Constitutional Crisis?

I have remained silent on all my anti-social media platforms. As much as I have wanted to respond, correct, engage and persuade, I have resisted. In private, with friends, (real friends), family, associates and a few others, I have had “those” conversations and in those cases, while they have been cordial and respectful, they have also been unproductive. I have not convinced anyone of anything. I cannot compete against the machine that has created the polarization we are seeing today. It is the worst I have ever seen in my life, and of that, about five decades of political awareness. The results of it manifested once again last night.

 

This nation is a petri dish. It has been from its constitutional beginning (which was 1787, not what is, sadly, commonly believed to be 1776) when we became the United States of America. Prior to that, we were an unworkable, loose confederation of states; it was not working and our founding fathers, through a lot of debate and compromise formulated the government we have today. It is not perfect, and they all knew it, but they were confident that, because built into that Constitution is a means of amending it, we, the people, could and would adapt it. And we have, through much debate and compromise – and one terrible war.

 

Our grand experiment in self-rule is unlike any other in the world, before or since. It is precarious, always on the edge. It depends on us and our faith in those founding documents, our founders’ vision, and each other. It has been tested, many times. So far, our Constitution has proven stronger than any one person, party or outside influence. We have grown, not because of some piece of paper, but because of that faith in each other, into the strongest nation in the world. We have made mistakes, we have done some bad things, but we have also done immense good and made vast improvements. We have taken far more steps forward then we have taken steps back. 

 

We are at yet another crossroads, another constitutional test. There are forces at work – people – who see our constitutional protections as a barrier to whatever it is they see as “American.” It is almost laughable. The core of what is American is the Constitution and what it contains. However, if enough people lose faith in it, if enough people agree that certain elements of it are “in the way,” then they will no longer matter. The Constitution itself will no longer matter. 

 

In every constitutional crisis over the past 237 years – including that very first Constitutional Convention that formed the government we now have – it was the Constitution that prevailed. From the Civil War to the Great Depression, WWII, McCarthyism, civil rights, equal rights, Watergate and others – all of them presented serious challenges to the very fabric of our nation and, ultimately, we, the people said, “no, the experiment does not end here.” It has often come with great pain and angst, but in the end, our flag was still there.

 It is no secret that, for reasons that I will not elaborate on here, I am no fan of Donald Trump. But he was just elected be President of the United States, again. The people, enough of them, have spoken. We can talk about (and should) the liabilities of the Electoral College system, but that would take an amendment to the Constitution. The election was by the book, it was constitutional, he will be our president. The experiment, however, does not end there. Trump has made a variety of statements, some vague policy positions that I assume appeal to a large number of people, and that’s fair enough, but he has also spoken about doing a number of things that are absolutely unconstitutional. Prosecuting and jailing his opponents, shutting down media and free speech, using the US military on our own soil against citizens are just a few of his “musings” on the campaign trail.

 

Maybe this was just campaign bluster, the “bravado” that seems to appeal to a certain segment of his followers. Let’s hope that is all it is. If so, there might not be any crisis, just a lot of handwringing from the left when what they believe to be overly conservative policies are enacted into law. But that is how democracy works. Those policies, too, will be tested and if they prove unsuccessful, the Democrats will have the opportunity to put the brakes on them at the midterms. Whether people believe Trump crossed the line of Presidential privilege or not or whether they believe he acted unconstitutionally or not in his last administration is not the same as whether people believe the president is allowed to act unconstitutionally. If they do, enough of them, then we are in deep trouble.

 

My other hope is that the teamsmanship, the side-taking, taunting, the denigrating, the questioning of who is or what it is to be “American” will stop. The only team is Team USA and there is only one flag. All of our policies belong to the will of the people. We will get shit we don’t like sometimes. We will get shit we do sometimes. Ideally, we will get compromise where we get some of what we want, but not all. When government works best – check that – when government works, that’s how it works. 

 

I still have faith in our Constitution. I still have faith in the common sense of the vast majority of the people who are not on the extremes, despite what the echo-chamber tells each side about “the other side.” The fact is that most of y’all are a lot like y’all. If you would just talk to each other and stop talking at each other, you might find that the extremes are lying to you, manipulating you, and it is hurting this country. 

 

I know I’m going to get a lot of “what aboutism” in response. Save it. There is plenty of blame to go around. We have had enough of that. How about looking for consensus, for solutions, for places where we do agree and can get behind. Maybe we can start with the Constitution. It needs us. Indeed, it only has us. It always has had only us.

Dos Equis

Twenty years ago today, I would be turning myself in to the Nevada County Wayne Brown Correctional Facility for the last time. It was not the last time I would be incarcerated. After my 60 day sentence for a violation of probation (of which I served my customary two-thirds time of 40 days), I still had to report to another county jail for a 90 day sentence on the charge that got me violated in Nevada County. Fortunately, due to jail over-crowding in Calaveras County, that sentence was reduced to just eight days. All those days and every other day I served in jail was a direct result of my use of drugs and alcohol. I didn’t get in trouble every time I used, but every time I got in trouble, drugs and alcohol were involved.

On this day, 20 years ago, I did not drink, and I did not use any drugs. It was not my intention. I planned on having this one last day of “getting high” before reporting to jail. However, it didn’t work out that way. I did plan to get sober from the next day forward – I had about nine months of sobriety (or clean-time, depending on which 12-step program one is aligned with) that ended in December of 2003 – and it worked. But for whatever reason, I felt I had regained the ability to “control” my drug and alcohol use. I was wrong and found – quickly – that control was not within my grasp. I needed to be separated from that “life," and, while I did not look forward to being locked up, I knew it was an opportunity.

By the time I was released from Calaveras County, I was about 60 days sober. I felt like my life had passed me by. During those nine months of sobriety, I went back to school and excelled like never before, attaining my first ever 4.0 GPA semester. However, I was in full relapse during my third semester, was arrested for my violating charge midway through it and my grades suffered accordingly. I was released after the fall 2004 semester was already underway – I could not return to school until the following spring, and I wasn’t even sure I could do that. I tried to find a job, but even that, something that was never a problem for me in the past, proved to be impossible. Without the financial support of family, I would have been homeless. I felt utterly useless, and just being “sober” didn’t feel like much of an accomplishment, especially since most of it was by force.

But, in retrospect, it was. It was because, unlike the first time when I was living in a “therapeutic environment” (i.e., a recovery home) for the first six months, I had to really want it. I did, but only because I felt I had no other choice. All my grand plans had failed me. I learned from those nine months that I could do things. The problem was that I was not back at ground zero – I was less than that. It was hard to stay the course, not throw up my arms and say, “fuck this!” I almost did, a couple of times. I managed through the holidays, pissed off most of the time, and by January, with nowhere left to turn, I returned to school. I didn’t really know where it would lead me, but it was something. With a lot of help from a counselor at American River College in Sacramento, I was able to put together a plan that would have me transferring to California State University, Sacramento after just one more semester.

I didn’t have enough college credits from just my three recent semesters at ARC, but over many years dating back to the early 80s, my forays into higher education did leave me with a variety of college credits – many were with lousy grades, but they counted. Many did not, but, combined with that one last semester at ARC, I had enough to transfer. However, while a path was before me, I still had to decide where it would lead. There were several options, but among the classes I took during that first nine months was an English writing honors class. That I even qualified, based on an assessment test I had to take, surprised the hell out of me – English was not my best subject – far from it. But, with some encouragement – and goading – I took it. It was amazing and the professor, recognizing some talent (I guess) and some deficiencies in mechanics, nurtured both. I aced the class and rediscovered a love for writing that I once resented.

My counselor suggested an English major, which I rejected. His second suggestion, however, immediately resonated with me. Journalism was also an early love. I remember with a great deal of fondness my days as a paperboy, reading my papers as I was folding them, preparing them for delivery. Journalism it was. The spring 2005 semester at ARC was a resounding success and the that fall would see my return to a four-year university after a 20-year hiatus (I dropped out of San Diego State University in 1985 with a 0.7 GPA). More importantly, at some point in the beginning of 2005, I lost the desire to say, “fuck this!” I found that continuing sobriety was, once again, working for me. And, one day, quite unexpectedly, I realized that it had been some days since I was angry about anything.

Since then, I have only been away from an academic institution for just one semester. I completed my BA in the winter of 2007 and took the spring 2008 semester off, working as a print journalist for a local newspaper. In the fall of 2008, I returned to Sac State to enter their MA program in communication studies, earning a Master of Arts degree  there. I then moved to Baton Rouge to enter the communication studies PhD program at Louisiana State University. Throughout my graduate career at both Sac State and LSU, I also taught undergraduates. While I did manage to advance to PhD candidacy at LSU, I finished there as “ABD” (all but dissertation), falling short of the PhD and coming away with another master’s degree. While that does represent a failure, it was not a decision I made lightly – and it is one I can live with.

Today, I am entering my tenth-year teaching at CSUS. I will be retiring from the job that holds the record for the longest I ever been in the same job, with the same employer and in the same career. That light that was so dim 20 years ago has been a beacon for many years now. But it is not the same as it was at five years, at 10 years or even at 15 years. I have read accounts of others who have traveled this path – often those who were already celebrities, those whose fame has enabled them to gain the access to sell their stories with greater ease. Too often, in what is, comparably, early sobriety, they simply don’t know what they don’t know. I know I didn’t. And, sadly, too often, they fall. Matthew Perry spoke glowingly about how profound his new-found sobriety was, he knew so much. Now he is dead. He didn’t know what he didn’t know.

Here's a little secret. I still don’t know - a lot. Those who have been doing this for 25 years, for 30 years, for 35 years and more – they know more. I still listen to what they have to say. It could just save my life.

Real Journalism

I've been staying out of it. It's futile, it's frustrating and, as much as I love a good argument, they are too few and way too far in between on Fakebook and in social media in general. I've tried, I've failed. However, I will offer this:

I rarely ever watch FOX News. Hold on, let me stop you right there. I also rarely ever watch MSNBC or CNN. That does not mean I think they are equal, equally evil, equally fair and balanced or equally unfair and unbalanced - I never said any of that. I just said I rarely ever watch them. Why? So glad you asked; that is, in fact, the right question. Because I already know what they're going to say - all of them. And... so do you. Watching that swill - to either be confirmed or enraged - doesn't entertain me. I will check them all out, briefly, when really big shit hits the fan, just to see if I'm still right - and I always am. I always know exactly what they are going to say.

I get my news the old-fashioned way - from newspapers. A lot of people seem to be confused about the role of newspapers, and it is somewhat understandable as those same three cable outlets have seriously blurred the line between news and opinion/editorial. They are both part of news organizations, but they are separate and distinct operations, and, for legit newspapers, they have completely different personnel and facilities. Who is legit? Some of you aren’t going to like it, but The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal are all legit. Most major market newspapers as well as many local newspapers are, too.

Straight news - page one of the newspaper (when opinion appears there, it is rare and clearly identified as such) - is just the facts, the five Ws and the H - "who, what, why, where, when and how." They are written in the "inverted pyramid" style, which means the most important facts are up front and the importance continues in descending order such that if one reads the first two or three grafs (journalist talk for "paragraph"), one can skim the tops of the stories and have the gist. While there are some editorial decisions that go into news stories - they are written by real people, after all - we, real, trained-in-the-art journalists, try real hard to present just the facts as efficiently as possible, using as few words as possible. The headline and where they are placed in the physical paper (or even if they are placed) are editorial decisions not usually made by the writer.

All news organizations also have editorial departments that do have an ideological identity. They can be labeled conservative or liberal. And... there is nothing wrong with that. That is truly what freedom of the press is all about. The ability to freely criticize our government through two of the First Amendment's provisions - freedom of the press and freedom of speech - is uniquely American. Criticizing OUR government and its elected officials is not un-American. You are if you tell people who do to "get out."

So, FOX is Red, MSNBC and CNN are Blue - no one can really argue with that (I know, some do…), but there seems to be precious little news. The NYT and WaPo are Blue and the WSJ is Red, but each paper has a distinct and distinctly separate news department. And they produce news stories. I know many who would argue with that. They are wrong and simply comparing the news stories produced accounting for the same events from the different publications will easily verify that. The problem is that too many have already deferred to the cable news model, applied that to the one that actually works and made up their minds. That, and it seems no one really reads anymore.

When it comes to editorial content, I can count on the WSJ to express a conservative view, but even though it is owned by the same guy who owns FOX News, I do not know what they are going to say – that’s why I read it. The same goes for other legitimate newspapers. Today, the Ed Board for the WSJ commented ("Ed Board" editorials express the collective editorial voice of a newspaper) on the recent report of the positive economic indicators and what they mean. While I expected them to present them in a less positive light for this administration than it would for a Republican one (they did), they also have a reputation to maintain. That means they will not take liberties with the truth. The same goes for the NYT and the WaPo. I get not balanced, but I do get fair. And I read them all. The opinion sections also contain Op-Eds and other opinion from individuals who write for these publications or are invited to contribute. Often, “red” papers will offer “blue” opinions and “blue” papers will offer “red” opinions in their efforts to be fair.

They aren’t the only newspapers I read; in this “age of information,” getting newspapers delivered to my inbox is quick and easy. I get my local news from my local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, and from local TV news — which, remarkably, reports news. It’s not at all in depth, but if I want a 20-minute digest of what went on locally, the Five O’clock News fills a need. The point is that social media doesn’t do a thing for me. At best, it will direct me to something I might not otherwise have heard about, yet, but if it is of interest, I’ll seek out information elsewhere — from a legitimate news source. Journalism, real journalism, still matters — more now than ever.

The "Distant" Past

 Some perspective:

Time is a funny thing. When we look at big chunks of time, like decades, we tend to place it against our own personal histories to contextualize it, to make sense of it. But if that time frame is shifted just a step back, it is almost inconceivable. Try this on for size...

I graduated high school in 1981 - just 43 years ago, almost to the day. However, to even "remember" 1981, one would have to have been born around five years earlier - so, about 1976, our nation's bicentennial, coincidentally. I remember it well. That was all in the 40-45 year time frame ago. Many living today remember those days, it was "not so long ago." Of course, for many more, it was ancient history - the veritable stone-age. There were no personal computers, no internet, no cell-phones, no Fakebook, no electric cars, no streaming, etc. It was a time that only lives in history.

 

For those of us in 1981, walking across that stage, we were all born in the early 60s. But the graduating class 40 years before ours was... the class of 1941. They were graduating right smack-dab in the middle of WWII. Living in those times, for us walking that stage in 1981, was inconceivable. Those days lived only in history books and through the stories of not our parents - they were, for the most part, too young to remember

Why is this important? Because history books don't tell stories - we do. If our kids "don't understand us," it's not their fault, it's ours. It is our job to tell our stories of what the world was like, the good, the bad and the ugly - to reveal what worked, what didn't and why. Various versions of the quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," attributed to George Santayana in 1905, have been repackaged by many, including Winston Churchill, who said in a speech during WWII, "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." That past is revealed through art, through stories, through our elders, by those who were there.

If our kids "don't understand," maybe it's because we aren't telling our stories anymore. Maybe it's because we are too busy passing judgement on who they are to spend any effort explaining who we are - who we were. Because, for them, 1981 was just as ancient as 1941 was to us.

Finding Peace

There are a lot of things in life that used to really irritate me. They were typically things I did not understand and I would conflate that misunderstanding with some kind of a negative effect on my life. In most cases, that is not so. There are other things that irritate me that do constitute a negative effect on my life - at least tangentially. But is that irritation due to their mere existence, or of their being brought to my attention? A good argument can be made for the latter, although the existence of many of those things should irritate everyone.

If someone buys - and drives - an ugly car, like the new Tesla truck, I do not have to find it visually appealing. I do not have to understand why others might. I do not have to understand how anyone could justify buying one... I do not have to "get it." It's none of my business. The same goes for an infinite number of other personal choices ranging from dress, to music, to sexual orientation to gender preference - it does not affect me and why I would care in the least makes no sense. Yet, some of those issues (some, we all have our "some" - I don't get Priuses, but that's just me), used to irritate me. In the past, they irked me to the point I'd be compelled to make commentary about it on social media. I'd get community support validating my position, helping me believe that mine was the right side of decorum, the other side would fade into historical ambivalence.

But it didn't matter. None of those things (not mine, not yours) directly affect my life. They are simply the choices others' are making about their lives, living in a free country. However, there are other things that do affect us and should elicit some type of response, even if it's just a mental note of what to do at the ballot box. No one likes our tax-dollars wasted. No one likes politicians skimming off the top. No one likes the powerful subjugating the powerless. These things affect us all. Personally, as a state employee, I am sensitive to the stereotype of the state employee being paid for a 40 hour work week when they actually put in far less. The reality is that the vast majority put in an honest work week for an honest week's pay. But there are those few who do not, sometime flaunting it publicly, perpetuating the stereotype.

And, of course, there are gray areas. Not in terms of personal gray areas - we are all pretty sure what are public matters that affect us all and what are not - the grayness comes into play in the areas I believe are personal choices that have no affect on me versus the same ones you think are public and a direct affront to you. I cannot resolve this. I can say this, however: My list of things that affront me is considerably shorter than it once was. Considerably. As a result, my life is more peaceful, more serene and brighter. I have also, almost as a side-effect, gained a greater degree of empathy. I wasn't looking for that, but it's not a bad thing. I also wasn't looking to pare down my list, I was simply looking for peace - this was one way in which I have found it.

#ride

Bringing the World Closer

I don't "rank" my friends. I do not have a best, a second best, third best, etc. friend nor do I have any "BFFs" (and, in the words of my dearly departed little brother, "forever is a long-ass time"). Even if I did, I would avoid such labels. Every relationship - friendship or otherwise - is unique. Each has its own combination of characteristics that makes it the only one like it in the history of forever (and, again, that's a long-ass time).

However, there are certain characteristics that can be used to make broad categories. But even the word "friend" is not so concrete. Some people view every single one of their Fakebook friends as an actual friend. I am not here to argue that they are or are not (I don't care, have 5,000 friends, it's your life), but I can say with certainty that all of my 2,000+ Fakebook "friends" are not real friends. In fact, most are not (if you have to ask, you already know the answer).

Further, among them, there are those who are friends, but friends who, if I had some particular urgency, I could count on them to be conveniently unavailable. There are others who I know will drop everything if I needed them. That does not make one group "better" friends than the other, but there is a qualifiable difference in those relationships. In fairness, I am, to others, both. I will drop everything for some and would not for others. Does reciprocity play a role? I'd be lying if I said it didn't, but it's not everything. I'd be there for some who I know would not be for me; I don't know why.

It seems that certain aspects of human interaction, and human connection, and human relations, and relationships, have been diluted with the advent of social media. We are - in what amounts to a nanosecond compared to the whole of human history - all of a sudden provided with the tools to connect with everyone, everywhere, all the time. Not every connection is equal, not all are special, not all need to be "nurtured" and, certainly, not all need to be cherished. And all those "social media influencers" who are "interacting" with you do not have a relationship with you - you are their markets.

This hyper-connectivity is not sustainable. The cracks are already showing, the bottom will, eventually, fall out. Only AI can maintain the number of relationships that the "age of information" has made possible. Those who try to keep up will spend all their time doing only that - they will always be left trying to catch their breath. I was onboard with all of it once, I thought it was cool, it would make the world a better place and bring us all closer. But all of it, even something as innocuous as text messages, has left me rethinking what all this "bringing the world closer" has really done.

Exactly the opposite.