Author: A.T.

This site, as long time readers know, boasts one the world’s most distinguished consulting meteorologists, Bryan Norcross.

“Bryan,” I will frequently say, “Is it going to be nice this weekend?”  Or, “Bryan, how do I get my stupid TV to work?”  (He is a consulting tech-support guru, and just about everything else, too.  How smart he is would be annoying, if it didn’t so often come in handy.)

If hurricanes affect your life, or you’re just interested in the science of them, you’ll find his latest piece at the Washington Post of interest.  The bottom line: hurricane forecasts are getting ever more accurate, which is good — except for the ones that aren’t, that suddenly strengthen unexpectedly just before they hit.

WheelTug’s dormant competitor, Safran, an industry giant, seems to be re-emerging.

That might seem ominous — like the unexpected strengthening of a tropical storm.  But it may actually be good news.

For one thing, it continues to validate the general concept: airplanes should be able to taxi without a tug.

For another, if this article (and its translation from the original French) is accurate, Safran “has renounced to equip the 737 Boeing.”  (Their motors are too big.)  That leaves a great many “737 Boeings” for WheelTug to power.

To the extent airlines do go with Safran for the Airbus, it should incentivize competitors to lease WheelTug for their 737s so as not to be left behind.

But I wouldn’t count on many airlines choosing Safran over Wheeltug for the Airbus.  Their system weighs a great deal more than ours. And it hugs the main landing gear, whose red-hot brakes need to cool down before the next flight can begin (which may make FAA approval more of a challenge as well).  Also, Safran’s solution permanently modifies the aircraft, as I understand it, so is more of a commitment.  Ours can be installed — or UNinstalled — during a couple of overnights in the hangar.

Finally there are patents.  Who knows how that would play out; but WheelTug has a lot of them, both product and process.

More than 20 airlines have queued up to lease the WheelTug system compared to the 1 customer Safran seems ready to announce at Farnborough next month. (Visit WheelTug in Hall 4, #4465!)  So we have a lead there, too, at least for now.

None of this may ever work out for the long-suffering shareholders of grandparent Borealis — or for Safran, for that matter.  But at its current price, and despite the unwillingness of many brokers these days to initiate trades in it, BOREF remains the most compelling lottery ticket I’ve ever seen.  To be bought only with money you can truly afford to lose, and only with “limit orders” so you don’t accidentally pay twice what you expected to.

If you own some, hang on.

Do you listen to The Daily?  The New York Times podcast Michael Barbaro hosts?

Too lazy to open my eyes in the morning, I’ll often say, “Alexa, play The Daily,” and up it comes.

Most are really good.

Friday’s — When Democratic Newcomers Challenge the Party Line — highlighted the drama being played out today in California, and that’s often played out elsewhere:  Should “the party” attempt to “clear the field” for the candidate it thinks has the best chance of winning?  Or is that an affront to the democratic process?

I recently heard from ultra-liberal friends who would normally fall into the latter camp; yet they were disgusted and angry at the situation in California, where so many good Democrats are running today they may split the vote and let two Republicans emerge as the general election candidates.  (California doesn’t have separate primaries; the two primary candidates who get the most votes, regardless of party, become the general election candidates.)  How could the party let this happen?  Somebody ought to do something!

In fact, someone has.  (To no avail.)  But to see this from the perspective of Mai Khanh Tran — one of the spectacular candidates it was done to — and to understand how she feels, and how tough this is every time it becomes an issue, listen to the podcast.

There are no bad guys in this story.  Yes, I wish Dr. Tran had dropped out.  But it’s very hard not to sympathize with her for staying in.  Yes, the party was right — in my view, and even, I guess, in the view of my ultra-liberal friends — to try to assure we flip this seat from red to blue.  If we should lose this seat today (i.e., if the top two vote-getters are Republicans), and then miss taking back the House by just one seat in November, then we’d have another Ralph Nader moment — the arc of the moral universe tragically, needlessly set back by someone who didn’t mean to.

Having inherited the happy gene, I don’t think it will happen.

But the podcast puts this all into very human terms.

It will be interesting to watch tonight’s returns.

No, as he will tell you, Puff is not about weed.  Puff is about — like pretty much everything Peter Yarrow touches — love.

At 80, he’s as engaged as ever.

Maybe more than ever, given today’s threats.

Herewith, his 80th-birthday post this past Thursday:

Dear all, friends and allies,

I just finished writing this and I’m too tired to review and correct mistakes – yet because my birthday began only a few hours ago, and because I want to share it with you on my actual birthday, please forgive my mistakes and omissions and know how much I deeply appreciate and love you.

On the occasion of my 80th birthday, I’m reflecting on many things, including how fortunate I am to have been able to share almost 50 years with Noel Paul Stookey and Mary Travers, following a path blazed by Pete Seeger, combining our music with passionate advocacy for justice and equity and peace in “the good fight.” I am convinced that it was our mutual sense of purpose that allowed us to stay together for almost 50 years.

[THEIR GREATEST ALBUM?  ONE OF THE GREATEST ALBUMS EVER?  ALBUM 1700. — A.T.]

Remarkably, however — for many reasons, some wonderful and some horrific and a product of the woes of these incredibly difficult and frightening times — the work that the trio shared continues ever more intensely in my life. The challenges we face today desperately need the kind of spirit that was shared, musically and in other ways, in the 1960s when songs of conscience were an essential part of the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and later movements that sprang from these. It was the Civil Rights Movement that taught our generation that ordinary people standing in solidarity, not necessarily people of power and wealth, could change the course of history. Conversely, we now see that the failure of people to stand together for decency and goodness can change the course of history in disastrous ways.

For me, being 80 does not mean that I am relishing the time to reflect and smell the roses. Rather, it is a time when, with greatest urgency, I feel compelled to join today’s struggle, that is in some ways unprecedented, so that I might help save our nation’s soul, its democratic institutions, and try to preserve fairness and justice that is under extreme attack.

It might seem strange to you that I’m not writing, at this point in my letter, an advocacy for “my perspective” on the issues, which of course I continue to do. More importantly, I am working most hard with an organization (better described as a movement) known as Better Angels, which seeks to bring oppositional voters together, not to change anyone’s political perspective, but in ways in which they come to realize (through powerful, honest, respectful exchanges) that the vast majority of Americans, from both sides, are rational, caring, and approachable, and that we all want the best for our country. I’m close to finishing a documentary, co-produced with Jim Brown the amazing documentary director who gave us Pete Seeger’s “The Power of Song” and three PBS pledge specials with Peter Paul and Mary, including our most recent “50 Years with Peter Paul and Mary”. Together, we traveled to Lebanon Ohio, a small Rust Belt town that voted 80% for Donald Trump, to film the second-ever Better Angels workshop. What we captured on tape was a group of 15 Republicans and Democrats who, prior to this meeting, were willing, though skeptical and anxious, to even speak to one another. However, through the success of the interactive platform created by Dr. Bill Doherty, co-founder of Better Angels, the participants discovered that not only did they truly like each other as people, no matter their opposing political beliefs, but they also found that all agreed much more than they disagreed on basic values and their vision for America. This came out of 13 hours of exchanges. This workshop that we documented, now shortened to 6 hours rather than 13, helped validate and launch an effort that today has resulted in over 100 Better Angels workshop gatherings throughout America with over 100 moderators and trainers who are spreading the gospel of, “We can agree to disagree on some things, yet we can still respect and honor each other.” My thesis is that we must, absolutely must, come together in this way or our country is in jeopardy as a democracy and a place of good will.

This Better Angels documentary will be shown on PBS (date tba) with the sponsor station gratefully being TPT, the Twin Cities’ PBS flagship station in the Midwest. If you want to give me a great birthday present, please go to www.better-angels.com and find out what they are doing — because any of you could become a trainer or a participant at the workshops and thereby help save America from being incapacitated by the vitriol, mistrust, fear, and hatred that has emerged powerfully in our midst.

There might well come a time where we must, absolutely must, stand together or watch the very essence of our ethical morality as a nation collapse. For example, if a law gets enacted that makes it the case that all those who have been deported, if they return illegally, will be put in detention camps and potentially subjected to “extraordinary rendition”, meaning torture. Under ordinary circumstances, I am convinced that our nation would rise up as one to forbid this law’s implementation but, today, the issue would be politicized and both sides would likely go along with the party with which they identify. Morality and immorality would be trumped by party loyalty. This is, in a word, part of how nations become tyrannical; people are too divided, too fearful, and too mistrustful to be able to unite to do the right thing even though the law violates the essence of their own history or their country’s ethical traditions. This kind of division is part of the reason that a previously enlightened Germany became Nazi Germany.

Most recently, I have begun organizing an effort that might turn out to be the most important one I have attempted in many a year. It’s a long story but, in essence, a week ago I traveled to Parkland with a group of 12 activist singer-songwriters. This group, among others, included my daughter Bethany Yarrow, two members of The Peace Poets, a Black Lives Matter singer-songwriter-organizer now living in St. Louis, a Native American political activist-performer/songwriter, Steve Seskin (who wrote “Don’t Laugh at Me” with his brilliant and caring songwriting partner, Allen Shamblin), David Broza (the quintessential Israeli peace activist and co-creator of Operation Respect in Israel, which is used by 63% of the school counselors in Israeli schools, both Arab as well as Jewish). Each of these writers has an impressive profile but the fact is I invited only songwriter-performers who prioritized music of conscience over music as entertainment. All of them are deeply committed to using their music to build community and bring common voice to those who want to stand up for justice and humanity. The results, as people will soon see, include the creation of a 13 songs and chants over two days, not written by the songwriters, but written by the students themselves. And the results are incredible. Mark my words; beyond the advocacy carried by the Parkland students, we shall soon see song-writing and music connected to many movement efforts in ways that are reminiscent of the 1960s. At least that is my hope.

It is the children and the youth, I believe, as well as the brave women of our nation, who are leading the way by inspiring the kind of commitment that might, we can only pray, deliver us from the frightening possibilities ahead of us.

Of course, over the past 20 years, as some of you might know, there is an organization called Operation Respect that has a classroom-based program called ”Don’t Laugh at Me”, after the song mentioned above, that inspired the creation of this educational non-profit. It is an effort that has reached over 22,000 schools in America, over 63% of the schools, both Arab and Jewish, in Israel, has traveled to Palestine, to Ukraine to Hong Kong, to Croatia, to Mexico as well as other foreign nations. Although “Don’t Laugh at Me’ and its social-emotional classroom based program is mainly regarded as an anti-bullying effort, the truth is that long before bullying, rudeness, and mean-spirited behavior reached the highest levels of leadership in our American government, Operation Respect was working to create school environments in which children honored and valued each other’s character, kindness, and service to one another over money, fame, and material things. Yes, Operation Respect is an anti-bullying organization, but it addresses this by helping to create a loving, caring environment where bullying and cruelty, by common consent of the students, is diminished if not all but eradicated.

Having said all this I can only tell you that my life has become, in large part, a continued series of events in which I participate, or events I help to organize, like the Unity Concert for the return of the Black Hills, created in large part by my daughter Bethany. Another time we traveled to Standing Rock where her voice helped give our first Americans the courage and sense of support they needed to carry on.

There is also my son, Christopher, whom I have often referred to as the most loving, generous person I have ever known, who sings and plays the washtub bass with me at concerts with such love and respect that the audience frequently tells me that the highlight of the show was seeing the relationship that Christopher and I share.

The list of reasons for my gratitude include the formidable words that have been written and spoken by my granddaughter who is a force of nature at the age of 11, who writes with such beauty and power that she gives me hope whenever I am in need of it.

In sum, I am more committed and more dedicated and working harder than ever before in my life and I could not be more grateful for all of that, even though I know that I have to back off somewhat, sometime soon because, as you know, I am turning 80 today and, as a good organizer I’ve got to, as Pete Seeger instructed me to take care of myself, or, he warned, he would consider me to be a deeply flawed organizer.

So, happy birthday to me, and my thanks and gratitude go out to many, many, many whom I have met and with whom I have walked these four score years.

To the greatest influence in my life, the one who loved me most as a child and to whom I owe all I possess that is good in me, to my mother Vera Yarrow, I want to remember you in this moment. I am you; I carry on where you left off, as will my daughter, son, and granddaughter after me. I honor you and all that you gave me, although I never saw you with any objectivity or any real understanding until you were gone. Thankfully, in many ways you are more with me now than you were in life. I am blessed.

With love and great gratitude,

Peter

Now that, I would say, is a life well lived.

And he ain’t done.

There are not enough days in the week, and I already have tomorrow’s post teed up, so here’s a bonus at no extra cost to you:

First, John Brennan’s op-ed in the Washington Post, which I posted on Facebook and Twitter as well.  It’s a must-read, must (respectfully and gently) share with friends and family on Trump’s team (but perhaps knowing, deep down, something’s wrong here).

Second, Amy Siskind’s Weekly List — subtitled “This Is How Democracy Dies” — on-line and up-to-date for free, or memorialized in book form as reviewed here. (“Every norm broken, every conflict of interest flaunted, every institution degraded, every truth casually disregarded: Siskind wants us to remember them all. She fears the risks of forgetting, of just letting things slide.”)

John Brennan: I will speak out until integrity returns to the White House

My first visit to the Oval Office came in October 1990, when I was a 35-year-old CIA officer. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait two months before, and President George H.W. Bush wanted to discuss the implications of a U.S.-led military coalition that would ultimately push the Iraqis out.

I remember the nervousness I felt when I entered that room and met a president of the United States for the first time. By the time the meeting ended, his intellectual curiosity, wisdom, affability and intense interest in finding the best policy course to protect and promote U.S. interests were abundantly evident.

Over the next quarter-century, I returned to the Oval Office several hundred times during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The jitters that accompanied my first Oval Office visit dissipated over time, but the respect, awe and admiration I held for the office of the presidency and the incumbents never waned. The presidents I directly served were not perfect, and I didn’t agree with all of their policy choices. But I never doubted that each treated their solemn responsibility to lead our nation with anything less than the seriousness, intellectual rigor and principles that it deserved. Many times, I heard them dismiss the political concerns of their advisers, saying, “I don’t care about my politics, it’s the right thing to do.”

The esteem with which I held the presidency was dealt a serious blow when Donald Trump took office. Almost immediately, I began to see a startling aberration from the remarkable, though human, presidents I had served. Mr. Trump’s lifelong preoccupation with aggrandizing himself seemed to intensify in office, and he quickly leveraged his 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. address and his Twitter handle to burnish his brand and misrepresent reality.

Presidents throughout the years have differed in their approaches to policy, based on political platforms, ideologies and individual beliefs. Mr. Trump, however, has shown highly abnormal behavior by lying routinely to the American people without compunction, intentionally fueling divisions in our country and actively working to degrade the imperfect but critical institutions that serve us.

Although appalling, those actions shouldn’t be surprising. As was the case throughout his business and entertainment careers, Mr. Trump charts his every move according to a calculus of how it will personally help or hurt him. His strategy is to undercut real, potential and perceived opponents; his focus is to win at all costs, irrespective of truth, ethics, decency and — many would argue — the law. His disparagement of institutions is designed to short-circuit legitimate law enforcement investigations, intelligence assessments and media challenges that threaten his interests. His fear of the special counsel’s work is especially palpable, as is his growing interest in destroying its mandate.

For more than three decades, I observed and analyzed the traits and tactics of corrupt, incompetent and narcissistic foreign officials who did whatever they thought was necessary to retain power. Exploiting the fears and concerns of their citizenry, these demagogues routinely relied on lies, deceit and suppression of political opposition to cast themselves as populist heroes and to mask self-serving priorities. By gaining control of intelligence and security services, stifling the independence of the judiciary and discrediting a free press, these authoritarian rulers followed a time-tested recipe for how to inhibit democracy’s development, retard individual freedoms and liberties, and reserve the spoils of corrupt governance for themselves and their ilk. It never dawned on me that we could face such a development in the United States.

On the international front, Mr. Trump pursues policies that are rooted in uninformed campaign promises, a determination to upend actions of his predecessors and an aversion to multilateral engagements. His ad hoc and frequently impulsive approach to national security is short-sighted and dangerous, as allies and partners are left uncertain about U.S. strategy and objectives.

The impact of the Trump presidency will be felt for many years to come. Most worrisome is that his use of falsehoods, his mean-spirited and malicious behavior, and his self-absorption will be emulated by many young Americans — indeed, young people globally — who look to the president of the United States as a role model.

The damage also will be felt by the millions of Americans who believe in Mr. Trump because of their concern about being left behind in a rapidly changing globalized world. These Americans have a legitimate gripe that politicians and political parties of all stripes have failed to deliver on the promise that America is the land of opportunity for all, irrespective of race, creed or place of residence. At a time when deep-seated fears of socioeconomic and cultural change need to be addressed honestly and without prejudice, Mr. Trump grandstands like a snake-oil salesman, squandering his formidable charisma and communication skills in favor of ego, selfishness and false promises.

Many have condemned my public criticism of Mr. Trump, arguing that as a former CIA director, I should bite my tongue. My criticisms, however, are not political; I have never been and will never be a partisan. I speak out for the simple reason that Mr. Trump is failing to live up to the standards that we should all expect of a president.

As someone who had the rare privilege of directly serving four presidents, I will continue to speak out loudly and critically until integrity, decency, wisdom — and maybe even some humility — return to the White House.

Thank you, Mr. Former CIA Director.

Check out Amy Suskind’s list, linked above, if you can bear to.

Tomorrow: another American hero.  Reflections on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

It’s compelling, to say the least — David Buckel self-immolated  to bring it to your attention.

Here’s a simple guide to get you started.

New York City is among those enabling this for apartment dwellers.  (My building recycles compostables; it makes me very happy.)   Boston offers a handy guide of its own.

And because composting is about working together in sensible ways to preserve our miraculous little spaceship, here’s a 48-second political ad I found only vaguely related, but uplifting.  Remember good old-fashioned decency?  Civility?  Citizenship?  Norms?  Compromise?  Values?  Eloquence?  Modesty? Generosity of spirit? Bipartisanship?

Just sayin’.

Have a great weekend!

It turns out there is a cure for hiccups, which I have clinically tested in a sample size of two different situations on two different continents.  SCARING my pal didn’t work; and the remedy a bartender in Athens poured with a 100% guarantee didn’t work.  But the remedy a bartender in Costa Rica prescribed last year works amazingly and all but instantly . . . so write this down where you won’t forget it: Heavily salt a large lime wedge (like a quarter of a lime, with a “line of salt” on top, like you see lines of coke in the movies) and chomp deeply into it, swallowing all the salty juice.  No more hiccups.

You’re welcome.

And while I’m dispensing the kind of financial advice you won’t get over at the Motley Fool, here’s this: If you’re the kind of person who wakes up with a headache after drinking . . . just take an Advil as you’re going to sleep.  You might have to take another in the morning, but in that case you might need to reconsider your relationship with alcohol.

Cheers.

Separately, and with a warning from the beginning of time to the end of the universe holding me harmless should you attempt feats of this kind, I should tell you that — waste not, want not — I yesterday scored a personal best.  (Long-time readers will know that a hobby of mine is eating expired food.)  Not quite as good as the Kraft Fat-Free salad dressing dated October 6, 2001, that I enjoyed this past winter, but this was (loosely speaking) dairy!  Specifically, a long-frozen two-pak of Egg Beaters marked “USE BY JAN 31 2004” successfully cooked and consumed with a little salt and pepper May 31, 2018.  No hiccups, no hangover — just a deep sense of personal pride and satisfaction.

Each of us has his niche.

Read it here (tomorrow, I promise, the cure for hiccups; but this is just too important):

. . . On a Tuesday night rally in Nashville, Trump once again made a pitch to the crowd that the FBI had “infiltrated” his campaign, saying that “nothing like this has ever happened in the history of our nation.” Then he went on to lead the crowd in booing John McCain.

Trump’s attack on the investigation and the investigators may seem like just another repetition of the kind of blatant lie he has using against Robert Mueller’s team for weeks. It is. And it’s the same kind of attack he’s using against former FBI director James Comey. And former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. And Sally Yates. And James Clapper. And John Brennan. And pretty well every official who has so much as voiced disagreement with Trump.

Meanwhile, Robert Mueller and the FBI have proceeded as they always do—quietly, step-by-step, working behind the scenes, avoiding publicity, and ignoring Trump. Which is exactly what Donald Trump wants.

. . .

[T]here is a justice system plodding stolidly onward, building a case behind the scenes. [T]here is a media that’s all too readily distracted by the latest shiny object, unwilling to stay focused on any of Trump’s outrages because it would take away from following the new outrage, and unwilling to go after Trump on his own terms because it’s beneath their idea of journalistic dignity. . . .

Which is why Trump is winning. Why he is, as Jonathon Chait points out in New York Magazine, carving away American democracy one slice at a time. So that when Mueller finally emerges, and the press finally wakes up, it could be far too late.

. . .

If you’re inclined to resist, do it here.

If funds are tight, perhaps here.

Putin is winning.

Not the Fox that Trump and most of the network’s viewers watch; Shepard Smith’s afternoon show.  But still.  Here he was yesterday calling Trump out for the fraud that he is.  Under two minutes.

And here’s “Morning Joe” yesterday noting that America’s foreign policy now turns on what will best enrich the Trump family.*

There aren’t fonts large enough to do justice to the damage Putin and Trump — and most of Fox News — have done and continue to do to our beloved country.

*When Trump lied 36 years ago, inflating his net worth 20-fold to get on the Forbes 400 List, he was actually worth only $5 million.  When he lied repeatedly that he would “absolutely” release his tax returns, who knows what he was worth?  When he lied egregiously that the Republican tax cut would not benefit people like him — that in fact it would “cost him a fortune” — his net worth was doubtless on the upswing. By the time he leaves office, he and his family may be so rich he’ll feel no need to lie about it.  Only about how they got that way.

Looking for something to buoy your spirits?

Here is David Leonhardt in the New York Times:

Democrats Are Running a Smart, Populist Campaign

. . . The lesson here isn’t just about these two candidates [Stacey Abrams and Conor Lamb]. Dozens of other Democratic candidates also sound like Abrams and Lamb. The lesson is that Democrats are more united than many people realize — and are running a pretty smart midterm campaign. . . .

Read it all and take heart.

Sunday I shared with a lengthy list of “major donors” a 65-page DNC “prospectus” designed to show why they should invest — now, while the organizing snowball still has time to grow large as it rolls toward November.

I got, as always, a variety of responses.

One: where’s the message?  What are Democrats for?  

Four-word slogans that will magically inspire a massive turn-out are totally welcome — A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT! — though perhaps harder to rally around in a mid-term, when there is no one presidential candidate to lead the way.

If you have the magic bullet, for sure shoot it my way and I’ll pass it on up the line.

(As you’ll see, Leonhardt says the message is clear: We’re on your side. The other party isn’t.)

But this was my favorite response to the 65-page deck:

This is brilliant and much needed.  Having spent a decade at RAND where among other things I led the research and analytic work for the first Quadrennial Defense Review, followed by two years at the White House (NSC) under Clinton, and another decade working closely with the best companies and organizations in the world to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, I have no hesitancy in saying this is very high quality work.  It should help us understand the people we wish to serve much better and give us the infrastructure to engage them in successful campaigns.  Congratulations.  Tom Perez and his team may just have given us the tools we need to win.

There’s always room for improvement.  All suggestions welcome.

And much to be concerned about. (Ongoing Russian meddling, $30 million checks from a single old man, so many great Dems running in California they could inadvertently elect Republicans).

But these are just reasons to try the harder.  And to give our own equivalent of $30 million, whether that be $30, $300, $3,000, or $30,000.  If we all lean into it, we’ll produce a massive blue wave that changes everything.

Have you seen Michael Bloomberg’s commencement address at Rice University?  Watch, or read it here:

. . . As a New Yorker, I was surprised to learn that an act of dishonor in my hometown almost blocked Rice from coming into existence. William Marsh Rice was murdered at his home in Manhattan, just a few blocks from my company’s headquarters, by two schemers who tried to re-write his will.

They were caught, his money went where he wanted it to go, the university was built, and fittingly, an honor code was created that has been central to student life here from the beginning.

And ever since you arrived here on campus, on nearly every test and paper you submitted, you signed a statement that began, ‘On my honor.’ But have you ever stopped to think about what that phrase really means?

The concept of honor has taken on different meanings through the ages: chivalry, chastity, courage, strength. And when divorced from morality, or attached to prejudice, honor has been used to justify murder, and repression, and deceit. But the essence of honor has always been found in the word itself.

As those of you who majored in Linguistics probably know, the words ‘honor’ and ‘honest’ are two sides of the same coin. In fact, the Latin word ‘honestus’ can mean both ‘honest’ and ‘honorable.’

To be honorable, you must be honest. And that means speaking honestly, and acting honestly, even when it requires you to admit wrongdoing — and suffer the consequences.  The commitment to honesty is a responsibility that you accepted as an Owl.  It is also, I believe, a patriotic responsibility.

As young children, one of the first things we learn about American history is the story of George Washington and the fallen cherry tree.  ‘I cannot tell a lie,’ young George tells his father. ‘I cut it down.’  That story is a legend, of course.  But legends are passed down from generation to generation because they carry some larger truth.

The cherry tree legend has endured because it’s not really about George Washington. It’s about us, as a nation. It’s about what we want for our children — and what we value in our leaders: honesty.

We’ve always lionized our two greatest presidents — Washington and Lincoln — not only for their accomplishments, but also for their honesty.  We see their integrity and morals as a reflection of our honor as a nation.

However, today when we look at the city that bears Washington’s name, it’s hard not to wonder: What the hell happened?

In 2016, the Oxford English Dictionary’s word of the year was ‘post-truth.’ And last year brought us the phrase, ‘alternative facts.’  In essence, they both mean: Up can be down. Black can be white. True can be false. Feelings can be facts.

A New York Senator known for working across the aisle, my old friend Pat Moynihan, once said: ‘People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.’ That didn’t used to be a controversial statement.

Today, those in politics routinely dismiss any inconvenient information, no matter how factual, as fake — and they routinely say things that are demonstrably false.  When authoritarian regimes around the world did this, we scoffed at them.  We thought the American people would never stand for that!

For my generation, the plain truth about America — the freedom, opportunity, and prosperity we enjoyed — was our most powerful advantage in the Cold War.  The more communists had access to real news, the more they would demand freedom.  We believed that — and we were right.

Today, though, many of those at the highest levels of power see the plain truth as a threat. They fear it. They deny it. And they attack it — just as the communists once did. And so here we are, in the midst of an epidemic of dishonesty, and an endless barrage of lies.

The trend toward elected officials propagating alternate realities — or winking at those who do — is one of the most serious dangers facing democracies. Free societies depend on citizens who recognize that deceit in government isn’t something to shrug your shoulders at.

When elected officials speak as though they are above the truth, they will act as though they are above the law. And when we tolerate dishonesty, we get criminality.

Sometimes, it’s in the form of corruption. Sometimes, it’s abuse of power.  And sometimes, it’s both. If left unchecked, these abuses can erode the institutions that preserve and protect our rights and freedoms — and open the door to tyranny and fascism.

Now, you might say: There’s always been deceitful politicians and dishonest politicians — in both parties. And that’s true.  But there is now more tolerance for dishonesty in politics than I have seen in my lifetime.  And I’ve been alive for one-third of the time the United States has existed!   I know, you find that hard to believe.  So do I, but if you do the math, that’s what it is.

My generation can tell you:  The only thing more dangerous than dishonest politicians who have no respect for the law, is a chorus of enablers who defend their every lie.

Remember: The Honor Code here at Rice just doesn’t require you to be honest.  It requires you to say something if you saw others acting dishonestly.  Now that might be the most difficult part of an honor code, but it may also be the most important, because violations affect the whole community.

And the same is true in our country.  If we want elected officials to be honest, we have to hold them accountable when they are not — or else suffer the consequences.

Now, don’t get me wrong: honest people can disagree. That’s what democracy is all about! But productive debate requires an acceptance of basic reality.

Take science for example: If 99 percent of scientists whose research has been peer-reviewed reach the same general conclusion about a theory, then we ought to accept it as the best available information — even if it’s not a 100 percent certainty.

Yes, climate change is only a theory — just like gravity is only a theory. And the fact that Newton’s theory of motion didn’t take into account Maxwell’s observations on the speed of electromagnetic waves as a constant and that Einstein’s special theory of relativity better described motion when things move very fast — doesn’t mean that if I let go of this pen it won’t fall to the ground.

That, graduates, is not a Chinese hoax. It’s called science — and we should demand that politicians have the honesty to respect it.

Hard though it is to believe, some federal agencies have actually banned their employees from using the phrase ‘climate change.’ If censorship solved problems, today we’d all be part of the old USSR, and the Soviets would have us speaking Russian.

Of course, it’s always good to be skeptical and ask questions.  But we must be willing to place a certain amount of trust in the integrity of scientists. If you aren’t willing to do that, don’t get on an airplane, don’t use a cell phone or microwave, don’t get treated in a hospital, and don’t even think about binge-watching Netflix.

Scientific discovery permeates practically every aspect of our lives — except, too often, our political debates.

The dishonesty in Washington isn’t just about science, of course. We weren’t tackling so many of the biggest problems that affect your future – from the lack of good jobs in many communities, to the prevalence of gun violence, to the threats to the economy and threats to the environment — because too many political leaders are being dishonest about facts and data, and too many people are letting them get away with it.

So how did we get here?  How did we go from a president who could not tell a lie to politicians who can not tell the truth?  From a George Washington who embodied honesty, to a Washington, D.C. defined by deceit?

It’s popular to blame social media for spreading false information.  I for one am totally convinced that Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber are still dating, but the problem isn’t just unreliable stories. It’s also the public’s willingness — even eagerness — to believe anything that paints the other side in a bad light.  That’s extreme partisanship — and that is what’s fueling and excusing all this dishonesty.

Extreme partisanship is like an infectious disease.  But instead of crippling the body, it cripples the mind. It blocks us from understanding the other side.  It blinds us from seeing the strengths in their ideas — and the weaknesses of our own.  And it leads us to defend or excuse lies and unethical actions when our own side commits them.

For example: In the 1990s, leading Democrats spent the decade defending the occupant of the Oval Office against charges of lying and personal immorality, and attempting to silence and discredit the women who spoke out. At the same time, leading Republicans spent that decade attacking the lack of ethics and honesty in the White House.

Today, the roles are exactly reversed — not because the parties have changed their beliefs — but because the party occupying the Oval Office has changed.

When someone’s judgment about an action depends on the party affiliation of the person who committed it, they’re being dishonest with themselves and with the public. And yet, those kinds of judgments have become so second nature that many people — in both parties — don’t even realize that they are making them.

Now, I know it’s natural to root for your own side — especially when the other side is the Houston Cougars. But governing is not a game.

When people see the world as a battle between left and right, they become more loyal to their tribe than to our country. When power — not progress — becomes the object of the battle, truth and honesty become the first casualties.

You learned here at Rice that honesty leads to trust and trust leads to freedom — like the freedom to take tests outside the classroom.   In democracy, it’s no different.  If we aren’t honest with one another, we don’t trust one another, then we place limits on what we ourselves can do, and what we can do together as a country.

It’s a formula for gridlock and national decline — but graduates, here’s the thing:  It doesn’t have to be that way.

When I was in city government, I didn’t care which party proposed an idea — and I never once asked someone his or her party affiliation during a job interview, or who they voted for. As a result, we had a dream team of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.  That diversity made our debates sharper, our policies smarter, and our government better.

Arguments were won and lost on facts and data — not parties and polls. That was why we had success.  And it’s been great to see other mayors around the country taking that same kind of approach.  But at the national level, in Washington today, partisanship is everything.  And I think the dishonesty that it produces is one of the greatest challenges that your generation will have to confront.

Of course, partisanship is not a new problem. George Washington warned against it in his Farewell Address.  He referred to the ‘dangers of parties,’ and called the passion that people have for our parties, quote, ‘worst enemy’ of democracy — a precursor to tyranny.  Washington urged Americans to, quote, ‘discourage and restrain’ partisanship.  Sadly, in recent years, the opposite has happened.

There is now unrestrained, rabid partisanship everywhere we look. It’s not just on social media and cable news. It’s in the communities where we live, which are becoming more deeply red or more deeply blue. It’s in the groups and associations and churches we join, which increasingly attract like-minded people. It’s even in the people we marry.

Fifty years ago, most parents didn’t care whether their children married a member of another political party, but they didn’t want them marrying outside their race or religion, or inside their gender.

Today, thankfully, polls show a strong majority support for inter-racial, inter-religious, and same-sex marriage and that is progress. But unfortunately, the percentage of parents who don’t want their children marrying outside of their political party has doubled and the more people segregate themselves by party, the harder it becomes to understand the other side, and the more extreme each party grows.

Studies show that people become more extreme in their views when they are grouped together with like-minded people. And that’s now happening in both parties.   And as a result, I think it’s fair to say the country is more divided by party than it has ever been since the Civil War.

Last month, legislators in South Carolina — which was the first state in the Union to secede back in 1860 — introduced a resolution that contemplated a debate on secession.   Now it’s easy to dismiss that as a fringe idea — and let’s hope it never happens.  But in like-minded groups, fringe ideas can gather momentum with dangerous speed – just remember Germany in the late 1930s.

If that continues to happen here, America will become even more divided, and our national anthem may as well become the Taylor Swift song: ‘We are never, ever, ever, getting back together.’

So why do I bring this up as you finish your time at this great university?

Well, I’m hoping you graduates will draw more inspiration from a song by a different artist: Zedd, Maren Morris, and Grey:  ‘Why don’t you just meet me in the middle?  I’m losing my mind just a little.’

Bringing the country back together I know won’t be easy. But I believe it can be done — and if we are to continue as a true democracy, it must be done, and it will be up to your generation to help lead it.

Graduates, you’re ready for this challenge.  Because bringing the country back together starts with the first lesson you learned here at Rice:  Honesty matters. And everyone must be held accountable for being honest. So as you go out into the world, I urge you to do what honesty requires.

Recognize that no one, nor either party, has a monopoly on good ideas. Judge events based on what happened, not who did it. Hold yourself and our leaders to the highest standards of ethics and morality.  Respect the knowledge of scientists. Follow the data, wherever it leads. Listen to people you disagree with — without trying to censor them or shout over them. And have the courage to say things that your own side does not want to hear.

I just came yesterday from visiting an old friend in Arizona, who has displayed that kind of courage throughout his life: Senator John McCain, who is currently fighting brain cancer.

Now, John and I often don’t see eye to eye on issues. But I have always admired his willingness to reach across the aisle, when others wouldn’t dare.

He bucked party leaders when his conscience demanded it. He defended the honor of his opponents, even if it cost him votes.  And he owned up to his mistakes — just like that young kid with the cherry tree.

Imagine what our country would be like if more of our elected officials had the courage to serve with the honor that John has always shown on the battlefield, in Washington and in his personal life.

Graduates, after today, you will no longer be bound by the Rice honor code. It will be up to you to decide how to live your life — and to follow your own honor code.

This university has given you a special opportunity to learn the true meaning of honor to base that code on. And now, I believe, you have a special obligation to carry it forward — into your work places, your communities, your political discussions, and yes, into the voting booth because the greatest threat to American democracy isn’t communism or jihadism, or any other external force or foreign power. It’s our own willingness to tolerate dishonesty in service of party, and in pursuit of power.

So let me leave you with one final thought: We can all recite the inspiring words that begin the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident —

But remember that the Founding Fathers were able to bring those truths to life only because of the Declaration’s final words:  ‘We mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’

That pledge of honor and that commitment to truth is why we are here today. And in order to preserve those truths, and the rights they guarantee us, every generation must take that same pledge, and it’s now your turn.

Earlier today, I told President Leebron that I’d like to make a donation to Rice. His eyes lit up!  But I said, ‘No, not a financial donation.’  I told him I’d like to donate a cherry tree to be planted here on campus with a plaque that reads:  ‘In Honor of the Class of 2018.’

And when you come back to campus as alumni, if you pass by the tree, I hope you’ll remember why it’s there — and what it represents to our great country. And throughout your life, when you chop down a cherry tree, as we all do from time to time, admit it — and demand nothing less from those who represent us.

Graduates, you have earned this great celebration. So tonight, have one last Honey Butter Chicken Biscuit. And tomorrow, carry the values of this great university with you, wherever you go.

You will never regret it. I make that pledge to you on my honor.

Congratulations — and go Owls!

 

Have a great long weekend.

Along with the hot dogs and beer, remember the brave Americans who died defending our great democracy, its Constitution — the truth — and the rule of law.