancorous relationship between the political parties. His impeachment provides perhaps the most stunning example, with Republications taking up a full-throated defense of his call to the President of Ukraine, then his recalcitrant attempts to block any investigation by the House of Representatives.

Donald Trump is proving his outrageous campaign claim that he can “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not “lose any voters” — apparently not any Republication votes in Congress.

The Merry Christmas Kerfuffle

The 2019 Christmas season is rapidly fading into Christmas past, yet before the discounted greeting cards and wrapping paper totally disappear from the stores, I want to reflect on one of President Trump’s campaign promises, to make saying “Merry Christmas” politically correct once again.

That’s one campaign promise where he’s claimed success, at least as far as uttering what he wants — which he certainly does, whether at a campaign rally or via his Twitter feed.

I’m speculating that this Merry Christmas kerfuffle is a reflexive response by those who feel they are losing their heritage or culture. That puzzles me, as I don’t see the loss.

My practice is to say “Merry Christmas” to those who celebrate Christmas, “Happy Hanukkah” to those who celebrate Hanukkah, “Happy Diwali” to those who celebrate Diwali, and “Happy Holidays” when I’m not sure what holiday, if any, is meaningful to whoever I’m addressing. In a group with strangers, my default is “Happy Holidays.”

If I managed a store catering to the community or a business with diverse employees, I’d go with “Happy Holidays” to be as inclusive as possible.

My intent is not to devalue or offend Christians. Rather, the choice of words reflects my intent to be kind and avoid offending someone who doesn’t find meaning in the Christian view of Christmas. It doesn’t matter that the majority of Americans are Christian, assuming that is really true, or that the first European immigrants who arrived in America held Judeo-Christian beliefs. Making space for another person’s beliefs doesn’t change what I believe nor threaten my beliefs.

The choice of greeting can be a sign of gracious hospitality acknowledging other beliefs and the right to hold them. Or, it can be a sign that the other person is not one of us — our myopic sense of a homogenized America — and not welcome.

I hope we can see beyond any feelings of loss to honor our neighbors, coworkers, and the strangers we meet. Namaste.

A World We Rarely See

The freeway carries thousands of cars each day, north to south, south to north, the drivers unaware of the natural world off the pavement — a world, ironically, made accessible by another intrusion of civilization, a cement path.

My daughter’s apartment in Austin borders the Balcones District Park, which connects to the Northern Walnut Creek Trail on the other side of the MoPac expressway.

Walking the trail shortly before sunset, we encountered four deer crossing the concrete path from the northern woods to the trees on the south side, likely heading for water from the creek. They didn’t seem too concerned by the scattered people on the trail, an ironic benefit of being engulfed by a city where shooting deer is illegal.

Their world or ours?

These two worlds coexist, parallel yet largely separate, providing a peaceful spot in the heart of the city, away from the rush of life.

Fear of Huawei Creating an International Digital Divide

U.S. fears that Huawei is an existential threat to the security of western democracies, a Trojan horse for the authoritarian Chinese government, have precipitated a series of events building a digital divide, a divide separating the communications networks using Huawei equipment from those where it is shunned. The implication for data crossing both networks en route from user to cloud: you can’t get there from here. To be carried by Huawei (or ZTE) risks being copied and sent to Beijing.

We’re seeing the impact of this fear as the political rhetoric escalates:

In May, the U.S. imposed an expansive ban on suppliers exporting products to Huawei. Apparently, that ban has not sufficiently crippled the company. The Trump administration is reported to be considering additional export restrictions to prevent products manufactured outside the U.S. with U.S. technology from being supplied.

According to CNBC,

Under current regulations, key foreign supply chains remain beyond the reach of U.S. authorities, prompting inter-agency discussions within the administration of President Donald Trump about possible changes to two key rules that could expand U.S. authority to block more foreign shipments to the company, giving more teeth to Huawei’s blacklisting.

The U.S. continues to pressure other countries to ban Huawei equipment, particularly for 5G networks. Asking countries to choose sides is unlikely to eliminate Huawei and ZTE from the global stage, considering both offer very competitive pricing compared to Ericsson and Nokia.

Responding to its own existential threat, Huawei has accelerated development of internal technology, also seeking suppliers outside the U.S. Japan, Taiwan and Europe are the beneficiaries. Quoting China Daily, Mobile World Live reported Huawei’s imports from Japan are expected to reach $10.1 billion this year (2019) — a 50 percent year-over-year increase — and will come close to the reported $11 billion Huawei purchased from U.S. suppliers in 2018.

The first evidence of Huawei’s success is the new Mate 30 smartphone, which uses no U.S. components according to The Wall Street Journal. Huawei is also developing a mobile operating system as an alternative to Android, which it has named HarmonyOS or Hongmeng in China. As the world’s second largest mobile phone manufacturer, Huawei has the scale to develop its own operating system and force market adoption, particularly in China, home to the largest number of mobile phone users.

Responding to U.S. sanctions and advocacy, Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, has granted numerous media interviews to argue his company is not a security threat.

Beyond reassuring words, Ren said he will move Huawei’s North American research center from the U.S. to Canada, according to Canada’s The Globe and Mail.

Not as genteel as the company’s founder, Huawei’s lawyers are suing the FCC, claiming the agency’s action to block U.S. telecommunications operators from buying Huawei (or ZTE) equipment is illegal.

The Chinese government has been surprisingly quiet during this maelstrom, although it has defended its most successful telecommunications equipment manufacturer, most vocal protesting the arrest of Ren’s daughter and Huawei CFO, Meng Wanzhou. Canada arrested Meng at the request of the U.S., which is seeking her extradition to stand trial for illegal exports by Huawei.

Now China seems to be adopting similar tactics to the U.S. The Financial Times reports the Chinese government has ordered all government offices to replace foreign computer equipment and software within three years, a retaliatory blow that will hit U.S. suppliers Dell, HP and Microsoft.

These rancorous events suggest the growing digital divide between the U.S. and China won’t end well. Although Huawei is the lightning rod for U.S. concerns about national security, it’s simply a proxy for Chinese policy. Any long-term resolution will require a broad cybersecurity agreement between the U.S. and China, one based on trust and verification, borrowing a phrase from the nuclear arms agreements of the Cold War.

If there’s an engineering solution to this dilemma, it’s not obvious. Perhaps that should be the focus of 3GPP in 2020. The benefits of 5G will be hard to realize if our networks become islands disconnected by fear.

Note: This was first published as a post on my Microwave Journal blog, on December 13, 2019.

Unintended Consequences

Ironically, a company’s loyalty programs, presumably intended to promote customer loyalty, may cause the opposite.

Of the numerous hotels I’ve stayed in during my career, I’ve had a preference for the Hilton brand. Not sure why, but if I had a choice and the rate was reasonable, I’d generally pick Hilton. Marriott was second on my list, judging by the points I accumulated with both chains.

Five years ago, I switched jobs. In my current role, I don’t travel as often, and I work with a group of loyal Marriott customers. If I’m traveling with any of them, I usually end up in a Marriott brand hotel room.

Several months ago, I received an email from Hilton saying if I didn’t stay at one of their brands within a few months, I would lose my remaining points. Was that a marketing policy to encourage room nights or an accounting policy to reduce liabilities on the balance sheet? Nonetheless, I didn’t have a business or personal reason to book myself into a Hilton, other than doing so to save my points.

I’ve done the airline mileage run a few times to maintain status, but that was years ago. I’m past the age where airline or hotel status means that much to me.

So I let the Hilton points expire.

I still have a healthy balance of Marriott points and every reason to maintain my  presence at Marriott, as those points will yield free room nights one of these days.

With zero points at Hilton, there’s no reason for me to be loyal — no more or less than any chain other than Marriott.

Hilton saved a few points and lost a long-time customer. I wonder if that’s what they wanted.

Leaking government secrets: patriotic?

This past week we learned that a 29-year-old systems administrator working for the NSA -- actually working for Booz Allen, under contract with the NSA -- leaked classified information about two government programs to access telephone records and Internet traffic. (More about this story here.) Both are part of the government's efforts to combat terrorism and, arguably, make us all safer.

The counter argument is that the government is accessing massive amounts of personal data that should be private, violating the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. From this perspective, the leaker and the two newspapers that published the material (The Guardian and The Washington Post) serve the public interest.

My brother Warren, a journalist, has been "debating" the issue with a few of his colleagues, copying me on the back and forth. The discussion stimulated me sufficiently to chime in. To wit,

I'm old enough to remember Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, yet too young to recall the details to be able to discern the parallels and differences with this incident.

Nonetheless, from my vantage point on the far side of the elephant, I think the disclosure is beneficial for (hopefully) starting a public debate on the rights of the government to sweep our personal data. The Supreme Court borrowed from Donald Rumsfeld when it declared that you can't sue for what you don't know. Now we know what we didn't know, and I see where the ACLU has already filed suit.

Despite the administration's declarations of transparency, one cannot disclose a secret without losing one's security clearance and likely going to jail. So even before Congress, the system requires one to lie, rather than tell the truth. The only way for the truth to out is through leaks. Ironically, while the public and the press benefit under our First Amendment rights, the leaker will likely go to jail.

Last point: I don't agree that this disclosure will compromise national security. I have long assumed that we have the capability, technologically, to read and listen to most any conversation that interests the government. For a terrorist to be surprised by this disclosure suggests a high degree of naivete; just look at the precautions taken by Osama Bin Laden to avoid creating a digital trail.

Sorry, one more last ironic point: while we worry about the Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE providing equipment for our telecommunications networks, the threat is really the "lowly" IT guy.

Paying it backward

Zoe Goodell, working the drive-through window at the Exit 6

Starbucks in Nashua.

Feeling the holiday spirit, my daughter Andrea pulls into the drive-through lane at Starbucks, planning to pay for the person behind her. She’s surprised to find that someone ahead of her has the same idea, so her skinny vanilla latte is gratis.

A couple weeks later, after the holidays, she receives the same generosity. However with no one behind her, she can’t reciprocate.

Paying it forward — actually backward through the drive-through lane — is a common event, according to Judy Johnson, manager of the Starbucks at Exit 6 in Nashua. During December, these random acts of kindness happen every day. And they continue throughout the year, just not as often.

“Sometimes it only lasts a couple. Sometimes it goes on and on and on,” Judy says, recalling that the longest sequence at the Exit 6 store was more than 20 cars. She attributes the motivation to people just wanting “to do something nice for someone, a random stranger.”

Those who haven’t experienced someone buying their coffee are surprised. A typical reaction, Judy says, is “Do I know that person?”

The baristas like to have fun with the experience, sometimes adding a hint of intrigue to the generosity — telling a woman that the guy in the car ahead bought her coffee, then watching for the reaction.

Zoe Goodell, a barista at the Exit 6 Starbucks, works the drive-though and sees this parade of kindness firsthand. “I think it’s really great when people pay for each other.”

When the person at the window is buying a $2 coffee and the car behind has a $20 order? Usually the sequence stops. But the generosity invariably restarts, Judy says, when someone pulls up to the window and offers to pay for the next order, sometimes saying they want to repay a prior act of kindness.

While most of the action occurs in the drive-through, patrons inside the store — Judy calls it “the cafe” — will occasionally buy coffee for each other. She says that doesn’t happen as often, nor last as long.

Why the difference between the drive-through and the cafe? Maybe it’s that the drive-through is “quick and easy,” Judy says, or perhaps it’s the anonymity. Aren’t we taught that giving anonymously is a high virtue? Reflecting that, perhaps, sometimes a cafe customer will purchase a gift card and leave it with the store, to buy as many orders as it takes to deplete the value.

Judy invites me to personally witness this display of human nature. So I arrive at the Exit 6 Starbucks shortly before 8:00 on a Monday morning.

I wonder if this is the best day for such an experiment, two days after winter storm Nemo traverses New England, closing 450 of the 500 Starbucks in the region. Will customers be in any mood to be generous, after this disruption in their lives and on a Monday morning? Perhaps sensing that people may be on edge, Starbucks is offering patrons a free tall coffee until 11 am.

Judy has me don the signature green apron and positions me near the window, where I can observe and listen to the conversations.

Zoe and Jen Donnelly are working the drive-through, performing a graceful ballet of constant motion. Both wear headsets. Zoe talks, Jen mainly listens and responds to the orders. As customers speak into the intercom in the drive-through lane, fingers fly over the touch screen and the two young women silently prepare the drinks, at times asking one of the other baristas to bring food from the refrigerated case in front, sometimes going for it themselves. As each car pulls up, Zoe opens the window with a friendly greeting, accepts payment, and carefully hands the order to the driver.

Judy checks to ensure we have a line of cars, scans the various orders on Starbucks’ version of an air-traffic-control radar, and selects one to start the pay-it-backward game. I offer to pay for the order, but she shakes her head.

When the car pulls to the window and holds out a $5 bill, Zoe cheerfully informs the driver that the driver in front has paid for her order. Surprised and pleased, she hands the $5 bill to Zoe as a tip, not offering to pay for the next car.

“That’s unusual,” Zoe says.

Judy scans the orders and starts the process again. When Zoe tells the driver the person in front already paid, the response is a blend of curiosity and pleasure.

“Oh they did?”

But no offer to reciprocate.

The snow is beginning to fall. Judy heads for her desk in the back. Nemo disrupted their weekend, and she needs to catch up. I pull out my Starbucks card. Zoe picks another car, and we try again.

The next driver, hearing the news, pauses. “What’s the guy behind me getting?”

Zoe responds with I can’t recall what. But the total is only $2.45. He pays it backward.
The next car, informed that the driver in front paid for the order, looks forward. “Who was he, or she?”

With no car behind, there’s no way to pay it backward. “I’ll pass it on somewhere,” he says and drives off.

A driver orders a tall coffee. Zoe informs her that it’s free because of the snowstorm. That is unexpected and causes a long pause. “Oh. Okay. Thank you.”

We start again. An older woman arrives at the window. She is obviously surprised, maybe even stunned. “This is the first time someone ever paid for my coffee.”

One man, told the order behind is $3 more than his, breaks the chain. Another, whose order is $2.67 pays $8.07 for the car behind with no hesitation.

We can’t seem to get momentum, and I’m losing track of the numbers and the details of each transaction. My pen is almost out of ink.

“This is the last” I say to Zoe, again handing her my Starbucks card. Amazingly, we get a run of six cars, each driver showing surprise and pleasure. Reflexively, they immediately look to see who is in the car in front, seeking recognition. The lack of connection makes a connection.

The seventh car pulls to the window. Zoe smiles and says the person in front paid for her order. She looks forward toward the car pulling away, says “oh,” smiles — and doesn’t offer to pay it backward.

As I leave the store and walk to my car through the falling snow, I realize that the real benefit of my $11.50 investment in this experiment is not the total number of cars without a break. It’s each individual’s experience of receiving a small act of kindness, like the woman who exclaimed that no one had ever bought her coffee.

Perhaps even more than the surprised patrons, the baristas enjoy the whole experience and the part they play. Their faces light up talking about it. “I love when that happens,” says Erin Peña, another barista at the Exit 6 store.

As Judy explains, “We play along. It creates a camaraderie in the store.”

Still trying to understand the psychology, I ask my daughter her motivation for buying someone’s coffee. She emails me that “the first time was pure holiday spirit. I was feeling cheerful as Christmas was approaching and really wanted to put a smile on someone's face. However, after that first experience, I believe that I was even more compelled to do it, secretly hoping that if the ‘game’ had not been being played before I drove up, I could at least start it. In both scenarios, I wanted to make someone happy.”

The pay-it-forward phenomenon is not unique to the Exit 6 Starbucks. Erin, who worked at the Leominster, Massachusetts, store before transferring to Nashua, says it happens in the drive-through there. Searching YouTube reveals several TV news reports about the trend, including the story of one Starbucks in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, where the pay-it-forward sequence lasted over an hour and totaled 100 cars.

Across the nation, one person at a time, spending a few dollars for a random act of kindness.

Note: This is the second of two articles I wrote for the news writing class I took at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications this winter. Meg Heckman, formerly a reporter with the Concord Monitor and now pursuing her master's degree at Northeastern, taught the class.

Flatley adds apartments, retail to technology park

Neighbors gather to hear construction update and plans

Note: This is one of two articles I wrote for a News Writing class taught by Meg Heckman at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications. It was a great class, as Meg shared her tested experience as a reporter, conveyed with an enthusiasm for journalism. The Loeb school makes such learning very accessible to the community, offering a range of classes on journalism and social media, most free.

January 26, 2013 -- Approximately fifteen people from the Lancashire Heights neighborhood in south Nashua turned out Saturday afternoon to hear the progress and plans for the development of the Nashua Technology Park, now renamed Gateway Hills. Dick Cane, Director of Planning and Development for the John J. Flatley company, briefed the group on the development project, which is adding apartments and a strip shopping center to the current office park.

The Flately company owns 400 acres in south Nashua, located to the west of the Everett Turnpike and north of Spit Brook Road.

“No one knows we’re here,” said Cane, stating that the office buildings are largely hidden from drivers on the highway and Spit Brook Road. That made it challenging to lease the three buildings Flatley purchased from HP in 2007. Despite the soft economy and the lack of visibility, the company has leased over 500,000 square feet, and the buildings are now over 90% occupied. Flatley is planning construction of another 240,000 square foot R&D building, perhaps as early as this year. The companies in the existing buildings are well-known technology firms: Amphenol, Aspentech, Benchmark Electronics, Dell, and Skillsoft.

Apartment construction

What largely drew the neighbors to the meeting are the new apartments being constructed parallel to the homes on Chaucer Road in Lancashire Heights. Called Tara Heights, the first phase consists of five buildings that will house 180 one- and two-bedroom apartments and a clubhouse. Rents will range from $1,150 per month for a one-bedroom apartment to $1,600 for a two-bedroom corner unit. Cane said tenants will begin moving in during May, with the last building occupied in September.

The second phase of apartment construction will add 140 units and extend the complex eastward towards the Everett Turnpike.

The apartments are separated from the neighborhood by a 300 foot buffer, and no streets connect the site and the neighborhood. A gravel emergency road, required by the Nashua Fire Department, will provide emergency access to the complex from Shakespeare Road in the neighborhood. However, the emergency road will be blocked by a chain to prevent traffic.

Cain said that construction required “a lot more blasting for utilities than we assumed” due to the amount of granite in the area. John Cepaitis, who lives north of the apartments, at 16 Shakespeare Road, told Cane that he and his wife have found cracks in their foundation and inside along the fireplace. Although the blasting firm took photographs of the homes adjacent to the apartment site, to be able to determine whether the blasting caused damage, Cepaitis’ home was not included in the survey, since it does not face the apartments. According to Cepaitis, although farther away, his house sits on a granite ledge, possibly making it susceptible to damage from the blasting.

Strip retail

In addition to the apartments, construction of a strip retail center along Spit Brook road is well underway, following clearing of trees and leveling of the land last summer. The five-building site will include medical and dental offices, a coffee shop with drive-through, dry cleaner, hairdresser, what Cane called a “small dining” establishment, and possibly a bank or other financial institution. Only the medical and dental offices have been leased, according to Cane, and the coffee shop has provided a letter of intent.

Cane said the design of the retail center is upscale, with clock-tower architecture and the use of earth tones. He said the Flatley Company wants to create a good first impression of the Gateway Hills development, and the retail site is the most visible.

The company’s vision is that the medical offices and retail businesses will serve the people living in the apartments, many of them working for the companies in the technology park.

Outlook

Several proposed road extensions within the development need to be approved by the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Adjustment. According to Cane, these will be presented during the February and March board meetings.

Looking longer term, Cane believes only the southern 260 of the 400 acres owned by Flatley will be developed over the next three to five years. He doesn’t see the northern section being developed sooner unless a company needs space that can’t be accommodated by the existing site.

Within the 260 acres, he said that Flatley may construct a hotel to serve the companies in the area and provide an alternative to the existing, castle-looking Radisson, which Flatley doesn’t own.

Lame-Duck Congress

Can this lame-duck Congress redeem itself and deal with the looming fiscal cliff?

The roles haven't changed: the Republicans still control the House, the Democrats the Senate, and President Obama was reelected to a second term. But perhaps, hopefully, the election sent a message to our elected officials that it's time to reach across the aisle and find bipartisan solutions to the nation's financial challenges.

In that spirit, today I sent the following email to my New Hampshire delegation, Speaker Boehner, Senator McConnell, and Senator Reid:

As you return to Congress following the 2012 election, I urge you to take the necessary steps to avoid the fiscal cliff, reduce the debt, and ensure the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare. 

To accomplish this challenge, I believe spending must be reduced – defense included – and tax revenue increased. The latter should include increased tax rates, on the most financially fortunate Americans, and reductions in tax deductions.

No sacred cows or rigid ideologies. Please leave your political affiliation at the door and approach this vital work as an honest broker.

A recap of the 2012 election

Before the echoes of the convention speeches, the attack ads, and the chattering television pundits fade to silence, I want to reflect on the election.

I voted to reelect President Barack Obama, overturn the Republican majorities in Congress and the New Hampshire House and Senate, and elect a Democrat to replace Governor John Lynch. While my goals weren't fully realized – the Republicans remain the majority in the U.S. House and New Hampshire Senate – I am pleased with the outcome and hope we will have a more effective government than the past two years.

This election is notable because I voted a straight party ticket for the first time in my life, although I still label myself an Independent. I have always weighed each race and voted for the candidate I felt would best fill the position. Until this election, that philosophy yielded a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Political parties have seemed a necessary evil and straight party voting has been anathema, so this election is an indication of a sea change in my view of the political landscape. So, before I forget, what drove my votes?

1. The Economy

The thesis of Mitt Romney's campaign argued that Barack Obama was responsible and accountable for the poor performance of the economic recovery, that the policies pursued by the Obama administration were ineffective – even hindered the recovery.

The steps taken by the Bush and Obama administrations at the beginning of the Great Recession, in the fall of 2008 and early 2009, decelerated the downward spiral and positioned the economy to recover. Government policies notwithstanding, I believe the slope of the recovery has been equally influenced by forces around the globe: the fiscal crisis in Greece, the malaise in Europe, the depressed housing market in the U.S., the caution of the banks as they seek to restore their balance sheets, and the bankruptcy and recovery of the auto industry.

I have no way to know whether a "pure" Republican response to the crisis would have yielded better results. However, I suspect that had GM and Chrysler not undergone a government-imposed bankruptcy and restructuring, the economies of Michigan and Ohio would be in far worse shape today. I don't believe the free market, as it was functioning in 2009, would have provided the capital, had the power to restructure the debt, nor moved as quickly to save the companies.

The growing U.S. debt is a concern and certainly must be addressed. Yet my college economics class and listening to various economists over the years leave me with enough belief in Keynesian theories to conclude that reducing debt by cutting government expenditures can stall an economic recovery. I think Britain and Greece are examples. Blaming the Obama administration for growing the debt during the past four years seems unfair. I suspect John McCain would be just as guilty, had he won the 2008 election.

Considering the state of the economy, I saw no basis to criticize President Obama's performance and vote for Mitt Romney.

2. Healthcare

Next to the economy, the Republican's second talking point was the repeal of Obamacare. Their original argument to "repeal and replace" simply changed to "repeal," with no discussion or, in my opinion, intent to replace.

The Affordable Care Act certainly has flaws, and the process that passed it exemplified the metaphor of making sausage. The very silver lining to that cloud, however, is we now have a framework for providing health care insurance to most Americans, with a balance to the historically punitive power of the insurance companies in the "free" market.

For very personal reasons, I'm not willing to start over; I have no faith that under a Romney administration we would see reasonable access for all Americans – even within my lifetime. That would be a moral failing, as the U.S. is the only developed country that doesn't provide comprehensive access to health care. Seeing the statistics on cost and medical outcomes, we can't even argue we have the best system for our society (meaning not just fortunate individuals).

President Obama overwhelmingly won my vote on this issue.

3. Social Values

I find it odd that while Republicans decry the role of government in our lives, they feel justified in defining the social values that everyone should live by.

Same-sex marriage most resonates with me, as I see it as a human rights issue, comparable to the civil rights struggles that played out on the TV screen of my youth. The Republican majority in the New Hampshire House unsuccessfully attempted to overturn same-sex marriage this year, arguing that the prior legislature had no right to make it legal. Of course, that was based on the religious belief that same-sex marriage is "wrong," that marriage should only recognize a relationship between a woman and a man. The 2012 Republican platform also states this position.

That's not my religious belief, and I don't want that imposed on the same-sex couples I know and respect and love. I don't want that sanctified loving relationship, nor the legal protections it affords, denied to any gay or lesbian couple.

Other values were debated during the campaign, including abortion, access to contraceptives, funding for Planned Parenthood. On all of them, I sided with President Obama and the Democratic candidates running for Congress and offices in New Hampshire.

4. Candidate Mitt Romney

No doubt Mitt Romney is a smart and decent man, despite portrayals of him being an unfeeling oligarch. I do respect his business experience and success, and the pragmatism that requires. That's not what concerned me.

Rather, I couldn't determine his political leanings from the course of his campaign. During the primaries, he tacked to the most conservative side of the party, calling himself a "severely conservative Republican governor" during one of the debates. Once he had the nomination, though, he tacked back toward the center, sounding like the most moderate person in the first debate with President Obama.

Who was the real Mitt Romney and how would he lead the nation? I wasn't willing to take a chance voting for him, with a hope that he would govern as a moderate. On this point, I voted against Mitt Romney.

5. Bipartisanship and Compromise

Washington has been in gridlock the past two years, since the Republicans assumed control of the House following the 2010 election. There's no better example of this than the bickering over the debt and raising the debt ceiling, the failed Congressional debt commission, and the resulting fiscal cliff that looms at the end of the year.

I am critical of President Obama for not adopting the work of the Simpson-Bowles Commission as a baseline plan to address the debt. Politically, I recognize that had he embraced their dramatic approach, he would have created a target for the Republicans, whose mantra is spending cuts with no increase in taxes.

Despite the possible missed opportunity, the President and House Speaker John Boehner almost crafted a deal, until it was scuttled by the conservative members of the House. That led to the failed Congressional debt commission and now the ticking time bomb of sequestration, which I've heard the New Hampshire Republican delegation repeatedly decry. Ironically, sequestration is linked to their own unwillingness to compromise on increasing tax revenue – which would violate their pledge to Grover Norquist.

While I'm not so naive that I would argue the behavior of the Democrats in Congress is pure, I find greater fault with the Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's admonition rings loudly in my ears:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

I think the Republicans in the House and Senate have worked to that end, employing the strategy articulated as just say no, and betting they would win the Presidency.

President Obama won my vote by the Republican Congress losing it. However, I struggled a bit voting against Charlie Bass. I respect his independence and willingness to vote against his party on various issues. He's a model for all of our elected representatives. Unfortunately, he's only one voice among many Republicans who don't seem to share his philosophy. So I voted for Ann McLane Kuster.

The Outlook

I'm very encouraged by the outcome of the election in New Hampshire: the House has flipped from Republican to Democratic majority and Democrat Maggie Hassan will replace John Lynch. I think we will have a more balanced agenda.

During the President's second term, we'll see the implementation of Obamacare and can begin to address the inflating cost of health care. I'm not worried about backtracking on social issues. I hope, fervently hope, that we'll see the bipartisan statesmanship to truly address the debt and long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare.

With President Obama reelected, Mitch McConnell's goal is no longer relevant, making me hopeful that Congress can break the partisan gridlock, despite the same majorities in the House and Senate. The most pressing issue is dealing with the fiscal cliff. I urge the lame-duck Congress to address this and not kick the proverbial can to the next Congress.

These next six weeks should be very interesting.

Romney compliments Israeli health care

On his recent international trip to demonstrate his foreign policy credentials, Mitt Romney, the assumed Republican presidential nominee, complimented Israel's health care system — at least the cost and outcome. As reported by the Washington Post's Wonkblog, Governor Romney said

Our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs.

Ironically, the Israeli health care system is funded through taxes, imposes a mandate for everyone to participate (through taxes), provides access to all citizens (regardless of employment or income), and controls health care costs with government involvement in physician contracts and capping hospital costs.

Measured by two outcomes — child mortality and life expectancy — Israelis do better than Americans.

Given all the bashing of Obamacare, particularly following the Supreme Court ruling, it's ironic that Mitt Romney would choose to highlight Israeli healthcare. Their results surely reflect the construction of their system.

During the development of what became the Affordable Care Act, the Christian Broadcasting Network produced this profile of the Israeli health care system. It provides a good overview of the key attributes and notes pros and cons compared with the American counterpoint.



If you want more on Mitt Romney's remarks and the resulting reaction, here's another article.