NEWSPAPERS CAN HELP SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY

 

In our information age of Facebook “likes,” Twitter “microblogging,” social media negativity and cable news political extremism, it is not an exaggeration to point to newspapers as one of the final bastions of support for American democracy. This commentary will explore the impact of the information age on newspapers and why it is important that they continue to be a vital vehicle for information delivery now and in our future.

It is not “news” that newspaper circulation has been steadily declining for the last decade. The estimated total U.S. daily newspaper circulation (print and digital combined) in 2020 was 24.3 million for weekday and 25.8 million for Sunday, each down 6% from the previous year.

Not only are information seekers ignoring newspapers as their primary source, those that do spend less time reading. Average minutes per visit for the top 50 U.S. daily newspapers, based on circulation, is a little less than two minutes in 2020. This is down about 45 seconds from when this measure was first tracked in 2014.

While publishing newspapers online initially increased viewership, the pandemic influenced a number of core newspaper advertisers, such as retail, theaters and those that promote community events. These categories cut back on marketing budgets, accelerating newspaper decline of the all-important ad revenue.

The downturn of newspaper publication has various adverse consequences, in particular at the local level. Research has linked closures of newspapers to declines in civic engagement of citizens, increases in local crime, increases in government corruption/waste, and increases in political polarization. The decline of local news has also been linked to the increased "nationalization" of local elections, as candidates are not evaluated in terms of local issues.

Why should we care that newspapers are declining? After all, the information age assures us that more knowledge is available from more sources than at any time in our history.  Newspapers take time to be read, and the subscriptions are expensive.  Why should someone support a newspaper that writes editorials or publishes opinion pieces against their core beliefs? Social media is free and offers information that takes little time to digest and is in-line with the viewer’s mindset. (66% of Facebook users get news through its site.)

A recent essay in the Atlantic Magazine helped me understand the causes of the information crisis we are going through and how newspapers can help return us to sanity. The well-known author, Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist who specializes in morality and ethical leadership.  In the April 11, 2022 issue, he published an essay titled: Why The Past 10 Years Of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid.

Haidt’s premise is that three major forces bind together large diverse democracies like the United States.  These are extensive social networks with high levels of trust, strong institutions and shared stories. He points to James Madison who wanted to address this Achilles heel of democracy, “the turbulence and weakness of unruly passions,” in adopting a constitutional republic form of government.

Madison was also concerned about our vulnerability to triviality when he wrote: “where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”  According to Haidt: “The framers wrote the constitution, in part, to guard against these weaknesses by building a mechanism to slow things down, cool passions, require compromise and give leaders some insulation from the mania of the moment, while still holding them accountable on Election Day.”

Haidt believes that the algorithms developed to improve social media (the “like” and “share” choices in Facebook or retweets in Twitter) trigger the negative emotions that worried Madison. These “improved” social media options guide users based on past social media experience. No newspaper can compete with the sophisticated targeting of social media sites that feed viewers what they want to read and hear.

These social media tools continually chip away at trust in the government, the election process, the courts, our schools and our neighbors. Social media “dumbs down” the purpose of these institutions and the democratic stories behind the development of each.  Our information gathering brains are rewired to question everything, to never fraternize with the enemy and to attack the enemy with vigor.

When social media monopolized how we receive the news, it destabilized democracy in three respects. First, social media gave more power and voice to the political extremes who have no qualms about using the new tools to spread misinformation and outright lies. Second, the “improved” social media can control what we read. Third, social media has negatively affected the influence of traditional newspapers.

Why do we need newspapers, and what can be done to save them? Unlike social media, journalists who work for newspapers are held to an ethical standard that demands fact checking and retractions when mistakes are made. The editorial and opinion portion of each paper may adopt a certain political philosophy, but is committed to run commentary with differing views. Letters to the editor give each reader the opportunity to disagree with published opinions so that all sides of a controversy are aired in public.

The price and availability of national newspapers have never been more attractive. For a dollar a week, online subscriptions to the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are available. It is time for more Americans to stop getting their news from questionable sources to help save democracy.

 

 

 

 

   

THE ELECTION BEFORE THE ELECTION

Almost all domestic political commentary is focused on the November 8, 2022 midterm elections. The threshold question is whether Democrats will lose control of both chambers of Congress.  For the midterms, Pennsylvania offers up its own critical Senate race to replace retiring Senator Pat Toomey. The election of a new governor to replace Democrat Tom Wolf is also on the ballot in November.

The “election before the election”, better known as the Pennsylvania Primary, will be held on May 17. If the past turnout is prologue, few registered voters will take the time to disclose their preferences in the May primary. While an important general election often brings out 65% of registered voters, an average primary is lucky to achieve a 25% participation rate.

What is the political history of the election before the election?  There are no provisions in either the Federal or Pennsylvania Constitutions that govern primary elections. The United States is one of a handful of countries to select general election candidates through popular vote in a primary election system. Other democratic countries rely on party leaders or in some cases, party members to select candidates. 

Primary elections are often characterized as a more progressive, democratic vehicle for determining candidates. However, formal party organizations have adopted strict voting rules and continue to retain significant influence over primary nomination outcomes.

Primary elections can take several different forms. The terms of voter participation can vary by jurisdiction, political party, and the office or offices up for election. Pennsylvania is a closed primary state for the upcoming Senate and Governor contests.  Accordingly, voters may only cast ballots for the political party in which they are affiliated.

Why bother to vote in a primary when the focus is on the November election? First, primary elections, by design, attract those obsessive partisan voters and political operatives that are more likely to support candidates on the fringes. This trend makes it difficult for “big tent” moderate candidates who could attract a broader range of voters in a general election to win in a primary. Improved participation of moderate party voters in primary elections will often reverse this trend and result in more moderate general election candidates.

Second, when there is a larger and broader turnout of primary voters, the polling data for these voters can influence the strategy in the general election. The winning candidates will be compelled to rethink the general election and redirect resources to the demographics and issues important to all the primary voters.

Lastly, moderate candidates that garner widespread support can still influence the platform of the winning candidate if they perform better than expected in the primary contest. To demonstrate how the upcoming May “election before the election” can affect the general election, I will focus on two primaries: the Republican Senate and Democratic Governor contests.

In the Republican primary for the Senate seat two flamboyant candidates with few ties to Pennsylvania, have waged a vicious media campaign against each other. Both are seeking the support of politically active far right voters who support Donald Trump and tend to show up in primaries. First on the scene was television celebrity and former heart surgeon, Mehmet Oz, trading on his popularity and huckster demeanor. Not to be outdone, former hedge fund manager, David McCormick, entered the fray as a folksy farmer who can defeat the Democratic “socialists” and “woke” mob. On April 8, Mr. Trump announced his endorsement of Dr. Oz, which will determine to what degree the former president continues to influence his base of supporters.

Many observers are curious to see how a third candidate, Jeff Bartos, will fare in the primary. Unlike his other two opponents, he is a lifelong Pennsylvania resident, less flamboyant and without the deep pockets of his opponents. None of these candidates have been previously elected to office. The winner will face a Democratic candidate (either Conor Lamb or John Fetterman) with strong credentials serving in elected office.

In the Democratic Gubernatorial contest there is only one candidate, Josh Schapiro, the present state attorney general. He previously served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and as chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners. Shapiro’s reputation has been enhanced by gaining national attention in his efforts to protect voting rights, fight crime and defeat the opiate crisis. As a result, no other Pennsylvania Democrat could find a pathway to challenge him.

I have observed in person Mr. Shapiro’s stump speech for governor and watched a televised debate of the Republican senate primary candidates. The difference could not have been be more striking. The Republicans attacked each other and phantom socialists with mean-spirited vigor. Each tried to outmatch the other in repeating screeds made famous by Trump at his political rallies. It was clear that their positions were intended to sway a partisan audience dedicated to retuning Trump to the White House.

Our Democratic attorney general took the opposite approach in his campaign for governor. His comments explained who he was, what he has accomplished and the moderate programs he attends to implement as governor. His focus will be on education, crime and opioid-related deaths.

Keep an eye on the winner of the Republican Senate primary to see if more substantive policy positions are adopted prior to the November election. If not, Republican voters will be casting a ballot for a Trump “Parrot” rather than a thoughtful conservative.

 

 

THE BARBELL STRATEGY

“I will never get to know the unknown since, by definition, it is unknown. However, I can always guess how it might affect me, and I should base my decisions around that.” Nassim Taleb

The “barbell strategy” has gained popularity in recent years as a financial tool used by many investors to minimize risk and maximize gain in the types of investments they choose for their portfolios. The term “barbell” refers to two very different “weights” of assets attached by a thin bar. The strategy calls for unsophisticated, or older investors, to divide their assets into low-risk and high-risk investment buckets at each end of the barbell. This strategy is designed to provide protection against sudden downturns (low-risk) and to catch sudden market breakouts (high-risk).

More sophisticated investors, or fund managers, that are required to be “all-in” with stocks often describe the strategy as investing in both more conservative value stocks at one end of the barbell and more risky growth stocks at the other. Whatever the description of the barbell, or the percentage of assets placed in the low-risk and high-risk buckets, one rule remains constant. It is a fool’s game to place all of the investment assets in the middle of the risk spectrum. This “middle-of-the-road” approach guarantees a portfolio that remains stagnant and has little chance of benefiting from a market breakout that may occur once or twice a year.

Many observers believe that the barbell strategy developed after Nassim Taleb wrote his famous best seller The Black Swan in 2001. A Black Swan event is one that is highly improbable with three principal characteristics: It is unpredictable; it carries a massive impact; and, after the fact, we concoct an explanation that makes it appear less random and more predictable than it was.

As applied to investing, the thesis is that investors spend too much time on minutiae they already know. In fact, it is the unknown events that matter and which require protection from catastrophic losses. As we have seen in recent months, even if we correctly predict some things that impact the financial markets such as election results and the price of oil, other events like a global pandemic or war can override the predictable factors and throw our projections into the trash heap. Because it is impossible to time the market, the best strategy is the barbell approach.

Underlying the barbell strategy in investing is the fact that it will never maximize possible profits in a market upturn because a portion of the assets are being utilized to hedge against a downturn. Those of us that are investors and not gamblers are willing to accept this lower profit result.

I have been thinking about ways to incorporate a barbell strategy into aspects of my life other than investing. I have had to modify the terminology from low risk/high risk to include things I love to do at one end of the barbell to things I would rather keep in the box and never open on the other. The opportunities to utilize a barbell strategy were in unexpected places. Moreover, many of the activities I was hesitant to consider would improve my health or give me a more well-rounded view of the world.

First, I have applied the barbell strategy to exercise. While I go to the Cameron Wellness Center every other day, I was not losing weight. My work-out routine involved stretching and lifting weights (which I enjoy) with little aerobic exercise (which I find tedious). I have slowly shifted a portion of my workout into aerobic walking and biking as I listen to music or sports/talk radio. Now if I am confronted with a Black Swan medical event, my improved heart health, endurance, and lower weight may help me survive.

Second, I have used the barbell strategy to examine my daily schedule. Since I am retired with fewer responsibilities, it was easier to slip into a house-bound, isolated existence.  The pandemic accelerated this trend. Recently, I have sought activities outside my comfort zone and placed them on my agenda.

Lastly, I have employed a barbell strategy to compel myself to seek a wider range of political thought and views of the world. It is convenient and emotionally satisfying to only read and watch news sources that agree with my progressive views. To counter this one-sided perspective, a portion of my cable news intake now involves Fox News. I read the conservative opinion page of the Wall Street Journal every day. For the British point of view, I read the Economist and the Guardian. Taking in such diverse views while considering different causes and outcomes may better prepare me for a possible Black Swan event.

As a close friend never fails to tell me when we debate current events, “Nobody knows anything.” The older I get the more inclined I am to agree with him. In the end, the best strategy for improving mind, body and spirit is to avoid being boxed into a narrow point of view.

The world is complex and does not follow the precepts of a singular ideology, religion or school of thought. Our best protection is to take positions (some of which may be uncomfortable or against the grain) that guard against the unpredictable downside and which provide an opportunity to exploit the elusive upside.

IT IS TIME FOR A WASHINGTON COUNTY CULTURAL CENTER

 

“The arts can enrich all of our communities and the country. And the arts can connect us to each other like nothing else can.” Michelle Obama

Washington County is blessed with a diverse creative community that excels in all of the performing and fine arts, including music, drama, painting, dance and sculpture. Over the years, talented volunteers and underfunded non-profit organizations have given us Wash Arts, the Washington Symphony, the Washington Jazz Society, Community Theater, Little Lake Theater, choirs, dance ensembles and many others.

A cultural center is a community building or complex dedicated to cultural activities and the arts. The effort to provide a permanent campus for Washington County’s arts and culture organizations has never materialized for a variety of reasons. First, the well-established governmental concerns like the Washington County Development Authority, Chamber of Commerce, Community Foundation and Tourism all have their own mission statements that obligate them to fund and develop other projects. While each of the above would encourage and support a cultural center in Washington County, none is prepared to spearhead the enterprise.

Second, each cultural activity in Washington County is left to its own limited devices to raise money, find space to perform or hold classes for students and to advertise scheduled offerings to the public. Some organizations like Wash Arts were forced to dissolve for lack of funds. Others, like the Washington Symphony, scramble to find performance space before each concert, confusing its patrons and making the staging of presentations a challenge. Each organization is using its time and energy simply to survive, and none has the resources to build and maintain a cultural center.

Cultural centers are common in counties throughout Pennsylvania. In Pittsburgh, the Cultural Trust helps support Heinz Hall, The Benedum Theater, Pittsburgh Public Theater at the O’Reilly and the August Wilson Center. At the other end of the spectrum, smaller counties have often renovated and rededicated an aging, empty theater house to serve as a cultural center. Because Washington is one of the few counties to have its own volunteer symphony, which requires a sizeable auditorium, our specifications for a cultural center lie in between these two extremes.

After taking inventory of what other Pennsylvania counties have done to support cultural development, my attention was drawn to Lackawanna County, where Scranton is the county seat. I believe that this community has the ideal template for Washington County to follow.  Both are medium size counties with similar size populations. Lackawanna has made a major commitment to provide cultural opportunities for its citizens. The results are exemplary and not difficult to duplicate.

First, the Lackawanna commissioners created a “Performing Arts Center Authority” to have a dedicated body with a single-focused goal to develop and preserve a community cultural center. A semi-independent authority reviews all options for development, apart from county government but with the full support of the commissioners who would appoint experienced and enthusiastic citizens to the authority. 

Second, Lackawanna County has created “The Office of Arts and Culture” within county government. The stated mission of this county office is to “advocate and support high quality arts opportunities and programs for people of all ages throughout Lackawanna County.” From reading the available literature, it is clear that Lackawanna’s commitment to the arts has made it easy for them to collaborate with the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts and to receive advice for its programs and state grants. (In FY 2020, the state allocated $10,474,000 to the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts).

Washington County government is in a position to act now. It is well past time to provide a dedicated campus for citizens to learn new creative skills, revisit old skills and interact with others in the arts from alternative disciplines. Once our numerous performing arts and related programs have a home base, each will be able to concentrate on improving their craft to better serve the citizens of Washington County.

Following the creation of a purpose-driven governmental authority and the Office of Arts and Culture, the real work can begin. An appropriate site for the center must be identified and renovated. While I am not well-versed in commercial real estate or architecture, there appear to be several potential locations. For example, a movie theater and office spaces at the Crown Center Mall are empty. The Washington Mall is vacant and waiting for a buyer. The Court House Square building will need to be repurposed once the relocation of county offices is complete. Southpointe, Peters Township or the Mon Valley may have suitable locations.

As in all projects of this size, funds for development and ongoing maintenance are an issue. Coming out of the pandemic, both Washington County and Pennsylvania have healthy treasury surpluses. Both state and local budgets could do no better than to earmark funds for a Washington County Cultural Center. Moreover, once local corporations and regional charitable organizations determine that Washington County is making a commitment to a cultural center and to the arts, sponsorships and grants will become available.

A dedicated cultural center will provide leadership, advocacy, connections and space to grow. It will drive the political, financial and professional support for this important part of a well-rounded community. A thriving, innovative and creative populace will be the result.

 

 

 

UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD TAKES TIME & PATIENCE

 

In this age of misinformation and sound bites, one lesson should be entrenched by now. It takes hard work to be a well-informed citizen, capable of interacting with other well-informed citizens, who wish to discuss the important issues of the day. Communications from elected leaders and political parties must be fact-checked. Disclosures from individuals with impeccable professional standing and high journalistic standards are not sacrosanct. Their analysis and conclusions do not give us the green light to accept factual statements as true. It is up to each of us, who wish to make sense of the world, to avoid the emotional bliss associated with confirmation bias when someone tells us our beliefs were correct.  

Many of the issues screaming from the headlines have profound effects on our financial and emotional well-being. We hope there are simple answers to these problems so that we can comfortably agree with those we admire and respect. Unfortunately, many of the important issues we confront are complex and not explained by superficial descriptions of right and wrong.

Sometimes, the information sources we rely on are reliable. At other times, the sources have taken liberties with the facts to support a predetermined result and to keep us in blissful ignorance. If the reader of this commentary cares more about results and supporting a particular agenda than  understanding issues, please turn to the sports page or comics and enjoy.

To make my point I have chosen two topics that are on the minds of many Americans: inflation and the Ukrainian conflict. I have no political agenda or position to support.  My sole purpose is to ask readers to consider diving deeper into the vast amount of information available to them before drawing conclusions.

Inflation. The onset of the highest inflation rate in 40 years is too complex to place blame on any single factor. The combined development of pandemic-induced, supply-chain issues and strong consumer demand was unanticipated by economists of all political persuasions. Moreover, pandemic induced worker shortages has led to higher wages.

The Federal Reserve is powerless against the lack of supply of everything from computer chips to housing. Over time, chip production will increase as the pandemic winds down, and the housing market will cool off as interest rates return to a more normal level. American oil/gas producers have been reluctant to increase production, even with higher prices. Many drilling companies promised their investors that profits and dividends would take precedence over plowing earnings back into more infrastructure.

Increasing interest rates in order to get a lid on prices will lower inflation. However, if the Fed moves to hike interest rates and tighten credit too aggressively, it risks tanking the economy into a recession with negative effects on the stock market.

Ukraine. The media has painted the Ukrainian conflict as a classic battle of good vs. evil and largely ignored the geopolitical background leading up to the war. Since the Soviet Union dissolved, America has set out to enlarge the NATO military alliance to include nearly every nation in Central and Eastern Europe that had been a vassal of the Kremlin for the previous half-century. To many Russian scholars, Putin’s initial attack came as little surprise. In a sense, it was a Russian backlash waiting to happen. Going back to 1995, George Kennan, the dean of Russia experts and the architect of America’s cold war containment policy castigated NATO enlargement as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

The war has compelled Washington to make new concessions to autocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran to compel them to pump more oil. Doing so will provide a financial windfall to both countries. Moreover, both countries will have more resources to fund their deadly proxy war in Yemen where the death toll has reached 400,000 non-combatants (10,000 children).

Ukraine is a major world exporter of wheat and other grains to the world. The war has shut down exports of existing grain production and may make it difficult to plant the spring crop. The United Nations has warned that the Russian invasion could trigger global famine, as Moscow’s Black Sea blockade delays important grain exports. The conflict has stoked fears of a deepening hunger crisis in countries already facing famine conditions.

Ukraine’s combined wheat exports are crucial to a number of countries, including Egypt, Turkey, Bangladesh and Iran, who get 60% of their grain imports from the region. Without food security, many third world countries will be subject to military conflict.  On another front, important to the West, Russia and Ukraine both supply raw materials critical to chip production, which is undergoing a worldwide supply shortage (see inflation above).

On the positive side, Western Europe could increase its commitment to renewable energy to lessen dependence on Russian oil and gas. This would be a boon for the climate, not unlike the pandemic crisis when energy usage shrank by half.

When it comes to complicated economic and geopolitical issues, very little can be explained in a brief commentary. For individuals seeking to broaden their understanding the RealClear array of news, opinion and innovative research (see realclearpolicy.com and related sites) covers all angles and is a reasonable place to start. The more we understand, the less likely we are to claim the only “right” answer in our social interactions.

 

 

 

A DISPATCH FROM THE RECENT COMMISSIONER’S MEETING

 

I recently attended my first public meeting of the Washington County Commissioners. If reporters could risk their lives imbedded in Ukraine, the least I could do was take the time to show my support for our commissioners and election office employees. All have been under constant verbal attack (and recent threats of physical violence) as they attempt to move on from the 2020 election and prepare for this May’s local primary vote. The public meeting was an eye-opening exemplar of democracy in action, and in some cases, democracy run off the tracks.

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act (also known as the Open Meetings Law) requires the commissioners to deliberate and take official actions on county business in an open and public meeting.  It requires that meetings have prior notice and that the public can attend, participate and comment before the county takes the official actions.  Specifically, Washington County residents and taxpayers have the right to comment on issues “that are or may be before the board.”

The commissioners are permitted to establish rules to oversee public comment to avoid a chaotic French Revolution style “free-for-all” from disgruntled residents. In Washington County a sign-up sheet with appropriate identification is required and a three-minute limit on each speaker’s presentation has been established. In the interest of time and to avoid full-blown debate without proper deliberation, the commissioners do not respond to residents during the comment period. They do follow up with appropriate action when a valid issue is disclosed during public comment.

 

In normal times, the above process well served Washington County and other governing bodies throughout the Commonwealth.  Unfortunately, these are not normal times.  Since the “stop-the-steal” crusade erupted following Trump’s 2020 defeat, a small but vocal cadre of residents have made it their mission to challenge and decertify the election results in Washington County.

These individuals appeared to be well coordinated when making public comments.  Some attacked the county voting machines as untrustworthy.

Others attacked the manner in which votes were tabulated and demanded an expensive forensic audit. Still others focused on the discredited theories of “election expert” Douglas Frank, who personally addressed our county officials several weeks ago. Most remarks appeared to be a rehash of comments from previous meetings. Over the past year, Commissioners Diana Irey Vaughn and Larry Maggi have discovered there is no way to satisfy these unproven demands short of taking steps to illegally decertify the 2020 county election.  

 

A second occurrence took place during the public comment period that was  further removed from the intended purpose of permitting rational input from concerned citizens. Two Row Office officials, known for their hostility against the commissioners, signed up to speak as private citizens. Each used their allotted three minutes to level personal attacks that had little to do with the business before the board. Their comments were embarrassing, derogatory, disrespectful and defamatory. The only possible explanation for such an outrageous display would be to use these outbursts as fodder for their social media or as a political tool to remove those commissioners with whom they disagree. 

What transpired contradicts the purpose of open meeting public comments. These Row Office officials should be banned from participating at future commissioner meetings as private citizens. This would not be discriminatory because these members of county government are in a position to make their views known through press releases, news conferences and political advertising. Their objective in speaking is not to discuss an issue on the meeting agenda. It is to attack the leadership of the county in the hope of replacing them in the next election cycle.

The last speaker in support of the “stop the steal” movement had the only new information of the day to report to the commissioners.  At the end of her comments she smiled and informed them she had a message from “election expert” Douglas Frank who has begun his own vicious attack against the commissioners. The commissioners were warned to be very concerned that Mr. Frank had acquired “all of their digital information including sign-ins and passwords.” This was a thinly veiled threat, which, in my humble legal opinion, may be criminal.

I came away from the meeting conflicted over whether the better response would be to ignore the misinformed repetitious barrage or to rebut it head-on with public statements supporting Washington County’s election process and discrediting the maverick Row Office speakers. In favor of the first approach, if few county citizens are paying attention to this nonsense, it may be prudent not to give it further attention. The second approach has the advantage of publically speaking the truth to such patently false positions and outrageous conduct. Whatever the resolution of this charade, under no circumstances should either the voter fraud adherents or the outlaw public officials who seek to discredit the commissioners receive any further concessions. Enough is enough.

When the public comment period was completed, almost all of the observers cleared the boardroom and took their talking points out to the foyer. With few spectators looking on, the meeting room returned to the formal civility it deserves. The commissioners could finally get down to the important county agenda items they were elected to address and to resolve.

 

 

 

THE UNDERDOGS THAT KEEP FREEDOM ALIVE

 

“The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride to safety.” Volodymyr  Zelensky

Last weekend, we took a break from Netflix and watched the 1960 John Wayne version of The Alamo. It just happened to be the anniversary of this important historical event (February- March 1836).

The over three hour production tells the well-known story of a small band of Tennessee volunteers joining forces with local Texans to take on a large Mexican Army before being killed in action. The fact that two larger-than- life American heroes, Davy Crockett and James Bowie, fought and died in the conflict have added to the allure. However, we most remember the Alamo for the actions of the brave few to keep the ideal of Texas independence alive in the face of overwhelming odds.

History is replete with similar examples of the underdog taking on a superior adversary to preserve a way of life free from oppression. The Old Testament gives us David vs. Goliath where David accepts the Philistine challenge of single combat. Taking only his staff, sling and five smooth stones from a brook, David defeats the giant, Goliath. In modern usage, the phrase "David and Goliath" has taken on a universal meaning, denoting an underdog situation, a contest where a smaller, weaker opponent faces a much bigger, stronger adversary.

Jewish history also gives us the battle of Masada in 73 CE. According to the historian Josephus, the siege of this desert rock plateau by Roman troops ended the First Jewish Roman War with the mass suicide of 960 Jewish rebels who refused to surrender. Today, in Israel, many Jewish soldiers who complete their basic training are sworn-in on top of Masada.

In the classical Greek world, the Battle of Thermopylae between Spartan Greeks and invading Persians occurred in 480 BCE. Seven thousand Greeks were able to hold off two hundred thousand Persians at the narrow mountain path until betrayed by one of their own. The Spartan King, Leonidas, refused to retreat and with three hundred of his men died in battle. Today, Thermopylae is celebrated as an example of heroic persistence against seemingly impossible odds.

Many nations and cultures have similar legendary myths and verified historical events to help bolster national cohesion when threatened by superior outside forces. Our own American Revolution pitted thirteen small, unruly colonies against the world’s greatest eighteenth century empire. Few expected the one- sided conflict to end in a colonial victory.

Before the horrified eyes of the world, in real time on 24/7 live media, the nation of Ukraine now has its own unifying event. The unprovoked Russian attack on its homeland will serve as a fundamental building block of Ukrainian nationalism for years to come.

The position of Russian President Vladimir Putin that “there is no historical Ukrainian nation worthy of present-day sovereignty,” is only the latest insult in a long history of Russian bullying. In fact, Ukraine did not get created in any real sense by the old Soviet Union as claimed by Putin. It was already there, and it already had an extremely long and complex history.

For decades, the Soviet Union treated Ukrainians as second-class citizens, or worse. First, one of the greatest political atrocities in Europe of the 20th century took place in Ukraine when Stalin imposed a famine that caused the death of about 3.9 million people. Second, after Germany overran Ukraine in WWII, Soviet officials treated Ukrainians as Nazi collaborators, and many were persecuted. Third, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred on Ukrainian soil, and the Soviet leadership did not disclose the spread of radioactive material to the Ukrainian people.

Without question, Russians and Ukrainians share many similar values and historical events. Citizens along the common border speak both languages and often hold dual passports. However, since the popular independence referendum in 1991, Ukraine has become a democratic state and sought closer ties with Western Europe, including membership in the EU. Putin now seeks to reverse this trend by placing a pro-Russian regime in power through naked aggression.

As I pen this commentary, Ukraine is holding its own against one of the largest and best-trained militaries in the world. If Russia persists, it is doubtful Ukraine can win a military victory.  However, in the end, the Ukrainian people will gain a sense of national identity, a commitment to independence and the support and gratitude of the world beyond measure.  Such is the power of an underdog who is willing to fight and to die to preserve its freedom.

The brave Ukrainian underdogs have performed a valuable wakeup call for all of us. When a million mothers and children are forced to leave their homes, and school teachers are fighting in the streets to disable tanks, the least we can do towards our fellow Americans is understand that others do not always think as we do. The disagreement does not mean they are bad people. The world is a complex, dangerous place, and we need each other. We need to develop a set of civic values that apply to every American.  We need to encourage and aid the underdogs among us, who seek their own freedom and the right to disagree.  We must be prepared to sacrifice a portion our own material lifestyle and financial well-being to make it happen. Otherwise, we are enabling the Putins of this world to take control.