THE MUELLER REPORT RELEASE

Acting Attorney General William Barr held a press conference last Thursday in which he did the same thing that every member of the Trump administration is forced to do routinely: praise his boss repeatedly.  Sounding just like Trump himself, Barr  used the words "no collusion" several times to describe the findings of the report.  Then he released the full  four hundred plus page report of Bob Mueller's two year investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election, and even his spin couldn't shake the stink off of Trump's behavior.
While it is true that the report does not reveal outright conspiracy with Russia on the part of the Trump campaign, it does show a campaign that was aware of Russian interference and openly welcomed it.  (The New York Times documented in the report 140 contacts between Mr. Trump and his associates and Russian nationals and WikiLeaks or their intermediaries, which may not have been part of a conspiracy, but they certainly look bad.) One thing is sure, Russian influence is now an undeniable fact, despite the reluctance of the president to admit that fact.  It's amazing to think that, after decades of the confrontations of the cold war between the US and Russia, Russia's greatest victory over us may have been its disruption of an American presidential election and the victory of their chosen candidate.  While we  can't know for sure just how much of an influence Russia had on the election, the Washington Post has pointed out their campaign of fake Facebook news feeds reached over a hundred million people in this country.  Add to that the hacking and leaking of the Democratic National Committee's emails, and the importance of the timing of those leaks (thousands were released as a distraction less than an hour after the infamous tape of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women went public), not to mention the closeness of the election itself, and it's safe to say that Russia played a hand in Trump's victory.

As to the report itself, it gives further insight into a president that has always been wildly unqualified for the job, lacking the patience, intellect and temperament to run a country.   He is reported to be a egotistical, tantrum throwing brat that is extremely difficult to work for.  Furthermore, there are reports of him ordering the outright firing of Mueller, causing White House council Don McGahn to threaten to quit while telling other members that the president was asking him to "do crazy shit".

Yes,  the report shows us that the president clearly wanted no investigation at all, and may have obstructed justice in order to stop it.  But is that truly an impeachable offense?  Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, thinks so.  She recently tweeted "The Mueller report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack."  While I agree with her that the president acted terribly, I don't see any advantage to the House of Representatives pursuing an impeachment process that will inevitably die in the Senate, where Republican support is both crucial and almost impossible.   Furthermore, such a partisan exercise could wind up helping Trump in the election by firing up his base.  Although I'm a fan of Warren and her policies, I can't help but thinking that she is saying this as a way to stand out from the many other Democrats currently running for the presidential nomination.
So do we just let the president get away with possible criminal behavior?  Sadly, the answer seems to be yes, just like we let the Reagan administration get away with selling arms to Iran, Bill Clinton get away with lying under oath, and George W Bush wiretap Americans without a warrant.  In America, we give our president so much power, and make it so hard to remove him from office, that only overwhelming evidence and strong public disapproval (like Nixon had with Watergate) can successfully impeach him.  And while I agree with the idea that impeachment shouldn't be easy, it's allowed Trump to skate into potential criminal territory without any serious penalty.  Sadly, he may even win reelection in 2020, much to our nation's deep disgrace.

REPARATIONS? A MODEST PROPOSAL

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Around five years ago, writer Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled “The Case for Reparations”,  promoting the idea that the legacy of slavery in America has been so destructive and long lasting that only some kind of reparations given to African Americans can truly end that legacy.  It's an idea that has been kicked around on the left for years, but has never really entered the mainstream of American political debate.
But the notion has never completely gone away, and lately, some Democrats in the running for the presidency are discussing some form of reparations.   Most Americans oppose the idea overall (according to a recent Marist Poll, around 70% of Americans do), but it is popular in the African American community, where the voters are a  crucial part of any Democrat's road to the nomination. 
It is clear that discrimination against African Americans still exists, with our judicial and educational systems heavily slanted against them.  But should every black American just get a check from the government?  Why kind of reparations are really needed, if any?
I think the answer to that lies in our past: look at the 1950's, when the income tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was a whopping 90%.  Flush with cash, the government spent large amounts of money on education and infrastructure, and the result was the largest increase in the middle class in our nation's history.
So what does that have to do with race?  Sadly, a lot: with all that government money pouring in, city planners would draw lines on maps to designate where the money went.  (A process literally called redlining) And guess who lived in the parts of the city that got little to no funding?  That's right, African American communities were held behind while white communities got better infrastructure and schools, leading to superior opportunities for the families living there.   The long term effects of this have been devastating to inner city communities, where little education and job opportunities have led to high crime rates and poorer education.
So, I think what the country should do is raise taxes on the rich (not back to 90%, but certainly higher than they are now) and use that money on infrastructure and education where ever it is needed, especially  in every poor neighborhood in the country.  Hire people in the neighborhoods to rebuild them or work in the improved public schools.  Make sure that no child is ever exposed to lead fumes, or any other serious environmental dangers.  The improvement in the neighborhoods will lead to more businesses opening there, which will lead to better job opportunities and increased quality of life, not to mention better relationships with the police. 
Not only is improving our inner cities the right thing to do morally, it's also economically sound in the long run: remember that less people going to jail results in less tax dollars being spent on them.  Add to that the fact that improving public school education results in more people getting good jobs and putting money in the economy, making things better for the country as a whole in the long run.  This plan shouldn't be seen as  radical; in fact, as I just pointed out, it's already happened!  We just need to have the same economic priorities that we did in the 1950's, without the evil redlining.
If you look at the great modern entrepreneurs in this country, they almost always tell stories about how they were nurtured and encouraged in their childhoods not only by friends and family members, but also by their teachers and  community; right now, the next potential Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos could be living in a poor inner city neighborhood, not being given the proper support to reach his or her dreams.  What a waste.