Comcasting for Dollars

March 8, 2014, 12:30 p.m.

Like to join over 150,000 people -- on its way to 200,000 -- who are protesting this merger? Click here for information: http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/help-me-stop-the-comcast-time-warner-merger-2
Why You Need to Care

A company called "Comcast" wants to acquire, and merge with, one called "Time Warner Cable." [Photo source: Comcast.]

Why should you care? Because of this merger's impact on our nation in general, and on you and your children's online life in particular.

Executive Summary
America's Internet and cable access services are already in bad shape, and this proposed $45 billion merger will make them worse, not better. The provision of access to Internet and cable television networks ought to be, like the interstate highway system, a part of the basic, public infrastructure of this country -- as it is in countries with far better Internet service than what we have. Since America refuses to go down that path, a provider of Internet and cable access should at least be perceived and regulated as the common carrier public utility it is -- with a prohibition on common ownership of the content we want and the conduit through which it comes -- like the former AT&T network. But America has a reluctance to learn from the wisdom of other nations. That is why we have not joined the near-unanimous major nations that provide their citizens with universal single-payer healthcare. We are quite willing to pay more while getting less in order to avoid having to modify our ideology. So it is highly likely that, for the immediate future, we will continue to pay more and get less for our cable and Internet access as well.

The merger will only provide incentives for more mergers, provide the merged company with more monopoly power to raise rates while simultaneously requiring less investment in innovation and the kind of more, better and cheaper broadband service available to the citizens of other countries (thereby leaving us lagging even further behind our global competitors) -- while making Comcast the sole source for business' broadband access in 19 of our 20 largest metropolitan areas; create a presence in more congressional districts, thereby increasing its political power, along with even more money to spend on campaign contributions and lobbying. It is a bad deal for America, for Iowa families, for entrepreneurs and the creative community, and even -- as some of the analyses below point out -- for investors in these two companies.

The History and Rationale for Regulating Common Carriers
For starters, any companies that provide services as essential as connection to the Internet (and cable television programming), whose excesses are restrained by neither vigorous marketplace competition nor effective regulation, ought to be treated as common carrier public utilities. No matter how the conflicting views of this merger are ultimately resolved, we are "starting off backing up," with our hopes limited to the possibility we can figure out "how to do the wrong things better" (as John Carver has characterized most efforts to reform school board governance; Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice").

To understand why this is so, and what this merger is really all about, we need a little background.

Historically, there have been some industries and companies thought to be so important, and potentially dangerous, that many countries required that they be owned and operated by the government -- with regard to communications, an agency often called a "Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Service," or "PTT." Our preferred compromise (between government ownership-operation on the one hand, and unregulated private ownership-operation on the other) was to permit private ownership, but subject the firms to regulation of everything from their rate of return on investment to the quality of their customer service.

Such companies usually had two qualities. (1) They provided what many would consider to be "essential services." (2) Because they were often natural monopolies, their prices and quality of service were not controlled by a competitive free market.

For example, railroads are an essential service for manufacturers who want to ship their products to customers and retail outlets. And the cost of creating and maintaining track, locomotives and rolling stock make it economically infeasible to have two or more railroad companies serving the same route.

President Theodore Roosevelt explained, "The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the railways engaged in interstate commerce. [It] is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other. Above all else, we must strive to keep the highways of commerce open to all on equal terms; and to do this it is necessary to put a complete stop to all rebates." See "Railroad Regulation" in "Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt," Wikipedia.org.

Iowa farmers, and their representatives -- especially Iowa's U.S. Senator William Allison -- played a major role in the legislation that followed, including the Elkins Act of 1903 and Hepburn Act of 1906. Those laws gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the power to examine the railroads' financial records, set their rates, and eliminated the preferences they gave to some shippers. Ibid. [Photo Source: bioguide.congress.gov.]

Such companies are called public utilities, or common carriers.

The Civil Aeronautics Board, from its inception in 1938 until its abolition in 1985, did for another form of transportation, the airline industry, what the ICC did for railroads. Water is supplied to most American homes by a municipally-owned agency or regulated public utility. Electricity and natural gas companies are regulated monopolies. Our original effort to create a nationwide telephone "universal service," using the monopoly AT&T, was regulated as a public utility. A similar commitment to another form of "universal service" to benefit every American took the form of our national Postal Service.

By every rational, historical, legal, and economic analysis the monopolists providing Internet access and cable television (often "bundled" with phone service as well) should be conceived of, and regulated as, common carrier public utilities. (a) Internet access, and to a somewhat lesser degree, cable television, are as essential to Americans in the early 21st Century as electricity and telephone service were to those in the early 20th Century. (b) And they are similarly monopolistic -- unconstrained in price setting and truly lousy customer service by either the forces of a truly competitive market or effective regulation.

Indeed, it is the consumer satisfaction indices that tell the tale. The industry with the absolute lowest level of consumer satisfaction? Cable television. And not insignificant with regard to this proposed merger, who is at the bottom -- not near the bottom, or among those at the bottom -- but at the very bottom of the list of cable companies for consumer satisfaction? Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

There is little or no justification for permitting any cable companies to merge. But if just one merger was to be approved, why on earth would one select and reward the two worst companies in the industry by permitting them to merge? See Adam Pasick, "A Comcast-Time Warner Cable Deal Would Combine Two of America's Most-Reviled Companies," Quartz, Feb. 13, 2014 (the 2013 rankings of Internet service providers in the American Customer Service Index ranged, for the top five, from 64 to 71; Comcast, at 62, was at the very bottom, and Time Warner Cable was immediately above it, at 63).

Maintaining a Separation of Content and Conduit
There is another problem that will persist no matter how the requested merger is resolved. Those providing our path to cable television and Internet content will also own some of that content, which they can favor in various ways over the content of their competitors. This creates a potential for enormous innovative mischief, destroys a fully competitive marketplace, is unfair to their competitors, and harms consumers in a variety of ways.

Why is this so? Once again, we need a little background.

One of the reasons for the antitrust law's restrictions on mergers is that it makes more sense to avoid the circumstances that breed anti-competitive practices than to permit the creation of those circumstances, and then try to regulate powerful industry players with an administrative agency's oversight of their every move. This is not rocket science. It is no more than one of many practical applications of the centuries-old maxim, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Benjamin Franklin, "Old Citizen," Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 4, 1735. [Photo source: commons.wikimedia.org.]

Prevention of corporate abuse (as by forbidding the mergers that make it possible) is simply more effective, cheaper for taxpayers, better serves consumers, is fairer for competitors, and produces a healthier economy than any alternative.

And so it is with "the separation of content and conduit."

The one-time telephone monopoly, AT&T (1875-1984), was the occasional butt of jokes. Lilly Tomlin's routine, as the AT&T spokesperson "Ernestine," was one of the best known. In response to customer complaints, she finally concludes, "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company." "The Phone Company," Saturday Night Live Transcripts, Season 2, Episode 1, 76a, Sept. 18, 1976.

But none of the complaints about AT&T, whether serious or dressed in humor, at least so far as I recall, ever involved the company's preferences of some customers over others, or a control of the content of their conversations. I don't believe the American Civil Liberties Union ever had to sue AT&T for its restraints on the content of customers' conversations. Law enforcement agencies might care if you used your phone for harassing or stalking someone, the fraudulent promotion of a stock, sale of an illegal substance, or the disclosure of classified information. However, so far as AT&T was concerned, you were (with possibly insignificant exceptions) free to speak to anyone you wished, for as long as you wished, about anything you wished -- for a flat monthly fee.

AT&T just provided the conduit -- including the twisted pair of wires that carried those voice conversations into your home and ultimately your black telephone. Everyone who wanted a phone was entitled to have a phone. Everyone's calls moved through the network at the same speed. (And, not incidentally, the service for local calls was cheap -- about $2.00 or $3.00 a month as I remember from my youth. "Universal service" not only provided everyone a phone, it also subsidized the cost of that local phone service with the prices charged for business phones and "long distance" calls.)

There was, in short, a total separation of "content" (what was said) from "conduit" (the ownership and operation of the network of cables and switches).

Just as it was explained above, "by every rational, historical, legal, and economic analysis the monopolists providing Internet access and cable television [should be considered, and regulated as, common carriers]," so too (and for similar reasons) should they have the same separation of content and conduit as the old AT&T.

Why? Because in a business of offering access to cable programming, or the Internet's vast content, there are thousands of potential unfair competitive advantages available to the company that owns both the programming and the wires (or towers) through which it travels. It can slow download speeds for its competitors' programming, or degrade the signal quality. It can block customers' access to some sites entirely. It can exact extra payment from its competitors in exchange for a slight improvement in its customers' access to competitors' programming. The opportunities are endless.

So to what extent is Comcast in the programming business? Here's the list that freepress.net put together:

Company Overview. In 2011, the Federal Communications Commission approved Comcast’s takeover of a majority share of NBCUniversal from General Electric. This merger combines the nation's largest cable company and residential Internet service provider and one of the world's biggest producers of TV shows and motion pictures. Comcast’s media holdings now reach almost every home in America. It serves customers in 39 states and the District of Columbia. In addition to its vast NBCUniversal holdings, Comcast has 23.6 million cable subscribers, 18 million digital cable subscribers, 15.9 million high-speed Internet customers and 7.6 million voice customers. Comcast recently entered into a partnership with Verizon in which each company will market and sell the other's services.

TV: NBCUniversal; twenty-four television stations and the NBC television network; Telemundo; USA Network; SyFy; CNBC; MSNBC; Bravo; Oxygen; Chiller; CNBC World; E!; the Golf Channel; Sleuth; mun2; Universal HD; VERSUS; Style; G4; Comcast SportsNet (Philadelphia), Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic (Baltimore/Washington, D.C.), Cable Sports Southeast, Comcast SportsNet Chicago, MountainWest Sports Network, Comcast SportsNet California (Sacramento), Comcast SportsNet New England (Boston), Comcast SportsNet Northwest (Portland, Ore.), Comcast Sports Southwest (Houston), Comcast SportsNet Bay Area (San Francisco), New England Cable News (Boston), Comcast Network Philadelphia, Comcast Network Mid-Atlantic (Baltimore/Washington, D.C.); the Weather Channel (25 percent stake); A&E (16 percent stake); the History Channel (16 percent stake); the Biography Channel (16 percent stake); Lifetime (16 percent stake); the Crime and Investigation Channel (16 percent stake); Pittsburgh Cable News Channel (30 percent stake); FEARnet (31 percent stake); PBS KIDS Sprout (40 percent stake); TV One (34 percent stake); Houston Regional Sports Network (23 percent stake); SportsNet New York (8 percent stake)

Online Holdings: MSNBC.com (50 percent stake); Hulu (32 percent stake); DailyCandy; iVillage; Fandango

Telecom: Clearwire Communications (9 percent stake)

Other: Comcast Interactive Media; Plaxo; Universal Studios Hollywood; Wet 'n Wild theme park; Universal Studios Florida; Universal Islands of Adventure; Philadelphia 76ers; Philadelphia Flyers; Wells Fargo Center; iN DEMAND; Music Choice (12 percent stake); SpectrumCo (64 percent stake)

One would think those holdings sufficient to satisfy even the most aggressive investor's wildest dreams of avarice. Why would Comcast also need to own, set the standards, operate, and profit from the pipe that delivers that content, along with that of its competitors, to roughly one-third of all American homes?

But that's not all
So far we have only addressed the problems inherent in the pre-merger marketplace -- the failure to prevent Comcast and Time Warner Cable from becoming as big as each already is, the failure to treat both as common carrier public utilities, and the failure to insist that they make a choice between operating the conduit or providing the programming, rather than permitting them to do both.

We now proceed to our equivalent of the question put to Mrs. Lincoln after her husband was assassinated in the Ford Theater: "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" (the line is attributed to Tom Lehrer). That is, apart from the fact that consumers and competitors are going to continue to be abused by these companies regardless of how the merger is resolved, how might this merger make matters even worse?

As Elizabeth Barrett Browning said when asked about this merger, "Let me count the ways."

"[C]ompanies are profit-driven, and . . . work toward the specific incentive of making more money. . . . This . . . does not bode well for consumers . . .. [They would] merge control of about a third of the country's cable customers into one company. Customers are already stuck paying whatever these companies decide . . . where they are the only option for cable. [They do not compete] in any of the same zip codes across the country. In addition, these two companies have placed at the absolute bottom of customer service quality lists for years. Putting them together does not suggest an improvement . . .." Karl Avard, "Time Warner-Comcast Merger: A Bad Move for Both Companies," The Motley Fool, Feb. 21, 2014.

The Motley Fool?! Yes, that's right. This story is designed for investors, not cable subscribers. If you care, it's Avard's judgment that this merger isn't so great for investors either: "this merger will ultimately be bad for the business and stock prices of both Comcast and Time Warner Cable because it will mark the tipping point for consumers to start 'cord-cutting.'" Never mind what's meant by "cord-cutting." The point is that this merger is not only bad for consumers, it's even bad for investors according to this investment advisory source.

So The Motley Fool doesn't think much of this deal. Surely somebody in the business community likes it. Right? How about Bloomberg?

Oh my, here's what Bloomberg published: Susan Crawford, "Comcast's Time Warner Deal Is Bad for America," Bloomberg View, Feb. 13, 2014. [Photo credit: Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University.]

So why does Bloomberg feel obliged to let its readers know that this merger "Is Bad for America"? Here are some excerpts from Ms. Crawford's piece:

David Cohen, Comcast Corp.'s executive vice president and the mastermind behind its deal to buy Time Warner Cable Inc., . . . had to acknowledge that the public might be worried about the power of this combination. "It may sound scary," he said.

Indeed it does. . . . Ninety-one percent of Americans who subscribe to data services also buy video services, so the relevant market for them is the bundle. When it comes to bundles, satellite companies Dish Network Corp. and DIRECTV can't offer the data capacity that Comcast can . . ..

[F]or the vast majority of businesses in 19 of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country, their only choice for a high-capacity wired connection will be Comcast. Comcast, in turn, has its own built-in conflicts of interest: It will be serving the interests of its shareholders by keeping investments in its network as low as possible -- in particular, making no move to provide the world-class fiber-optic connections that are now standard and cheap in other countries -- and extracting as much rent as it can . . ..

For a country attempting to compete on the global stage, this is a problem. It's time to recognize that industrial policy -- true leadership, the kinds of initiatives that brought us the federal highway system and national electrification -- is called for. If regulating these guys is too difficult, let's allow mayors to build alternative fiber-optic networks such as the one in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that has lured businesses and spurred economic growth. We can't allow our future to be captured by the short-term cash flow desires of Comcast's investors. . . .

Cohen . . . [points] out that these two companies don't compete in a single ZIP code in America. That's because they long ago clustered their operations and divided markets . . ..

The Department of Justice . . . can't create competition where none exists. It can't mandate that all U.S. businesses have world-class, inexpensive fiber-optic connections. But the Federal Communications Commission and the executive branch can. . . .

We're all the people of Fort Lee, New Jersey, trying to get on the George Washington Bridge. There's a bully narrowing our access to the world whose interests aren't aligned with ours. . . . Let's be clear: This is old-school monopolistic behavior. . . .

High-speed wired connections are now infrastructure, just like bridges, roads, and water. We [must ensure] that American businesses aren't forced to pay whatever tribute Comcast demands in order to thrive.

As she noted earlier for Bloomberg, "cable is a business that relies on scale; the game is to increase the number of subscribers and lower all possible costs, then grind away with one price increase after another. And when big operators get bigger, their scale grows." Susan Crawford, "Time Warner Cable Sale Will Cost Us All," Bloomberg View, Jan. 27, 2014.

The Business section of Time isn't any more sanguine about this deal. It quotes John Bergmayer of Public Knowledge, "An enlarged Comcast would be the bully in the schoolyard, able to dictate terms to content creators, Internet companies, other communications networks . . . and distributors who must access its content [which would] raise costs for consumers, who ultimately pay the bill." Its story notes that "Comcast already owns NBCUniversal, one of the giants of American media and entertainment . . . [and that the merger] will mean fewer competitive incentives to invest in network infrastructure, and will likely lead to higher prices and less innovation." Sam Gustin, "Massive Cable Deal Means Your Bill May Jump," Technology & Media, Business & Money, Time, Feb. 14, 2014.

Not surprisingly, these sentiments were shared over on the Huffington Post. Mark Gongloff, "Comcast, Time Warner Cable Deal Is A Disaster for Consumers," Huffington Post, Feb. 20, 2014. Here are excerpts:

They say two wrongs don't make a right, and consumers are about to get proof of that with the merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

The $45 billion merger announced Thursday . . . will be no victory for their combined 30 million customers, who are already among the least-happy customers in all of Corporate America.

The two companies last year were the lowest-scoring cable companies in the American Customer Satisfaction Index, mainly because of the weakness of their customer service. That made them the least-loved companies in one of the least-loved industries for customer satisfaction. The only two industries with worse customer-satisfaction ratings, according to Consumerist, are newspapers and internet providers. By the way, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are also internet providers.

Little wonder, then, that the two companies were near the top of Consumerist's Worst Company In America contest last year . . .. Comcast . . . took home the title of Worst Company in 2010 . . ..

The history of mergers suggests customer service might only get worse for these two companies. Coupling companies typically struggle to knit together their massive systems, and customers get lost in the process. When Comcast bought AT&T Broadband for $50 billion in 2002, customer billing problems led to such a backlash that the company ultimately launched a "Think Customer First" training program.

A BusinessWeek study of 28 mergers between 1997 and 2002 found that customer-satisfaction ratings dropped significantly after the unions, with the effect lasting for years. Cable companies suffered some of the biggest drops in that study.. . .

"So much can go wrong — computer integration snafus, recordkeeping glitches, you name it," Cahill [Joe Cahill of Crain's Chicago Business] wrote, "and almost all of it affects customers." . . .

[C]ompanies scramble to keep customers from fleeing. But after a long history of industry consolidation, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have so little competition that their customers might have nowhere to flee.

So that's how I see this potential merger.

As I began, . . .
Things are already bad, and this proposed merger will make them worse, not better. The provision of access to Internet and cable television networks ought to be, like the interstate highway system, a part of the basic, public infrastructure of this country -- as it is in countries with far better Internet service than what we have. Since America refuses to go down that path, a provider of Internet and cable access should at least be perceived and regulated as the common carrier public utility it is -- with a prohibition on common ownership of the content we want and the conduit through which it comes -- like the former AT&T network. But America has a reluctance to learn from the wisdom of other nations. That is why we have not joined the near-unanimous major nations that provide their citizens with universal single-payer healthcare. We are quite willing to pay more while getting less in order to avoid having to modify our ideology. So it is highly likely that, for the immediate future, we will also be paying more and getting less for our cable and Internet access as well.

The merger will only provide incentives for more mergers; provide the merged company with more monopoly power to raise rates while simultaneously requiring less investment in innovation and the kind of more, better and cheaper broadband service available to the citizens of other countries (thereby leaving us lagging even further behind our global competitors) -- while making Comcast the sole source for business' broadband access in 19 of our 20 largest metropolitan areas; create a presence in more congressional districts, thereby increasing its political power, along with even more money to spend on campaign contributions and lobbying. It is a bad deal for America, for Iowa families, for entrepreneurs and the creative community, and even -- as some of the analyses above point out -- for investors in these two companies.

If you'd like to join over 150,000 people -- on their way to 200,000 -- who are protesting this merger, click here for information: http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/help-me-stop-the-comcast-time-warner-merger-2



# # #

Open Mikes at Open Meetings?

February 12, 2014, 6:30 a.m.

Note: This blog essay was the source of the material in the following Iowa City Press-Citizen op ed column:

Public Comments About Public Comments Guidelines
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
February 15, 2014
The Iowa City Community School Board, commendably, endeavors to govern through enunciated policies. But sparks flew at Tuesday’s meeting during the public’s comments about public comments guidelines from the board.

Let’s put the issues in context.

• 1: “Open Meetings” don’t require “open mikes.” The law requires the school board to permit the public to attend its meetings (subject to specific exceptions). It does not require the board to permit the public to speak at those meetings.

• 2: Board members are volunteers. They have limited time to tend to the board business the law requires they address in open board meetings. Doing that business is the meetings’ primary purpose.

• 3: The board needs stakeholder input. There are many reasons why. (a) It is of the essence of a self-governing democracy that students, parents, teachers and others be heard. (b) Elected officials are responsible to constituents. (c) Board members’ decisions should be informed (though not dictated) by public comments — especially when an agenda item has limited prior opportunity for public input.

• 4: We need “public citizens.” Journalists can’t do it all. The public would be better off if all school boards, city councils, county boards and legislative committees had a few people following their work like our school board does. You don’t have to approve all of their tactics to know that the board and public would be worse off without our public citizens’ research and tenacity. In fact, think about picking your own agency to track.

• 5: Alternative opportunities. Input’s not limited to meetings. Consider talking to board members, sending them email or letters. The board might have a website to display public comments and interactive listening sessions. If board members’ responses reflect occasional modifications of prior positions, these alternatives can reduce (though not eliminate) the need and desire for discussion during board meetings.

• 6: The guidelines. There were two categories of public objection to the guidelines: some involved specific language, others a “slippery slope” concern of greater restrictions to come.

• a: School boards, like legislative committees and judges, have the inherent right, and responsibility, to maintain decorum in their workplace. Judges don’t need detailed regulations; an ignored warning risks contempt of court. School boards can’t fine or jail for disruptive behavior, but they can apply common sense — and even remove individuals if necessary.

• b: Guidelines’ language should be sufficiently precise to be clear without excessive detail. Even Iowa’s first speed limits were simply “reasonable and proper.”

• c: Allowing public comment at the beginning, rather than the end of meetings, is just plain thoughtful. As for time, the board could declare that time for comments, in total and for each speaker, will vary depending on the number of people who want to speak, how often that speaker has spoken, the public interest in a topic, and the amount of board business.

• d: Having speakers “sign in,” speak one at a time, and from the podium, can promote order and improve television coverage.

• e: Avoid vague standards regarding the content of speakers’ statements. Saying comments must involve “matters of public concern,” expressed with “respect and decorum” is both too narrow and overly broad. The same can be said for the guidelines’ specificity regarding punishments for violations. Certainly speakers should not be prohibited from criticizing the board and administration, or for using occasionally colorful language. Some content-based restrictions could even run afoul of the First Amendment.

This challenge can be met. In the end, it is a matter of balance and common sense — something for which Iowans are noted. ._______________ Nicholas Johnson who served on the Iowa City school board, 1998-2001, maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and the blog http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

The original blog essay follows:

A Discussion About Discussion

As occasionally happens at Iowa City Community School District School Board meetings, all hell broke loose last night. Gregg Hennigan, "I.C. School Board Meeting Gets Heated; Proposed Public Comment Guidelines Draw Several Rebukes; No Vote Taken," The Gazette, Feb. 12, 2014, p. A11 ("Discussion got fiery last night as the Iowa City school board debated the first reading of new guidelines on public comment at meetings."); Holly Hines, "Speaking Policy Sparks ICCSB Debate," Iowas City Press-Citizen, Feb. 12, 2014, p. A1. [Photo: ICCSD School Board members in meeting. Not the current Board.]

In brief, the Board, which endeavors to govern through enunciated policies, struggled with how to handle public comments at its meetings and came up with proposed "guidelines" (set forth in full at the bottom of this blog essay). The guidelines got their "first reading" at last evening's meeting, whereupon the spontaneous public comments about the guidelines for public comments got a little raucous.

Here's how Hennigan described the Board's dilemma in balancing (1) the opportunity for public input at Board meetings, on the one hand, against (2) a felt need to maintain a tone of civility, a sense of order, and avoidance of a few dominating the discussion time:

[S]ome board members and school officials have indicated it's a couple of people in particular that they consider problems [naming them]. Both have run for but failed to get elected to school board, with [one] narrowly losing the last two elections. Both attend almost every board meeting and speak several times each on various agenda items. And both typically are harshly critical of board or administrative decisions and sometimes get personal with their comments. At a December meeting . . . one person submitted speaking forms for six items, and another, 11."

As dramatic as last evening's Board meeting apparently was, and as juicy as the news coverage it can provide may be, there are serious issues here that require a little context and reflection. This is a brief attempt. [Photo: public attending ICCSD Board hearing; not last evening.]

(1) "Open Meetings" don't require "Open Mikes." The law requires the school board permit the public to attend its meetings (subject to specific exceptions). It does not require that the board permit members of the public to speak at those meetings.

(2) The primary purpose of board meetings is board business. Because the board has work that it must do, as a board (both as a matter of law, and of good governance), and because board members are volunteers who have limited time to give to board business, the primary function of board meetings is to provide an opportunity for board members to be able to do board business.

(3) The board needs public input. There are many reasons why it is desirable for board members to hear from, and interact with, the school district’s stakeholders – students, parents, teachers, other employees, officials from other public bodies, and taxpayers. (a) It is of the essence of a self-governing democracy. (b) Elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents. (c) Board members’ positions and decisions should be informed (though not dictated) by public opinion. (d) Politically, listening to one’s constituents may be a necessary prerequisite to reelection. These considerations are especially weighty when the public comments relate to board agenda items for which there has been limited, or no, prior opportunity for significant public comment.

In fact, I believe we would all be better off if every school board, zoning board, city council, county board of supervisors, legislative committee, and other public body and agency had two people following their work like the two Hennigan mentions are following the ICCSD school board. Based on what I know, each takes this self-imposed duty seriously, devotes time, does research, speaks out, follows up with tenacity, and is often pursuing matters that almost anyone would agree need a little more attention. I would encourage anyone with the slightest interest in doing so to pick their own public body and agency and perform this role of "public citizen."

Obviously, this does not mean that I agree with every subject these two have prioritized and followed, or with all of the tactics they have apparently believed were constructive and effective in pursuing their view of "the public interest." But I do believe we would all be the worse off if the school board were to somehow remove them from the process entirely.

(4) Alternative opportunities for input. Of course, this interaction can take a variety of forms in addition to public comments at board meetings: personal conversations, email or letters, a Web page open to public comments, listening-interactive sessions held at convenient locations (such as schools around the district) solely for the purpose of dialogue with members of the public. Increasing such alternative opportunities for public input -- especially if board members' responses reflect their impact on changes in board members' positions -- can reduce both the need and desire, for board members and public alike, of lengthy public discussion during board meetings.

(5) The guidelines' standards. Some of the heat last evening was a response to the specific language in the guidelines (set forth below, in full). (Although some was also driven by a "slippery slope" concern that any restriction on public speech during board meetings might lead to shutting out the public entirely.)

(a) School boards, like legislative committees, executive branch agencies, and judges in their courtrooms, have the responsibility, as well as the right, to maintain decorum with regard to the public speech and behavior in their places of work (with some exceptions). A judge need not set forth detailed regulations regarding the specifics of the behavior that he or she will treat as deserving of punishment for "contempt." School boards should be similarly able to control public comments during their board meetings.

(b) It is probably desirable for the school board to announce in advance some guidelines. But it should not be necessary for them to specify in advance a detailed description of each and every act that it will, and will not, permit. Language should be sufficiently precise as to be clear, and yet not so detailed as to turn a matter of informal common sense into something more resembling the intricacies of the Internal Revenue Code. Recall that even Iowa's early highway speed limits were no more specific than "reasonable and proper."

(c) For example, allowing public comment at the beginning, rather than at the end, of meetings is simply thoughtful. That is a specific that could be stated as policy. On the other hand, the board might make clear that the amount of time devoted to comments, both in total and for each speaker, will reasonably vary from one meeting to another, depending upon the number of people who wish to speak, the number of times an individual has spoken, the intensity of public interest in a topic, and the amount of board business on the meeting agenda.

(d) It probably makes sense to have people “sign in” with name, address, phone, and email address, so as to have a record for the board minutes. And requiring speakers to speak one at a time, and from the podium, not only promotes order, and the possibility of being heard, but also better television coverage of the meetings.

(e) It is best to avoid vague standards regarding the content of attendees' speech -– if for no other reason than that the board is “Congress” for purposes of the First Amendment, and content-based restrictions on speech might very well be a constitutional violation. Certainly speakers should not be punished for criticism of the board or administration, or for using the occasionally colorful language that has been a part of America's ongoing political conversation for hundreds of years.

Requiring that comments must involve “matters of public concern” expressed with “respect and decorum” are both too narrow and overly broad. (They are too narrow because they omit many other considerations; they are too broad because they are vague.) Terms like this lie at the side of the road to civil discourse like IEDs in Afghanistan -– providing just one more subject about which arguments can flare. ("You're out of order. That's not 'a matter of public conern.'" "Oh yes it is." "No, it's not.") The same can be said for specifying the sanctions to be applied when “the rules” are violated.

In sum, it is probably better for a school board to exercise the discretion of a judge in getting on with the business at hand, and maintaining decorum, in his or her courtroom -– where the public also has a right to be present, but does not have a right to speak.

Full Text of Proposed Guidelines
ICCSD Public Comment Guidelines

The Iowa City Community School District Board of Directors is committed to maintaining an environment of dignity and respect in all district schools and buildings and at all District activities, events, and meetings. The Board of Directors has promulgated policies of the ICCSD, which mandate a safe and civil atmosphere at district events (Board Policy Code No. 104). Specifically, the Board is committed to a policy of Equal Educational Opportunity, and within this policy the right of all “students and staff to be treated with respect and to be protected from intimidation, discrimination, physical harm and harassment” (Code No. 102).

Beyond the Policies of the Board of Directors, the Superintendent and administration are also committed to maintaining environments free of harassment and discrimination. Superintendent Directive Positive Stakeholder Relations mandates that the Superintendent shall “ensure that conditions, procedures, or decisions are safe, dignified, and that provide appropriate confidentiality and privacy,” and that stakeholder interactions “[p]rohibit the use of abusive language and other behavior generally considered to be lacking in civility and respect for others” (POSITIVE STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS, Level 3a(5)). In addition, The Superintendent is charged with ensuring “conditions that are dignified and consistent with the mission of the public school system” for all staff (STAFF RELATIONS, Level 2b).

To promote a positive educational environment at Board Meetings and to ensure the respect and dignity due every stakeholder under District policy, the following guidelines are in place to guide public comment during ICCSD Board of Director meetings:

Once recognized to speak, speakers are limited to three (3) minutes of public comment

Speakers must submit a request form, which is available at the Board Meeting, to the recording secretary in order to be recognized to speak by the Board President

Comments should be related to matters of public concern

Speakers addressing the Board will conduct himself/herself with respect and decorum.

Comments or expressions that are abusive, harassing, bullying, discriminatory, or lewd shall be prohibited

Comments will only be made from the podium microphone after the community member is recognized by the Board President. Comments made from the audience shall be considered out of order and subject to sanction under this policy

Violations of this policy will result in the Board of Directors, through the Board President, sanctioning the member of the school community that violates these guidelines. Generally, sanctions will be imposed, in a progressive manner, as follows:

A verbal warning by the Board President that the policy has been violated

A written notification that the policy continues to be violated

A suspension from speaking at Board of Directors Meetings

These sanctions do not prohibit the Board President from moving directly to a suspension of speaking privileges for behaviors that are considered egregious. Members of the community that are disruptive to the meeting or refuse to abide by the guidelines may be immediately asked to leave the Board Meeting (or other District meetings where public comment is available). This policy does not prohibit the Board or Administration from enforcing other District Policies in concert with this policy.
# # #

Pete Seeger and An Antidote to Apathy

February 2, 2014, 1:10 p.m.
"We Shall Overcome"
Why bother? What's the point? What difference can I possibly make?

Ever felt that way? Many do.

Yet others keep at it, whatever the odds, staring down defeat. What sustains them? What keeps them going?

One of those people was Pete Seeger. His example, commitment, and endurance was an inspiration to me as a young man -- and to millions of others during the past sixty-plus years. He was an icon, larger than life, and lots more fun. I never dreamed in those days that I would someday be sharing a stage with him at rallies, enjoying a private, quiet dinner and evening's conversation with Pete, and his wife, Toshi, in their Beacon, New York, home overlooking the Hudson River he was fighting for, or that he would be providing support for the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, for which I was the chair. [Photo credit: Bennett Raglin/Getty Images; multiple sources.]

What a life he led! Past tense because, as all but cave dwellers are by now aware, he died last Monday, January 27, at the age of 94. Jon Parelesjan, "Pete Seeger, Champion of Folk Music and Social Change, Dies at 94," New York Times, Jan. 29, 2014, p. A20. His wife, Toshi, predeceased him last year, Elisabeth Blair, "Toshi Seeger, Wife Of Folk Singer Pete Seeger, Dies At 91," New York Times, July 11, 2013 -- just shy of their 70th anniversary.

His death marks the end of an era, an era of folk songs and banjo, his leading audiences of thousands in song, energizing, organizing and raising our hopes that change was possible.

Memories of Pete Seeger flooded back again a couple of days ago as I read an email from a young man I know. It was going to require a response, and it got me to thinking about why it is that some are able to keep going for 94 years, while others give up after years and years of frustration.

First, here are some excerpts from what that young man wrote me:

Over the years I've written numerous letters to the editor, attended several public meetings, joined local non-profit groups and gone to their meetings, written directly to government officials (both email and postal letters), spoken with sheriffs and police chiefs, tried to change things at work by talking with management and working with the union, written gobs of blog entries, forum posts and comments on online newspaper articles -- on and on -- and essentially none of it has mattered. All my effort has amounted to practically nothing.

After one disaster in which people were killed and injured, I got the impression that no one wanted to know the truth. Perhaps there were enough people who might potentially get burned that they all just got together and buried it. When I try to bring things like this to the attention of local reporters they either never respond to my calls and emails, or don't seem to care. There is just a collective shrug. Crickets chirping.

I'm pretty much done fighting. I really don't see the point.

That's not to say there haven't been some advances in society over the last 50-100 years. Of course there have been, most of them involving civil rights. But it doesn't do anyone much good to be able to vote, for example, if powerful special interests are determining the candidates and the ship is headed for the iceberg.

Regardless of whether one thinks we are headed for nirvana or total annihilation, it really seems to me that the speed and the course are beyond the control of most individuals and groups. Any of us can rant and rave about the politics, WalMart, overpopulation, over-development, abortion, stem cells, guns, church/state issues, the Middle East, nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, public education, and taxes, and it just does not matter. We're almost always either preaching to the choir and/or pissing off a large number of people (some of whom may be mentally unstable). It's exceedingly unlikely that one of the Waltons, or a bishop protecting pedophile priests, or a KKK member, or a cement head conservative would read something -- written by anyone really, but especially little ol' me -- and say to themselves, "You know, this guy makes a lot of sense! I realize now that I've been wrong my entire life. Gosh darn it, I'm gonna turn over a new leaf and do the right thing!"

The deck is stacked. Just one example from emails I received today -- efforts to stop the XL pipeline. I think we all know how that's gonna go. I doesn't matter how many people are against it -- there's too much money at stake. Obama will approve it.

Even in years past, for every JFK, Martin Luther King, or Gandhi -- every person who ever made a difference -- there were scores of others who worked, sacrificed, and suffered in vain. Not to mention that all of the above were eventually assassinated.

_______________
There are good reasons for millions of Americans to share that sense of hopelessness. And frankly, I don't know what the best response would be to those who feel that way. I'm sure there are many who could do a better job than I in coming up with a response. In any event, here was my feeble effort:

There are many potential responses to what you wrote.

Sadly, yours may be the majority view. Look at the voting turnout in Iowa City – the world’s third-selected “City of Literature,” a city one with one of the nation’s highest percentages of college graduates, one seen as so progressive as to be characterized as “The People's Republic of Johnson County” by those in Western Iowa. We often get turnouts of 5% to 10% of the eligible voters for city council, school board, and bond elections. Apathy rules.

There is certainly a lot of evidence to support your position. How many “public interest” organizations have shut down because their initial mission was accomplished?

(1) Strategy and Tactics. Those engaged in promoting change would do well to give more thought to strategies and tactics. When Dick Remington and I were co-directors of the Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy, we did a benefit-cost/triage analysis of where we might best put our time and money. We decided, in turn, to focus on (a) control of tobacco use, as it was the number one cause of death, (b) emphasize preventing pre-teens from taking up smoking (as more cost-effective than trying to get nicotine addicts off their drug), and (c) raising the price of cigarettes as the most effective way of discouraging children from taking up smoking. What are the causes that both hold the greatest potential for human betterment, and chance of accomplishment through the efforts of individual citizens? Success, a sense of accomplishment, what community organizers call "the fixed fight," are among the best antidotes for discouragement.

Some causes really are hopeless -– at least at a given time. “Pick your battles,” as my wife advises me. LBJ asked his presidential appointees to provide him with proposals for policies that would best serve the national interest. He said we should not make judgments about what is, and is not, possible -– he would make those judgments. As a congressman’s daughter in law, returning with the family from the south after Christmas, once put it, “Nick, some of those people are just going to have to die” -– not meaning that they should be killed, but that it is seemingly impossible to reason with them. As Thomas Paine explained a couple centuries earlier, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason . . . is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” (From Thomas Paine, The American Crisis.)

(2) Words Matter. But Thomas Paine said something else that I often think of, that reflects his understanding of both what a long and hard road it is to bring about change, but also how important incremental efforts can be: “The words pile up and then men do things. But first the words.” (I can’t find the source of that right now.) His pamphlet, Common Sense,” played a major role in the American Revolution. As John Adams is credited with having said, “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.”

(3) Of Butterflies and Politics. Do you know about what’s called “the butterfly effect” (a butterfly flapping its wings in China might potentially contribute to the formation of a hurricane in North America weeks later)? Everything you say, every email you write, every letter to the editor you get published, every comment you make to the host of a call-in radio program, is at least the political equivalent of those butterfly wings flapping. Your words do have some effect -- even if so slight as to be immeasurable. It will certainly rarely be enough, by itself, to produce action or change.

Each leaf that fluttered to the bottom of the pool millions of years ago seemed insignificant, but it ultimately became part of a billion barrels of oil. Your support of ZPG (Zero Population Growth), and writing about global population, is an example; you have been a part of a growing global awareness that has, in fact, slowed population growth in many parts of the world.

Think tanks and various task forces and commissions come out with reports full of proposals to make things better. When they do, some people complain, “Oh, just another report to go on the shelf and gather dust.” My thought is, yes, more reports do come along every decade or so on this subject. But ultimately the time is right, a public official's staff person reads through all those old reports, gets the ear of his or her employer, and action follows.

Change is slow in coming. Very slow. As Paine began Common Sense, “Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

Think of how long it took to convince Americans that slavery was not cool, or that perhaps it was worth taking the risk of letting women vote, or that it was not folly to create a national park system, or Social Security payments.

(4) A Swinging Pendulum Moves the Clock Forward. The pendulum swings. It’s not always “two steps forward and one step back.” Sometimes it’s “one step forward and two steps back.” Sometimes it’s no steps forward. But even a sailboat can sail into the wind by tacking; the reformer’s job is to figure out the equivalent of tacking when sailing into overwhelming opposition. Even the very best professional baseball players don't get a hit, let alone a home run, every time at bat. When I was doing door-to-door selling I read that it's normal to be turned down at least ten times for every sale. Politics, and reform of public policy is like that. A realistic sense of what's possible reduces frustration.

(5) The Personal Return from Making an Effort. Finally, there is the impact on the person engaged in trying to bring about change. There is actually some psychological data on this, I think.

Being engaged in the passions of one’s time is good for your physical, mental and emotional health. It often involves working with others you would not otherwise have come to know. It energizes you, gives you a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Discouragement? Sure. But as President Kennedy said at Rice University, Sept. 12, 1962, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Want a little advice? Take a measured, realistic view of what anyone can accomplish, the causes that are hopeless, those that are going to take decades and yet have a chance. Don’t take on too much. Don’t stress yourself out with lack of sleep and perpetual frustration. Maintain a sense of humor about it all. Find additional activities that are predominantly pleasant. But you’ll continue to benefit, even personally, not to mention for others, by not giving up entirely on trying to improve the status quo -– Latin for “the mess we’re in now.” Help clean it up. It's worth it.

# # #

On Love and Fear in Politics

January 18, 2013, 9:20 a.m. -- and see, "Governor Christie's 'Plausible Deniability; And Why Democrats Should Care," January 13, 2014.

From Machiavelli to Christie

[A] question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but [it] . . . is much safer to be feared than loved . . .. [People] are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours . . .. [The] prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships . . . cannot be relied upon . . .. [L]love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

-- Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince (1532), Chapter 17, "Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared"

Machiavelli's The Prince was the Governing for Dummies of his day. First distributed in 1517 -- nearly 600 years ago -- as advice to 16th Century politicians and rulers, it was not actually printed until after his death in 1527. It has, since then, been the desk reference manual for public officials the world around, and a subject of much study by the political scientists in the academy. Its how-to observations and suggestions are the ultimate in pragmatism, as the quote, above, illustrates. It is what, in foreign relations, is characterized as realpolitik. [Portrait by Santi di Tito.]

So why is a blog that focuses on 20th and 21st Century issues offering book reviews of 600-year-old publications? Because The Prince seems relevant to the issues of our day -- namely, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's current challenges that have earned him a "gate" from the media: "BridgeGate." See "Governor Christie's 'Plausible Deniability'; And Why Democrats Should Care," Jan. 13 (with its links to more background).

The end of that blog essay addresses the distinctions -- and the relative moral and political judgments by voters -- between the one-off instance of a deliberate creation of traffic jams on the George Washington bridge, and what may be a personality prone to anger, mean-spiritedness, petty revenge and retribution. [Photo credit: multiple sources.] Here are the excerpts used there from a New York Times's itemization of past paybacks:

Kate Zernike, “Stories Add Up as Bully Image Trails Christie,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 2013, p. A1:

• In 2011, Mr. Christie . . . accused State Senator [and former Governor] Richard J. Codey of being “combative and difficult” in blocking two nominees. . . . Three days later, . . . the state police superintendent inform[ed] him that he would no longer be afforded [a state] trooper . . .— a courtesy granted all former governors. [Codey’s] . . . cousin . . . [a state employee] was fired, as was [his] former deputy chief of staff [from another state position]. . . .

• [T]he governor . . . wanted [redistricting commission member, Rutgers political scientist, Alan] Rosenthal to vote for the [Republicans’ redistricting] map, . . . but [Rosenthal] chose the Democrats’ plan . . .. Soon after, Mr. Christie used his line-item veto to cut $169,000 [from Rosenthal’s Rutgers] institute . . ..

• Mr. Christie was smarting from [Republican State Senator Sean T. Kean’s] criticism that [Christie should have called] earlier for a state of emergency [following a] blizzard [that] paralyzed the state . . .. [Christie] . . . held [a] news conference in Mr. Kean’s . . . district. [A] member of the governor’s staff warned [Kean] not to show up. His seat was eliminated in redistricting the following year. . . .

• Republican, State Senator Christopher Bateman, [who] voted against the governor’s plan to reorganize . . . public medical education . . .. had been working with the governor to get a judge appointed . . .. Suddenly, after months when it looked as if it would happen, the nomination stalled.

When you start a discussion with lawyers about such matters they immediately want to leap to what is legally permissible and what is prohibited. That's understandable. Had I discussed the issues with engineers, they might have leaped to the engineering of bridge design.

As someone who teaches in a law school, I am not disinterested in the constitutional and legal rights and wrongs here. They are involved, and they are important. They're just not what I want to explore at the moment.

Neither is the focus here on Christie. He is simply the catalyst to this exploration. His political future is not insignificant, for some of the reasons explored in the Jan. 13 blog essay linked above. If the voters of New Jersey, and the rest of America, find him an unacceptable potential presidential candidate because of BridgeGate, that will impact what the Republican Party can and does become, who its ultimate 2016 candidate turns out to be, and therefore the chances of Hillary Clinton, or whomever else the Democrats may settle on for their candidate.

The focus is more general. It is, how can we as individuals, and a body politic, go about at least thinking about political executives (e.g., for the most part, presidents and governors, but actually any institution's chief executive) and the means they use to persuade or manipulate others into bending to their will. Addressing norms, rather than "the law," what behavior should we consider (a) perfectly acceptable, (b) unacceptable but forgivable, or (c) unacceptable, unforgivable, and grounds for ousting them from office?

While there will be some overlap, these are judgments that will vary significantly from one individual to another. They will be influenced by one's religious, moral and ethical values, and the standards of one's family and peers. They will likely also be influenced by one's ideological and political affiliations -- being more forgiving of transgressions by members of one's political party than those of "the opposition." See "Snopes, Popes, and Presidents; Believing is Seeing," Dec. 26.

Let's begin with a continuum.

At the far right end of our continuum, the most extreme and unforgivable means would include beheading and other forms of assassination -- seen in modern times from North Korea's young leader, terrorist organizations, as part of many of the ongoing wars around the world, the Mexican drug cartels and other criminal organizations. Only marginally better would be techniques of torture, or credible threats of physical harm to oneself or family members. Imprisoning "political prisoners" would be another example.

At the far left of the continuum would be techniques used not just by politicians, but by almost everyone in everyday life: establishing a social relationship out of repeated contacts ("three cups of tea"), doing favors and giving gifts (such as an elected official with above average fundraising leverage passing out money to fellow legislators). (The rule of thumb when I was in Washington was that you would do 10 favors for a House member before asking him or her for a favor.) Some techniques of negotiation, presentation and persuasion -- unassociated with any suggestion of reward or presentation -- are more effective than others (the "Johnson Treatment" of LBJ comes to mind). Good, basic social skills can go a long way.

Presumably, most people would find these minimal, positive techniques well within the "perfectly acceptable" category. Somewhat to the right would be shouting, berating or otherwise frightening an opponent -- especially in public. (In this case it might be hard to separate the negative reaction of others to this kind of (a) immature and boorish behavior by anyone, from (b) the inappropriateness of a public official using this technique of persuasion.) Further to the right would be news conference, speeches, or other public statements by the official in which someone's professional competence or integrity is disparaged.

What are some of the factors we might find relevant within these two extremes? Here are some that occur to me:

(1) "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away." Would we make a distinction between (a) rewarding a legislator with something they otherwise would not have had for supporting the president or governor, and (b) punishing them by taking away something they already had for not supporting him or her? The reward might be a visit to their district for a fundraiser, selecting them for an overseas junket delegation, a ride on Air Force One, an invitation to a dinner at the White House (or governor's mansion). The punishment might be the opposite of all of the above (e.g., cancelling your participation at their fundraiser), working behind the scenes to have them denied a committee assignment they need, or influencing their major donors to switch their support to an opponent. (Each of the New York Times's examples of Christie's past behavior involve taking something away: the trooper traditionally given all prior governors, the appropriation for the professor's institute, the district formerly represented by the legislator, the judicial appointment formerly on track.) In both instances, whether reward or punishment, the executive is intervening in the process, introducing a factor unrelated to the merits of the matter at hand.

(2) Tradition. Is the executive's behavior out of the norm -- such as the denial of a trooper for an individual former governor? The fact that predecessors have done whatever it is doesn't make it right. But it is at least makes the executive's behavior not a novel extension of arbitrary, punitive power. We might ask, "Is it common for governors to line-veto appropriations for non-supporters?"

(3) Merits. Should we make a distinction between an executive's use of persuasive techniques (of whatever nature) to accomplish something that can plausibly be asserted to have a "public interest" component (such as President Lincoln's efforts on behalf of the Thirteenth Amendment), as distinguished from something more personal to the executive (such as a Democratic mayor's failure to endorse a Republican governor's re-election)?

(4) Motive and fear. What of Machiavelli's observations regarding the necessity of leading through fear? At what point do an official's motives in the use of recrimination techniques to engender fear, to make people think twice before crossing him or her, cross over the line into "unacceptable"?

What other factors should be considered?

Clearly, the Christie case is worthy of consideration in its own right. But it is also a gateway into this broader inquiry.

Any and all help with this, in the form of comments, suggestions, additional approaches would be appreciated.

# # #

Governor Christie's 'Plausible Deniability'

January 13, 2014, 5:30p.m. -- and see, "On Love and Fear in Politics; From Machiavelli to Christie," January 18, 2014.

And Why Democrats Should Care

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s . . .. The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by the lower ranks because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved or at least willfully ignorant of said actions.

-- "Plausible deniability", Wikipedia.org

New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie's "bridge-gate" deserves, and appears to be getting, more than a brief news cycle. Kate Zernike and Marc Santora, "‘Very Sad’ Chris Christie Extends Apology in Bridge Scandal," New York Times, Jan. 10, 2014, p. A1. [Photo credit: unknown.]

If you're unfamiliar with the story, on August 12th of last year, Bridget Anne Kelly, the Governor's Deputy Chief of Staff, sent an email to David Wildstein. Wildstein, who had known Christie since high school, worked at the Port Authority, the agency that manages the George Washington Bridge connecting Fort Lee, New Jersey, with New York City. According to the Times story, linked above, the email read in its entirety, "'Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee' . . .. One month later, on Sept. 9, Mr. Wildstein ordered traffic lanes from Fort Lee closed, causing a traffic nightmare that added hours to the commutes of thousands of drivers." Ibid. (The story cited and linked is but one of hundreds, some with additional details. They can be easily found with a Google search. But this is enough for the purposes of this blog essay.)

Here are some of the questions I see in all this:

Why do Democrats who care about their country as well as their party have a stake in this?

Did Governor Christie order, participate in, or have knowledge of the lane closings?

Even if he did not, has Governor Christie created such "a culture of retribution" that it is the equivalent of his active participation?

Is it not only reasonable and probable, but even commendable, that employees endeavor to internalize and be guided by how they believe their supervisors might decide the issues that arise -- up until the point at which the best option is to resign?

Are there any possible, plausible motives for Kelly and Wildstein to have launched the lane closings other than their desire to anticipate and execute what they believed would be the Governor's wishes?

What is the evidence that the Governor might have, or did, desire retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich?

What other explanation might there be for the Governor seeking retribution against Fort Lee?

More will undoubtedly be added to this blog essay over time. But for now, here are some summary responses.

Why do Democrats who care about their country as well as their party have a stake in this?

Am I a Democrat? Having run for a congressional seat in an Iowa Democratic Party primary, and received three presidential appointments from presidents who were Democrats, you'd probably have to say so. But it's also true that I am equally disgusted with both parties when it comes to the current system of campaign finance and its consequences -- the seeming inability of the legislative branch to represent the real interests of the 99%, putting members' prospects for re-election over everything else, gerrymandering the congressional districts, trying to score political points against each other, willingness to bring down the government and the nation's only president, throwing every possible roadblock in the way of third parties, refusing such remedies as "instant runoff," among other things.

Besides, every four years I try to identify the best Republican presidential candidate -- and not based on how easy it will be to defeat him or her. Given our two-party politics, the president will likely be either a Democrat or a Republican. Both parties almost always have a chance of having their candidate win. If it turns out to be the Republican, I'd far rather it be one we can all live with. (During the 2012 presidential election I ended up having to choose three Republican candidates, one after another, because the best ones kept dropping out, but ended up with this: "Why Mitt Romney? Better Than 'Least Worst' Republican," March 22, 2012; but see, "Abandoning Romney; Foreign Relations Disqualification, Now Domestic, Too," Sept. 22, 2012.)

Prior to "bridge-gate" I was already thinking about Governor Chris Christie as my probable Republican choice for 2016. And I haven't abandoned the idea. But it is on hold until bridge-gate gets fully investigated. Depending on the answers to the questions I raise here, he may still be the best we can find as a Republican candidate -- someone who does not hate either "government" or Democrats, and is willing to work with both. This is no time for Democrats to be trashing him, before looking around backstage to see if there are any qualified understudies to play the role. Democrats who believe Christie is "unacceptable" are obliged to answer the usual question, "Compared to what?"

Did Governor Christie order, participate in, or have knowledge of the lane closings?

As the following questions suggest, even if Christie had no actual knowledge of or participation in what his staff was doing, that is far from the end of this matter. In fact, focusing on that question -- as his Republican defenders have done -- is a bit of a diversion, whether intended or not.

Even if he did not know or participate, has Governor Christie created such "a culture of retribution" that it is the equivalent of his active participation?

If in fact what was done was retribution, done to punish an individual or group for something displeasing to Christie, is this the first and only incidence, or is it merely the latest (and perhaps most extreme) example of what has been a pattern of such behavior? If it is part of a pattern of behavior, that becomes significant for at least four reasons.
(1) While not proof, it is some support for the suspicion that retribution was the motive for bridge-gate.
(2) Even if he is totally innocent of any wrongdoing with regard to bridge-gate, most of us would not welcome the idea of putting in the White House a person whose political and personal personality involves a consistent pattern of retribution, bullying and pettiness.
(3) Such a pattern of behavior would explain why his employees might engage in such actions without his knowledge or participation.
(4) Indeed, if his employees knew that they were deliberately to use the tactics of plausible deniability as standard operating procedure, that would be further evidence of Christie's personal awareness that what was being done was wrong.

[Discovered after writing this: Kate Zernike, “Stories Add Up as Bully Image Trails Christie,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 2013, p. A1 (“Every organization takes its cues from the leadership as to what’s acceptable and what’s not, and this governor, in his public appearances, has made thuggery acceptable,” said Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski . . .. “For the governor to say, ‘I knew nothing about this’? He created the atmosphere in which this is acceptable.”] And see the addendum of prior examples at the bottom of this blog essay.

Is it not only reasonable and probable, but even commendable, that employees endeavor to internalize and be guided by how they believe their supervisors might decide the issues that arise -- up until the point at which the best option is to resign?

When President Lyndon Johnson appointed me U.S. Maritime Administrator, I undertook a study of my president, found out as much about him as I could, talked to White House staff and his longtime friends, subscribed to the "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents," and read every statement published there. Before long, I was pretty good at predicting what he would say and do. Relying on that, and the conversations I had with him, the job description I wrote for myself was to approach every decision with that background in mind. What would he want me to do? What would he do, if he were serving as Maritime Administrator?

In my experience, most aides to political figures approach their jobs in this way. Given the number of people who want, and are considered, for such jobs, they are also relatively bright and more than relatively politically sophisticated.

It is for those reasons that I do find it hard to believe that Kelly and Wildstein would have launched anything as serious and potentially explosive as bridge-gate without at least believing (whether well founded or not) that it was what Governor Christie would have wanted them to do.

Are there any possible and plausible motives for Kelly and Wildstein to have launched the lane closings other than their desire to anticipate and execute what they believed would be the Governor's wishes?

It is hard for me to imagine what personal motives Kelly and Wildstein might have had for causing bridge-gate, or how they would have benefited, or thought they might have personally benefited from doing so. This is not, so far as what's now revealed, a case of an employee embezzling money, turning over politically damaging material to the media or an opponent, using their position to obtain something of economic value, or a job, from someone doing business with the government. It doesn't appear that they would have a motive to do the Governor deliberate harm.

What is the evidence that the Governor might have, or did, desire retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich?

There are two questions here in addition to those above.

One involves the extent to which there is evidence that, if Christie was inclined to seek retribution against anyone, people in Fort Lee might be targeted.

If the answer to that is "yes," then the second question is whether there is evidence that Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich was the person who was the target and trigger for Christie's pique.

There is undoubtedly more to come, and it may make clear beyond a reasonable doubt that, whatever Governor Christie's pattern of retributive behavior may be, and regardless of whether he was aware of the bridge-gate plan, the Governor was inclined to go after Democratic Mayor Sokolich for his failure to endorse Republican Governor Christie's re-election. But that is yet to be proved.

Some Democratic mayors may have been punished for not endorsing the Governor. It also appears, however, that numerous Democratic New Jersey mayors were not punished by the Governor for their failure to endorse him. It would be useful to know by what rationale Sokolich would have been singled out for this treatment.

Governor Christie said on the Rachel Maddow Show January 9, "Mayor Sokolich was never on my radar screen. He was never mentioned to me as somebody whose endorsement we were pursuing. In fact, I think he said on CNN last night he doesn`t recall ever being asked for his endorsement. . . . I never saw this as political retribution because I didn`t think he did anything to us. Now, we pursued lots of endorsements during the campaign from Democrats and we didn`t receive most of them. We received about 60 at the end of the day. We pursued hundreds. . . . I don`t have any recollection of . . . anybody . . . asking me to meet with Mayor Sokolich . . . the typical course that was used when we were attempting to get an endorsement . . .. I don`t remember ever meeting Mayor Sokolich in that context." "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Thursday, January 9, 2014," Jan. 9, 2014.

[After writing this, I find TalkingPointsMemo reports, "The one thing that seems clear is that fewer and fewer people think this was all about an campaign endorsement." Josh Marshall, "TPM Editor's Blog/BridgeGate: The Who and the Why," TalkingPointsMemo.com, Jan. 13, 2014.]

What other explanation might there be for the Governor seeking retribution against Fort Lee?

What has, so far, made the most sense to me is the theory -- and that's all it is -- that I heard Rachel Maddow suggest last Thursday [Jan. 9]. Maddow noted that the now-famous email ("Time for traffic problems in Fort Lee") was sent 7:34 the morning after the night before. And what happened the night before? Apparently, Christie's frustration with N.J. Senate Democrats took the form of an angry outburst. It seems the Governor broke with the previously unbroken N.J. tradition that judges are re-appointed, and refused to give a reappointment to a Democrat-appointed judge. In response, the N.J. State Senate Democrats have repeatedly refused to approve the Governor's replacement nominees. Ultimately, the Governor even pulled the name of a personal friend.

As Ms. Maddow put it, "The reason he said he did it in her case is . . . because he said Senate Democrats were animals . . . and he was not going to subject this judge who he respected . . . to the savagery of the Senate Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

"CHRISTIE: . . . I simply could not be party to the destruction of Helen Hoens` professional reputation . . .. I`m taking responsibility for not allowing this group of people to do to her what they did to [the other nominees]. . . . [W]hat the ramifications will be for that going forward, they should have thought about before they opened their mouths. . . .

(END VIDEO CLIP)

"MADDOW: That was an angry Chris Christie . . . furious with Senate Democrats at a hastily called press conference that took place late in the day on Tuesday, August 12th, 2013. . . . [A]nd it is the next morning at 7:34 . . . that his deputy chief of staff gives the go-ahead to the Port Authority. "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Go to the list of legislative districts . . .. Find . . . Fort Lee, New Jersey, [it's] legislative district 37. Who represents district 37? . . . [T]he leader of the Senate Democrats . . . represents Fort Lee [Senate Majority leader, Loretta Weinberg]. "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Thursday, January 9, 2014," Jan. 9, 2014.

At this point in time nobody knows if Ms. Maddow's theory ultimately will prove to be the explanation for this or not. But right now, if I had to choose, it sounds a lot more credible than that bridge-gate occurred because the Governor was trying to punish a mayor for failing to endorse him. Of course, this that they were telling the truth when the Governor said he didn't realize that the Fort Lee Mayor was one of the mayors whose endorsement his campaign was trying to get, that he had never met with the mayor about that, and the mayor's declaration that he has no clear recollection that he was contacted by anyone else in the campaign.

For another possibility, see, Brian Murphy, "Is a Billion Dollar Development Project at the Heart of Bridgegate?" TalkingPointsMemo, Jan. 12, 2014 ("We now know that a major redevelopment project, one that depends on Port Authority assets and relationships, was put in jeopardy at a vulnerable financial moment, and in a way that put the viability of the entire project at risk. But we still don’t know why. This batch of subpoenaed documents isn’t going to tell us, and the people who know – who really know – either aren’t talking or haven’t yet been questioned.").
#
Addendum, Jan. 16. There are two sets of separate issues here with regard to Governor Christie's use of retribution against opponents. One involves bridge-gate: (a) did retribution figure as a motive for closing lanes? (b) if so, against whom was it directed? And, of course, (c) to what degree was Governor Christie informed or involved in the plan and its execution?

The second set of issues involves the extent to which Christie has a pattern of punishing his "enemies." If bridge-gate is the only instance in which Christie has ever engaged in retribution, it could, perhaps, be excused -- notwithstanding its substantive seriousness. We could look at it as a one-off aberration, albeit a dangerous and possibly illegal one. But it would not need to be viewed as a disqualifying element of his character; something that he would carry into the oval office.

If, on the other hand, it is consistent with a prior pattern of extreme, retributive actions against opponents or those who otherwise displease him, that pattern (as distinguished from this one instance) is a matter of much greater concern.

There is at least some significant evidence, alas, that retribution may be a fundamental part of his character and method of operation and governing.

Kate Zernike, “Stories Add Up as Bully Image Trails Christie,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 2013, p. A1:

• In 2011, Mr. Christie . . . accused State Senator [and former Governor] Richard J. Codey of being “combative and difficult” in blocking two nominees. . . . Three days later, . . . the state police superintendent inform[ed] him that he would no longer be afforded [a state] trooper . . .— a courtesy granted all former governors. [Codey’s] . . . cousin . . . [a state employee] was fired, as was [his] former deputy chief of staff [from another state position]. . . .

• [T]he governor . . . wanted [redistricting commission member, Rutgers political scientist, Alan] Rosenthal to vote for the [Republicans’ redistricting] map, . . . but [Rosenthal] chose the Democrats’ plan . . .. Soon after, Mr. Christie used his line-item veto to cut $169,000 [from Rosenthal’s Rutgers] institute . . ..

• Mr. Christie was smarting from [Republican State Senator Sean T. Kean’s] criticism that [Christie should have called] earlier for a state of emergency [following a] blizzard [that] paralyzed the state . . .. [Christie] . . . held [a] news conference in Mr. Kean’s . . . district. [A] member of the governor’s staff warned [Kean] not to show up. His seat was eliminated in redistricting the following year. . . .

• Republican, State Senator Christopher Bateman, [who] voted against the governor’s plan to reorganize . . . public medical education . . .. had been working with the governor to get a judge appointed . . .. Suddenly, after months when it looked as if it would happen, the nomination stalled.

Now some may look at these examples and say, "Yeah, and so? Many public officials, from police to presidents, are invested with considerable discretion. Apparently Christie finds sticks more effective than carrots. What's the big deal?" Stalled nominations have recently become routine in Washington. So what's so shocking about the fact they apparently happen in New Jersey, too?

But let us put Governor Christie aside for a moment, and look at this issue more generally. Are there neutral principles, reasonable standards generally agreed upon, regarding the outer limits of the norms restraining executive abuse of persuasive tactics? The 2012 movie, "Lincoln," for example, portrays what some might consider Lincoln's excessive use of persuasive techniques to get the House of Representatives to put forward the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. There are many stories about "the Johnson treatment" that President Lyndon Johnson used on House and Senate members -- though I cannot immediately come up with examples of things done by either Lincoln or Johnson that come close to deliberately causing a traffic jam across a major bridge. President Nixon, of course, had his famous "enemies list." For an entire blog essay devoted to this inquiry, see "On Love and Fear in Politics; From Machiavelli to Christie," January 18, 2014.

Meanwhile: To deny a former governor the assistance of a state trooper apparently at least violates a New Jersey norm; firing state employees, who have done no wrong, to get back at a relative of theirs may actually be a violation of law. Eliminating a legislator's seat for a remark would seem similar. Denying an academic his state appropriated research grant because he supports a redistricting plan opposed by the Governor also looks like at least a violation of norms, if not of law -- unless the "commission" is, and is intended to be, a part of the governor's staff, and subject to executing his wishes.
#
Addendum, January 22, 2014. Hoboken. "In a television interview on Saturday, she [the mayor of Hoboken, N.J., Dawn Zimmer, a Democrat] said that two high-ranking aides to Mr. Christie had threatened to withhold money for Hurricane Sandy recovery to her hard-hit city if she did not support a real estate development that the governor wanted built in her jurisdiction. . . . Speaking on MSNBC, she produced journal entries that she said documented conversations in which Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno and Richard E. Constable [Department of Community Affairs], told her that if she wanted the money, she had to approve the project." Michael Barbaro and Kate Zernike, "Mayor of Hoboken Says Hurricane Relief Was Threatened," New York Times, Jan. 19, 2014, p. A21.

For the response denying these assertions, see Patrick McGeehan, "Lieutenant Governor Calls Hoboken Mayor's Claims 'Illogical," New York Times, Jan. 21, 2014, p. A14 (“Any suggestion that Sandy funds were tied to the approval of any project in New Jersey is completely false.”).

There will be, no doubt, considerably more to come involving Chris Christie's past behavior in general, and the facts surrounding bridge-gate in particular.

# # #

Polar Vortex

January 7, 2013, 8:00 a.m.

God's 'Cold Shoulder' Revenge

I thought "polar vortex" was a patented new fabric for winter wear. When none of the Iowa City stores seemed to have any in stock, further research revealed it's just more scientist-speak (see below). [Photo credit: Nick Brancaccio, Windsor Star.]

Scientists want to have a scientific explanation for everything, whether they really understand it or not.

No wonder an ever-increasing number of Republicans -- now 57% -- are coming to reject even the theory of evolution. As a recent Pew Center poll revealed, even among

"those who express a belief in human evolution . . . roughly a quarter of adults (24%) say that 'a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.' . . .

White evangelical Protestants are particularly likely to believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Roughly two-thirds (64%) express this view . . ..

There also are sizable differences by party affiliation in beliefs about evolution, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. In 2009, 54% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said humans have evolved over time, a difference of 10 percentage points. Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap."

"Public's Views on Human Evolution," Pew Research: Religion & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center, Dec. 30, 2013.

In other words, the current cold snap has a religious, rather than a scientific, explanation. It is just God -- or as the non-believers say, "Mother Nature" -- giving the climate change theorists her cold shoulder.

Makes sense to me.

The previous blog essay addressed this subject in a slightly different context: "Snopes, Popes, and Presidents; Believing is Seeing," Dec. 26, 2013. So does this article: Zach Beauchamp, "Why Republicans Don’t Believe In Evolution Anymore," ThinkProgress, Dec. 31, 2013 ("A wealth of research into political psychology shows that people’s partisan affiliations affect their beliefs on basic facts. Republicans are overwhelmingly more likely to think the economy is doing well when Republicans hold the Presidency, and ditto with Democrats when their guy holds the White House. A recent experiment found that even basic math is contaminated by politics; people are much more likely to correctly solve basic math problems when, in context, solving them correctly helps rather than hurts their party.").

Ever wonder why so many Americans believe in religious reality rather than theoretical "science"? Here's how scientists, rejecting God's/Mother Nature's "cold shoulder" reality, try to explain these frigid temperatures with a theory, and in a language, few true believers can even comprehend let alone accept:

"A polar vortex (also known as an Arctic cyclone, sub-polar cyclone, and a circumpolar whirl) is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near either of a planet's geographical poles. On Earth, the polar vortices are located in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere. They surround the polar highs and lie in the wake of the polar front. These cold-core low-pressure areas strengthen in the winter and weaken in the summer. They usually span . . . 620–1,240 miles in which the air is circulating in a counter-clockwise fashion (in the northern hemisphere). As with other cyclones, their rotation is caused by the Coriolis effect. Within the stratosphere, strategies such as the use of the 4 mb pressure surface, which correlates to the 1200K isentropic surface, located midway up the stratosphere, is used to create climatologies of the feature. Due to model data unreliability, other techniques use the 50 mb pressure surface. Polar cyclones are climatological features that hover near the poles year-round. They are weaker during summer and strongest during winter. Extratropical cyclones that occlude and migrate into higher latitudes create cold-core lows within the polar vortex. Volcanic eruptions in the tropics lead to a stronger polar vortex during the winter for as long as two years afterwards. The strength and position of the cyclone shapes the flow pattern across the hemisphere of its influence. An index which is used in the northern hemisphere to gauge its magnitude is the Arctic oscillation." "Polar vortex," Wikipedia.com.

Yeah, right.
# # #

Snopes, Popes, and Presidents

December 26, 2013 2:45 p.m.

Believing is Seeing
We can learn more from some recent reports of Pope Francis' activities than what appear to be this Pope's quite sincere concerns and commitments to improving the lot of the poor, and those adversely affected by the consequences of war. Consider the following:

"Pope Francis, celebrating his first Christmas as Roman Catholic leader, on Wednesday [Dec. 25] called on atheists to unite with believers of all religions and work for 'a homemade peace' that can spread across the world. . . . He said that people of other religions were also praying for peace, and - departing from his prepared text - he urged atheists to join forces with believers. 'I invite even non-believers to desire peace. (Join us) with your desire, a desire that widens the heart. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace, he said, drawing sustained applause from the crowd.'"
__________
"Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of a dozen inmates at a juvenile detention center in a Holy Thursday ritual that he celebrated for years as archbishop and is continuing now that he is pope. Two of the 12 were young women . . .."
__________
"Pope Francis announc[ed] that . . . 'the time has come to abandon all intolerance. . . . Even atheists acknowledge the divine. . . . The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. . . . All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. . . . Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God. . . . [I]t is my hope that we will have a woman pope one day. . . . Racism today is the ultimate evil in the world. . . . [T]hose who would dare to turn immigrants away, be they legal or undocumented, turn their backs on Christ himself! . . . [B]ecause Muslims, Hindus and African Animists are also made in the very likeness and image of God, to . . . reject them to is to reject God and the Gospel of Christ.'"
__________
"Three homeless men [who] live on the street in the Rome neighborhood just outside the Vatican's walls . . . helped Pope Francis celebrate his 77th birthday Tuesday [Dec. 24] [when they] were invited . . . to attend the Mass, which Francis celebrates daily at the hotel where he lives on Vatican City grounds. [He] also invited his household help to join him in a 'family-like' atmosphere, and he spoke of them one by one during his homily."
__________
In an interview with uCatholic, Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, who serves as 'Almoner of His Holiness,' implied that Pope Francis may be sneaking out of the Vatican at night to personally give money and food to the homeless citizens of Rome. . . . [Krajewski commented} that Francis used to do exactly that as archbishop of Buenos Aires, before he was elected pope. . . . 'As archbishop of Buenos Aires, when he was known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the future pontiff would go out at night ... to find people, talk with them, or buy them something to eat. He would sit with them and eat with them on the street.' . . . [A]n anonymous source in the church [said] that 'Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women.'”
__________

A Pope, any Pope, is in many ways one of our few world leaders who is given -- or can simply seize -- an ability to speak his or her mind, not only, in Pope Francis' case, to his 1.2 billion followers, but to more billions beyond. When he chooses to use that opportunity to address problems of poverty, inequality and greed, war and peace, appealing to our better angels, he can provide a moral and ethical beacon for all of humankind. And because he communicates primarily, or at least as much, by his actions as by his words, he truly has our attention. (I will leave for another day Church positions he has neither addressed nor given any indication of a likelihood to change.) So, yeah, I'm a fan.

So what more can we learn from these stories beyond what they tell us regarding the character and style of this Pope?

They tell us something about the extent to which "believing is seeing;" that is, what we believe, or want to believe, can have a significant influence on what we perceive.

For Pope Francis fans, like myself, each of those quotations, above, all taken from published sources, has an air of plausibility about it. What he has done so far on behalf of the poor, peace, and opening up the Church has been so mind altering that nothing someone claims he has done seems impossible in that context.

But, alas, two of those five reports are false.

If you haven't already guessed which ones they are, they are repeated at the bottom of this blog essay with their sources and rebuttals.

Snopes.com is a wonderful online service for checking the truth of the "urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation" that circle the global Internet each day. It was particularly useful when the anti-President-Obama forces were circulating false accusations regarding his faith, American citizenship, and anything else they could come up with. See, "Snopes and 'What We Know That Ain't So,'" Aug. 2, 2012.

Our Republican friends (yes, we have some) would pass such charges along to their e-mailing lists, believing any bad news about Obama as readily as I believe any inspiring news about Pope Francis. We'd usually check them out with Snopes, and like as not find that they were totally false. Sometimes we'd refer the sending party to the Snopes report, and other times we'd decide it was hopeless.

But the point is not about Republican assaults on our President. The point is that we're all subject to such manipulation. There is some research and data on this. Even those trained and working in the sciences are significantly more likely to make accurate mathematical calculations when the data supports their hypotheses than when it does not.

What this Pope and Snopes have shown me is that the manipulation we experience from our religious, political and ideological beliefs and convictions is not limited to our disinclination to critically evaluate assertions regarding people and things that we hate. They can also manipulate our judgment when evaluating positive assertions about the people and things we love or admire.

Now here is what Paul Harvey would have called, "the rest of the story."

__________

"Pope Francis, celebrating his first Christmas as Roman Catholic leader, on Wednesday [Dec. 25] called on atheists to unite with believers of all religions and work for 'a homemade peace' that can spread across the world. . . . He said that people of other religions were also praying for peace, and - departing from his prepared text - he urged atheists to join forces with believers. 'I invite even non-believers to desire peace. (Join us) with your desire, a desire that widens the heart. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace, he said, drawing sustained applause from the crowd.'"

-- Philip Pullella, "Atheists, work with us for peace, Pope says on Christmas," Reuters/The Gazette, Dec. 26, 2013, p. A4. There is some question as to what the Pope actually said, from the prepared text and during extemporaneous remarks, and even more question as to what he meant. But this is a relatively accurate story.
__________
"Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of a dozen inmates at a juvenile detention center in a Holy Thursday ritual that he celebrated for years as archbishop and is continuing now that he is pope. Two of the 12 were young women . . .."

-- Nicole Winfield,"Pope Francis washes feet of young detainees in ritual," AP/USA Today, March 28, 2013. This story seems to be entirely true.
__________
"Pope Francis announc[ed] that . . . 'the time has come to abandon all intolerance. . . . Even atheists acknowledge the divine. . . . The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. . . . All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. . . . Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God. . . . [I]t is my hope that we will have a woman pope one day. . . . Racism today is the ultimate evil in the world. . . . [T]hose who would dare to turn immigrants away, be they legal or undocumented, turn their backs on Christ himself! . . . [B]ecause Muslims, Hindus and African Animists are also made in the very likeness and image of God, to . . . reject them to is to reject God and the Gospel of Christ.'"

-- The quote is taken from, "Pope Francis Condemns Racism And Declares That 'All Religions Are True,'” Diversity Chronicle, Dec. 5, 2013. This story, which went viral around the Internet, is false. See, "Pope Francis Declares All Religions Are True," Snopes.com, Dec. 22, 2013.
__________

"Three homeless men [who] live on the street in the Rome neighborhood just outside the Vatican's walls . . . helped Pope Francis celebrate his 77th birthday Tuesday [Dec. 24] [when they] were invited . . . to attend the Mass, which Francis celebrates daily at the hotel where he lives on Vatican City grounds. [He] also invited his household help to join him in a 'family-like' atmosphere, and he spoke of them one by one during his homily."

-- Frances D'Emilio, "Pope shares his birthday breakfast with homeless," Associated Press, Dec. 17, 2013. This appears to be a true story, unless the three men in this photo who are not the Pope are just actors. [Photo credit: L'Osservatore Romano, The Vatican.]
__________
In an interview with uCatholic, Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, who serves as 'Almoner of His Holiness,' implied that Pope Francis may be sneaking out of the Vatican at night to personally give money and food to the homeless citizens of Rome. . . . [Krajewski commented} that Francis used to do exactly that as archbishop of Buenos Aires, before he was elected pope. . . . 'As archbishop of Buenos Aires, when he was known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the future pontiff would go out at night ... to find people, talk with them, or buy them something to eat. He would sit with them and eat with them on the street.' . . . [A]n anonymous source in the church [said] that 'Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women.'”

-- Eric Brown, "Is Pope Francis Sneaking Out Of The Vatican At Night To Give Money To The Homeless?," International Business Times," Dec. 3, 2013. It certainly sounds like it might be true. But see, David Gibson, "Pope Francis sneaks out of the Vatican? Maybe not, but he wouldn’t be the first," Religion News Service, Dec. 3, 2013 ("Vatican officials say reports that Pope Francis has been slipping out at night to visit the homeless in Rome are 'simply not true,' though that hasn’t stopped the stories from capturing the public imagination. That’s probably because such tales seem right in line with Francis’ unconventional and pastoral style.")

And that last line is the point of this blog essay.

# # #