THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS ADOPT VOTER SUPPRESSION

In our tribal politics, issues affecting apresidential election can take on emotional, partisan overtones. Unfortunately, local Republican public officials can lose sight of their important role to remain even-handed in the administration of elections. They may wrongly overlook the fact that they were elected to serve all voters and to insure that all votes count.

In an effort to galvanize an election victory, they may choose a partisan plan that increases the odds for their preferred candidates even if the decision suppresses the vote. Moreover, there may be a political self-interest in “throwing a bone” to the vocal and extreme “election deniers” within their jurisdiction to gain their support.

Last week, the Washington Republican Commissioners, Nick Sherman and Electra Janis, took such a partisan action regarding a voter’s right to cure a defective mail-in ballot. The Commissioners removed this fair voting measure, reversing prior county election office procedures that permitted curing. This ensured that voters who, in error, submit defective mail-in ballots will not be notified of the mistake or permitted to correct their ballot.

The decision was made to minimize voter participation and without regard for the reasonable interpretation of current Pennsylvania election law. Notably, neighboring Republican counties and other counties across the Commonwealth have taken the opposite position. They continue to permit the curing of mail-in ballots to ensure that all votes count.

I recently reviewed the tangled web of election laws and legal opinions that have brought confusion to Pennsylvania elections. The current election law, Act 77 went into effect in April 2020. While Republicans initially supported the law, it has since been subject to constant litigation. Our Republican Commissioners have used the complexity of election law to camouflage their position that is designed solely to silence votes. There is no law or legal opinion that compels them to do so.

Once the complex web is untangled, the following points are revealed.

·      Past elections have confirmed that mail-in ballot fraud is exceptionally rare. There is no evidence that mail-in ballots, other than rejecting defective ballots with no right to cure, would materially affect the outcome of any Pennsylvania election.

·      The PA. Supreme Court ruled that ballots are accepted only if they are sent in an official return envelope and within an inner secrecy envelope.

·      Our Supreme Court also ruled that counties could not reject ballots because the voter’s signature on the outer envelope did not match one on file.

·      Voters can only return their own ballot to a drop box or to the local election office.

·      The most recent litigation involves the requirement of Act 77 that voters correctly sign and date the outer envelope for a mail-in ballot to be counted. In April, a three member panel of the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the provisions of Act 77 and ruled that ballots must be properly dated.

·      In the opinion, the majority admitted, “The date requirement is irrelevant to whether a vote is received timely.”  In other words, the date requirement in Act 77 serves no useful purpose.

·      The ACLU and NAACP, among others, have petitioned the full Third Circuit to reconsider the decision. A spokesperson has commented, “The thousands of voters affected here are eligible and registered. They completed their mail ballots, signed the return envelope and got their ballots in on time. Their votes should count.”

·      Our Republican Commissioners and their supporters in justifying their decision not to permit a voter to cure a defective mail-in ballot often cite this opinion upholding the useless date requirement. Importantly, there is no discussion or ruling in the opinion that prohibits a voter’s right to cure a defective ballot.

·      Ballot curing is a two-step process that requires notification by the election office of an error and correction by the voter. Act 77 does not address ballot curing. The Republican Commissioners argue that this omission means it should not be done. All Pennsylvania right to vote groups and most election law experts disagree.

·      Thirty states including Texas and Florida require election officials to notify voters of errors and permit corrections of mail-in ballots.

·      The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued an order permitting ballot curing to continue.

·      In each election cycle since 2020, when mail-in voting was implemented in Pennsylvania, there have been thousands of mail ballots not counted because of unintended technical errors voters made when completing their ballots. Counties, including Washington County until last week, corrected this problem by permitting ballot curing.

Spotlight PA, has concluded that errors on mail-in ballots impact specific communities of voters more than others, including older voters, low-income voters and voters in communities of color. According to Marian Schneider, senior voting rights policy counsel at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, these disparities have been known for years. Schneider has noted that “Whenever you have a strict reading of election rules, it’s going to disproportionately impact low income voters and … nonwhite voters,”

Our Republican Commissioners are well aware of these voting statistics. Following the bipartisan review of the 2020 election results, voter fraud could no longer be used by Republicans to debunk mail-in voting. It was time to find a new scheme to limit legitimate voting and provide the Republican Party with an unfair advantage in our important battleground state.

Supporters of fair elections must denouce the decision by Commissioners Sherman and Janis to disenfranchise Washington County voters by adopting officially mandated voter suppression.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMMIGRATION DESERVES SOME LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING

Recent polls have placed immigration on top of the “most important problem list.”  A record 55% of eligible voters say the large number of immigrants entering the United States represents a critical threat to American interests. Ninety percent of Republicans believe this to be true.

The national discourse on immigration has become so polarized that a consensus on the issue is impossible. The opinion pages of the Observer Reporter are no exception. The newspaper’s editorials, letters to the editor and op-ed pieces have taken strong positions on opposite sides of the debate.

For example, on January 11, 2024, a letter to the editor advised “Stop being so afraid of immigrants! Each wave brings people who come here not to steal, but to live and work and raise their families. Give the U.S. Border Patrol what they need to keep out the bad apples.”

On February 14, 2024, an op-ed written by David Ball concluded, “President Biden is guilty of dereliction of duty….the American people will pay with our treasure, our health, safety and security.”

On March 2, 2024, an O-R editorial was titled: “Immigrants are a boost to the economy, not a drain on it.” The editorial gave the opinion, “…history has shown that they actually brought great benefits to this country. The same holds true today.”

A letter responding to this editorial called it “dishonest and naïve.” The author went on to comment, “Draining Third World cesspools and providing them with transportation, living quarters, free education and healthcare, while giving us taxpayers the finger does absolutely nothing to enhance our national security.”

A second letter responded to the O-R editorial with the caption: “The U.S. has thrived thanks to immigration.”

There are actually three issues in play when analyzing the immigration dilemma. The first focuses on the causes of world migration and immigration patterns. This important topic is largely ignored by commentators.

Almost all Americans support the second issue, the need for legislation to address the border crisis. Unfortunately, former President Trump has placed the remedy out of reach.

The third involves the role that immigration plays in American economic development. It has been overshadowed by the border crisis. With the goal of bringing some love and understanding to immigration, each topic will be discussed below.

World migration and immigration patterns. Immigration is hardly a problem unique to the United States. In 2024, there are more borders in the world than at any time in human history. Borders are often drawn arbitrarily. They divide intact communities of like-minded ethnic or religious people.  Nonetheless, most individuals prefer to remain in their country of birth. Unfortunately, wars, political strife, climate catastrophes, and climate change are forcing large numbers to migrate in order to survive.

Forced migration often causes a negative domino effect. As an example, large numbers of young Bangladeshis sought refuge in Palermo, Italy after thousands of oppressed migrants from Myanmar entered Bangladesh, leaving nothing for the native population.

Americans enjoy mobility, choices on where to live and economic opportunities unavailable to most of the world’s population. It is difficult for our citizens to imagine the desperate plight of international refugees. If anything, America should be embarrassed that poorer countries host many more displaced people, with fewer resources, and less hysteria than we do.

According to the Economist, in spite of all the worlds’ trouble spots and migration of people, the numbers on the move are only a sixth of what they were after the Second World War. Moreover, as populations grow older, there will be less migration. In the interim, the problem is not only a domestic concern; it also requires cross-border and regional cooperation.

The border crisis. No one disagrees that security at the southern border must be tightened; or that the requirements for granting/denying asylum entry must be revised; or that the legal process on asylum requires streamlining; or that a realistic number of workers should be admitted based on market requirements; or that new immigrants must be permitted to work and to pay taxes.

Congress has known for decades that only a comprehensive immigration bill will change the law and permit all of the above revisions. Recently, a working group of bi-partisan senators drafted enabling legislation that President Biden agreed to sign. Former President Trump nixed the deal by demanding that House Republicans not support it. Trump wants the border impasse to remain an open sore to attack President Biden in the general election. Once again, Congress’ self-inflicted southern border crisis and humanitarian refugee catastrophe have become political pawns.

Why we need immigration. Lost in all the grim news and political posturing in Congress is the undisputed fact that managed immigration is essential to America’s economic progress. Immigrants fill labor shortages, contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and open about 25% of new small businesses in the United States.

According to the Cato institute, a conservative think-tank, “Immigrants increase the supply of labor, which increases the supply of goods and services that people need; their consumption, entrepreneurship, and investment also increases the demand for labor, creating better‐​paying jobs for Americans elsewhere in the economy. Fundamentally, immigrants are not competitors. They are collaborators. Unfortunately, America’s immigration system fails to recognize this fact, leading to catastrophic consequences.”

The United States has the ability to enrich its diversity and strengthen its economy. It is time to show immigration some love and understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF SKEPTICISM AND DOUBT

“Skepticism is the mark of the educated mind.” John Dewey

I have a well-read, retired friend who lives on the opposite end of the political and cultural spectrum. He is a conservative, Christian Republican. We have talked once a week for fifteen years, and no topic is off limits. In the middle of a discussion, his go-to observation is often, “no one really knows anything.”

My friend is a classic “skeptic.” He has taught me to approach life with the same willingness to doubt what feels like a safe conclusion. I have learned it is ok to have an opinion, but first be skeptical. I now take the time to make sure my point-of-view can withstand a stress test based on reasonable facts.

On the issues that are tearing apart the social fabric of America, there are many points of view and few definitive answers. Unfortunately, in today’s partisan environment, any two scholars, theologians, or politicians can argue on opposite sides of important subjects with dogmatic certainty.

In fact, the critical questions facing us often come with few absolute answers. Pro-choice or pro-life? Close the borders or expand legal immigration? Increase or cut taxes? Individual liberty or more equality? Diplomacy or war? A larger military or a larger welfare state? Should the Steelers pick a quarterback or an offensive lineman?

To add to the problem, modern life offers up numerous opportunities to be fooled by unscrupulous actors. Shadow causes backed by unfounded conspiracies are quick to provide untrue answers to puzzling events. Bald-faced lies and bizarre claims bombard us every day seeking our approval.

Our tribal culture demands that rigid, unconditional positions be taken with “no questions asked.” There is little room for skepticism or doubt when analyzing important social issues or even nonsensical conspiracy theories. Rational discussion and a national consensus to solve a problem have become nearly impossible.

Skepticism and doubt are not identical concepts. Skepticism implies an open mind. It requires proof and evidence before accepting something as true. It is a logical, analytical exercise. On the other hand, doubt is a more intuitive, emotional hesitancy to accept a proposition as factually correct. According to the Cambridge dictionary, doubt implies “a feeling of not being certain about something, especially about how good or true it is.”

The ancient school of thinkers known as the Skeptics took the concept to the extreme. These philosophers called into question the very possibility of knowledge. For Skeptics, nothing was knowable with certainty.  Plato gave them credence when he acknowledged in his work the Theaetetus “what is true for one person might be false for another, with no way of judging between them.”

Other philosophers pushed back against the Greek Skeptics. Aristotle argued that suspension of belief made it impossible to act. Those that followed came to understand that failing to take a position out of an abundance of caution does not provide for a meaningful life.

Modern writing on skepticism rarely denies the existence of knowledge. Instead, the focus is on how to survive in a world overflowing with misinformation, bias, deception, flawed conclusions, and a blatant disregard for the truth. In the helpful book The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (Grand Central Publishing, October 2, 2018) the neurologist Steven Novella and his co-authors discuss the mental weaknesses and human proclivities that lead people down fantasy rabbit holes. From the unreliable nature of memory and eyewitness testimony, confirmation bias, and the powerful enticement of coincidence and anecdotes to logical fallacies, the list is long and convincing. The authors conclude that critical thinking is the most important skill we can develop as we enter the new and dangerous information age, now including artificial intelligence.

One of my favorite theater productions, Doubt, a Parable, premiered on Broadway in 2004. The setting is a parochial school in the Bronx in 1964. The play won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the Tony Award for Best Play. In 2008, the play was adapted as a feature film. It starred Meryl Streep as the school’s principal, Sister Aloysius, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn, a well-liked progressive priest. The film was nominated for several Academy Awards. This year the play has returned to Broadway.

Doubt, a Parable has staying power because it is able to make audiences think about and challenge their preconceived opinions. Is the popular priest guilty of sexual misconduct based on circumstantial evidence? Alternatively, is the conservative school principal forming conclusions not supported by the facts? At the end, the principal forces the priest to leave the school, but she is filled with ambiguous doubt. Moreover, there is no solid proof of guilt or innocence, and the audience is left with its own doubt.

This important production became a parable for both the crisis of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence gathering. The powerful message is that facts matter. Leaping to conclusions usually ends in disaster.

When my friend pauses in the middle of a discussion to remind me “no one really knows anything,” I often think of this great play. At the time it was first performed twenty years ago, most Americans did not feel entitled to superficial tribal truths, unsupported by objective reality. Now more than ever, we need many good questions and a great deal of skepticism to get to some reliable answers.

 

 

   

HUMANITIES PROGRAMS ARE VANISHING FROM UNIVERSITIES

 

In the face of declining student enrollment, lost revenue, and mounting conservative political scrutiny, university administrators are putting humanities programs on the chopping block. This issue dominated the local news last summer when the West Virginia University Board of Governors approved cutting dozens of degree programs and laid off 143 faculty to help fix a $45 million budget shortfall.

Among the myriad of issues facing higher education, many view this troubling trend facing the humanities as a major crisis.  My own liberal arts education was completed over 50 years ago. Exposure to the menu of different worldviews offered by humanities courses enriched my life. Studying the humanities made me a better lawyer and a more responsible human being.

Over the years, the humanities have undergone many transformations. When our nation was founded, most institutions of higher learning had religious underpinnings. Slowly, secular principles replaced religious-based moral education, and the notion of “the humanities” took hold. In the late nineteenth century, the term was limited to the organized study of Greek and Latin classics. The professors teaching these arcane subjects considered themselves the custodians of a proper civilization under siege from modernity and the scientific method.

According to the Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the beginning of our modern concept of the humanities began in 1936-1937 at Columbia University. Freshman were required to take “a mandatory and interdepartmental curriculum including a reading list of literary, philosophical, and religious texts from Homer to Goethe.” Soon institutions across the country began “a new intellectual context linking course work in languages, literature, history, philosophy, linguistics, religion, art, and history.” By 1945, the Harvard Red Book could confidently claim, “Tradition points to a separation of learning into the three areas of natural science, social studies and the humanities.”

As the twentieth century progressed, so did the humanities. A younger breed of scholars did not identify with the genteel cultivation of the past. Their work and teaching methods were firmly planted in the modern ideals of building on previous studies in search of new perspectives.

In the 1960s, cultural studies began to emerge within the humanities.  At first, this trend was limited to informal explorations and seminars. Today’s students seeking to learn more about their heritage, gender, and sexual orientation demand cultural courses. The offerings include studies in African American history, women’s issues, postcolonial and revisionist history, and LGBTI issues.

Until recently, there was an intense debate between the older traditionalists, (many of whom have now passed on) and younger scholars involving the influence of cultural studies on the humanities. A well-known example is Harold Bloom, the famous literary critic and humanities professor at Yale. Bloom wrote endlessly in defense of classic literature as being above social commentary on the issues of the day. He believed that great books should be read only for pleasure. Opponent scholars argued that even works considered part of the western canon were open to criticism for protecting the powerful or for marginalizing certain groups of people.

In 2024, the new progressive school has won out. The good news is social relevancy. The bad, is overspecialization and more insular humanities programs.

With this background in mind, why are the humanities disappearing from campuses across the country? At West Virginia University, the proposal was to dismiss seven per cent of its faculty and eliminate thirty-two majors with humanities at the top of the target list. While enrollment suffered during the pandemic, there was no attempt to recoup revenue through less draconian means. The university faculty voted 797 to 100 to pass a no-confidence resolution against the school’s administration for its poor performance.

WVU is not the only university taking these measures. Public universities across the country have slashed budgets. In North Carolina, a new law has made humanities professors at state universities ineligible for distinguished professorships. The President at the University of Wisconsin recently suggested that the school system shift away from liberal arts programs. Most troubling, there appears to be an organized campaign in Republican state legislatures to do away with cultural studies in public universities that address issues like race, gender, or sexual identity.

If conservative state legislatures are able to eliminate humanities programs they will succeed in keeping the Republican monopoly on the least educated voters by keeping them less well-educated for the next generation. The Republican goal is to fortify their voting strongholds and to create a prolonged two-tiered educational system. Students graduating with no exposure to the humanities will become resentful against those students from public universities in blue states and from elite universities who have the advantage of a well-rounded liberal arts education.

It is important to note that university humanities departments have contributed to their own demise. Some curriculums have lost sight of the assumptions that supported their original aims. Recent studies offer critical assessments on what needs to be done to both recover and reinvent the framework of the liberal arts for the modern age.

Higher education is not just job training. A liberal arts education is one of the great foundations of a democracy. Once the humanities expanded into cultural studies, students were able to argue about whether sexism and racism were bad or whether the rule of law, and free speech were good. All classmates attending the college of their choice should be permitted to take part in these important humanities discussions.

STUDY HISTORY TO GAIN PERSPECTIVE

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”   George Santayana    

In today’s 24/7 media cycle, minor news stories can run for a week and important ones disappear in a flash. On cable news and social media, biased news sources seek to build up or bury events that are helpful or damaging to their preferred political party.

A constitutional republic such as ours, which depends on a well-informed public and a government capable of compromise, cannot be effective under these circumstances. The study of recent historical events often provides unbiased information for understanding the present and envisioning the future.

Several months ago, my spouse began reading the novel Munich by the historical fiction writer Robert Harris. The book relates the history of the 1938 Munich Agreement in which the British and French conceded Adolf Hitler the border area of Czechoslovakia. Five months after this appeasement to tyranny, Hitler violated the agreement, invaded Czechoslovakia, and hostilities began.

As my wife was reading the story, she would often comment on how certain historical figures sounded and acted like political actors in the news today.  For example, the characters in Munich tell us, “Hitler’s genius was for making men and women love him…. Only when Hitler starts to lose will his supporters turn against him by which time it will be too late… People believe what they want to believe, he has given them an excuse not to think….Hitler had to beat, bend and cut the truth into the required shape.”

This fictional telling of an historical event gave me reason to pause and think about the lessons history can offer. There is value in taking the time to consider what came before when forming opinions about the present and the future. Below, are two examples of twentieth century history that are relevant for events in 2024. The historical and present situations are not identical, but they often do “rhyme.”

Fascism in Germany and America.  Prior to Hitler seizing power, the Weimar Republic democracy was in place from 1918 until 1933. Some historical facts from this period are eerily similar to the rise of Donald Trump in America. The German conservative industrial sector spent all fourteen years trying to erase democracy and the economic concessions given to the average worker at the end of WWI. These wealthy authoritarians, who detested regulations and talk of equality, joined forces with outright fascists to defeat democracy and install a dictator.

The fledgling German Weimar democracy depended on the middle class. Because of hyperinflation, followed by the depression, these citizens lost their savings. Many average Germans became increasingly disenchanted, and with encouragement from Hitler, blamed their situation on the German democratic institutions and Jewish citizens who tried to save them.

In America during this period, there was a strong undercurrent of isolationism, antisemitism, and fascism. According to Rachel Maddow’s recent book, Prequel: An American Fight against Fascism, “Hundreds of New York City police officers joined the Christian Front in the late 1930s; National Guardsmen supplied the group with weapons. Isolationists in Congress recited talking points drawn up by the German Foreign Office in Berlin, vilifying Franklin D. Roosevelt and urging the United States to stay out of the war. One senator, Ernest Lundeen of Minnesota, had a Nazi agent as a speechwriter.”

Many of the same anti-democratic and isolationist tendencies are front and center in today’s Republican Party. Immigrants have replaced Jews as the immediate scapegoat. White, Christian nationalism is again on the rise.

The Next Global War. I read with interest a recent essay by Hal Brands in Foreign Affairs, The Next Global War: How Today’s Regional Conflicts Resemble the Ones That Produced World War II. This distinguished professor of global events makes a strong case that “a world at risk could become a world at war” and uses the history leading up to WWII to prove his point.

We often forget that there was no integrated world war until the United States entered the conflict in December 1941. Before then, three regional conflicts were playing out with Japan’s invasion of China, Italy’s bid for an empire in Africa, and Germany’s push to take over Europe. Despite very different goals, the three aggressor nations “banded together against Western democracies that could prevent their respective ambitions.”

Today, a similar scenario is developing. The international system is again facing three regional conflicts. Two of the situations, in Ukraine and the Middle East are in open war. The third involves China and its desire for regional dominance and could explode at any time. Russia, China, and Iran are “drawing closer together through a strategic partnership featuring arms sales, technological cooperation and displays of diplomatic cooperation.” Clearly, history is close to repeating the geopolitical situation that preceded WWII.

How the nation addresses these broadening regional conflicts should be a major campaign issue in the upcoming national election. Many mistakes that were made prior to WWII can now be avoided with an aggressive foreign policy that supports our allies and proper deployment of American military resources.

One take away from these examples is how Republican foreign policy positions have ignored recent history and the growing threat to global order. Calls for increased isolationism, halting foreign aid to Ukraine, a withdrawal from NATO, and rejection of a two-state solution in the Mid-East are irrational. The darkening international scene could quickly deteriorate into a world war with nuclear implications.

 

 

 

 

HOW PETTY POLITICS CAN CONTAMINATE AN OUTSTANDING PROGRAM

Local county government is more complex than most citizens realize. Voters elect three Washington County Commissioners and are informed about their deliberations at regular public meetings. Following minimal discussion, votes are taken on all manner of county business.

In fact, the heavy lifting has already taken place well before the public meeting. An intricate maze of Commissioners’ staff, county departments, agencies, authorities, commissions, and committees have worked to hash out the details of county policy. The Commissioners then hold an in-depth meeting to discuss the final agenda.

This efficient system permits a vast amount of information and competing interests to be condensed into manageable issues requiring only an up or down vote at the public meeting. Occasionally, the system goes adrift in a big way.

Such was the case at the Commissioners’ meeting on February 15 when a vote was taken to approve the list of economic development projects submitted by the County’s Local Share Account Committee (LSA). A project advanced by the Washington City Mission appeared on a preliminary LSA list and for unexplained reasons was later removed from the final agenda. City Mission leadership, along with many concerned pastors and citizens who support the Mission, were not pleased.

Some background is in order. The LSA program was established in 2004 by the state legislature to fund economic, infrastructure, and community development projects through gaming revenues generated by casinos in counties hosting gaming facilities. Under a unique arrangement, Washington is one of the few counties that makes its own funding decisions, replacing the Commonwealth Financing Authority. An eleven-member LSA Committee made up of commissioners’ staff, a broad range of local economic interests, and two local legislators, meet to review proposals.  

Each year, the final list of LSA recommendations is submitted to the Commissioners for approval. The Commissioners have always agreed that the final list would be approved without objection to keep political considerations out of the process. This would avoid applicants from currying favor with the Commissioners or a Commissioner from rejecting a proposal for political reasons.  It is important to note that one reason for keeping the LSA process local, rather than permitting the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Financing Authority to choose the winning proposals, was to keep political influence at arm’s length.

Over the years, the LSA Committee has diligently performed its responsibilities. According to the Committee Chair and Chairman of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, Jeff Kotula, “The program has invested nearly $113 million in projects across Washington County.”

The one challenge to the work of the committee has been a long-running quixotic effort by local House of Representatives member Bud Cook. For years, Cook has criticized the Committee for its work, demanded an audit of the distribution of funds, and complained about members’ conflict of interests. Cook’s complaints have largely been ignored. There is no evidence that the Redevelopment Authority, which acts as fiscal agent for the LSA Committee, has improperly managed the funds. Moreover, Chairman Kotula has explained, “there is a conflict of interest policy mandating members remove themselves from discussions and voting if a project in which they are involved is being considered.” Unfortunately, Cook’s claims of lack of transparency have gained some traction after the recent events involving the City Mission.

A recent editorial in the Observer-Reporter explains the community uproar facing Commissioner Chairman Nick Sherman and the LSA Committee:

“On a preliminary list that was shared with Commissioner Larry Maggi on Feb. 2, $500,000 was earmarked for a shelter for homeless women that Washington’s City Mission hopes to start building this spring. Then, without explanation, it was removed before the LSA committee voted to make its recommendations on Feb. 6 and the $500,000 was rolled back into the local share account. Despite pleas from City Mission officials and supporters at Thursday’s commissioners meeting, the women’s shelter funding was not put back on the list and, again, no explanation was offered for why it was removed. Absent such an answer, we’re left with the assumption that it was all about payback.

Here’s why: In a couple of weeks, former commissioner Diana Irey Vaughan will become the new president and CEO of the City Mission, and denying the grant to the shelter was a way to settle some scores. Irey Vaughan defied the orthodoxy of the local Republican Party and stood up to her GOP colleagues in recent years. Maybe whoever decided to take the City Mission off the list thought they were being clever. Maybe tough, too. Perhaps they thought they were sending a message that you’d better toe the line or face consequences. Instead, they merely looked small and petty.”

It would not be difficult for Commissioner Sherman to interfere with the work of the LSA Committee by urging his staff members, political supporters, and fellow Republican elected officials on the Committee to remove the City Mission proposal from the final list. The Republican Commissioners and the LSA Committee need to explain what transpired with the City Mission proposal.  

This issue is not going away. In the interest of transparency, the City Mission and all entities submitting future LSA proposals are entitled to know if the rules of engagement have changed. If petty political considerations are now going to contaminate the LSA process, then say so.

 

 

 

A LIFETIME OF MUSIC

“Woh-uh-oh, listen to the music…All the time.” The Doobie Brothers

This year’s Grammy Awards brought back some great memories. Watching an 80-year-old Joni Mitchell perform her iconic 1969 song Both Sides Now took me back to my college dorm room, where there was always a record playing in the background. A few days later, I sat down to watch the documentary Echo in the Canyon, which tells the story of the music scene in Los Angeles’ Laurel Canyon in the mid-1960s. The music of Mitchell, The Byrds, The Beach Boys, The Mamas and the Papas, Buffalo Springfield and more is brought to life through interviews and video recordings.

Tracey Chapman’s Grammy rendition of Fast Car, a song from 1988, brought tears to my eyes. Chapman and this masterpiece were both rediscovered for a new generation by an admiring country singer, Luke Combs. The song, which speaks of escaping poverty and alcoholism, compelled me as a young lawyer to consider the world outside my busy, self-serving orbit.

Since the 1960s, the methods of delivering music have gone through as many transformations as the mediums for researching information. I have readily adopted and as quickly discarded scratchy vinyl albums, eight track tapes, cassette tapes, boom boxes, iPods, compact discs, and now streaming music through my vehicle, phone, and computer. Technology has continued to advance and made it easier to keep music close-at-hand in our mobile society. I can now play almost any song at a moment’s notice.

Music like art and literature is cumulative. Each new generation builds on the performers that came before. All young music lovers go through a similar transformation from the passive acceptance of the music favored by their parents to an active cultivation of their own tastes. In my experience, music has helped define and formulate a sense of self for each generation.

Identifying as a rock & roll fan, punk music devotee, country music follower, metal-head, Goth lifestyle promoter, or Swiftee gives a young adult an anchor. It is an association with others of similar age, while figuring out how to fit into a complex world. I have known teenagers who seemed to hate all music except for irritating loud noise shared with like-minded close friends. For the most part, these individuals all became functioning adults after their generation was taken over by the next one.

Rock & roll, or more to the point, classic rock, defines my favorite genre of music. Many other forms of music have brought me great joy, including symphonic performances. However, classic rock songs are the music embedded in my memory, stored and remembered unconsciously.

My first concert was at Princeton University in 1967. My mother took us to see Arlo Guthrie perform Alice’s Restaurant.  She probably favored the anti-Vietnam war theme, as we were pacifists and members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

As a teenager, I was not a fan of pop radio. My group of like-minded New Jersey companions would listen to the underground FM stations from New York City and Philadelphia. The long compositions of Cream, Yes, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, and Pink Floyd would entertain us for hours.

The summer between my 1969 high school graduation and college, I attended what would become the generation-defining concert held in Bethel, New York. Woodstock introduced me to a radical music culture I had not yet considered, wrapped in progressive political and sexual views. The bands that performed at Woodstock that memorable August weekend have remained among my favorites.

My best friend at Swarthmore College was a Beatles fan who taught me a great deal about the band’s experimentation in recording techniques. We would gather around a phonograph and play Beatles songs backwards, searching for hidden messages. When a close High School friend returned from Vietnam, he introduced me to progressive rock and Genesis. Again, hours were spent listening to cryptic lyrics, searching for hidden meaning.

In law school, my roommate was immersed in a type of music, art rock, with which I was not familiar. I learned to appreciate Peter Gabriel’s solo work, Roxy Music and similar groups.

I never would have developed a taste for Seattle Grunge music but for time spent in a rehabilitation facility to treat my alcoholism in the late 1990s. For several weeks, I was surrounded by twenty somethings recovering from opioid addiction who loudly played nothing but Nirvana and Pearl Jam. I learned to appreciate Grunge, and it is now included in my music library.

In my later years, I have come to believe that the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra is one of the greatest gifts that our area has to offer. Two hours of classical music presented by world-class performers is a magical experience. Ironically, the PSO has now taken up performing symphonic versions of classic rock albums to help pay the bills.

Given my age and music biases, many of the young performers at the Grammys failed to impress me. I am hopeful that new albums by the Rolling Stones, Hackney Diamonds, and Peter Gabriel, i/o, will gain recognition next year, but octogenarian rock musicians may no longer move the awards needle.

I am convinced that all music has its place. It connects people and their values. It furnishes a platform for the underrepresented. It supplies a window into diverse cultures. For me, it has provided a life of youthful adventure, enjoyment, and continued entertainment.