The sex offenders keep coming

Four weeks ago, I wrote a post about the frenzy of accusations of sexual misconduct that followed disturbing revelations about movie producer Harvey Weinstein. Already, allegations were swirling about men in politics, entertainment and professions engaging in various degrees of improper behavior, ranging from unwelcome comments to extortion to violent rape.

A month into this new era, the accusations show no sign of stopping, and the esteem in which some men have been held for decades has collapsed. Matt Lauer of NBC's "Today" show is the latest incident. Initially, the sudden firing of Lauer based on one woman's accusation seemed lacking in due process. But when details emerged of Lauer's offensive behavior and his use of his own celebrity and power to demand sex from subordinates, a sudden firing was clearly years too late and too little punishment.

I never watched the "Today" show (I don't turn the TV on in the morning) and knew nothing about Lauer, but the next accused offender was a hero of mine — Garrison Keillor. I began listening to "Prairie Home Companion" in the mid-1980s and was quickly enchanted by the imaginary town where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and all the children are above average." Keillor, who has written poetry and novels and is a well-known advocate for literature, presented a world as tangible as Narnia or Middle Earth. It was a world as wholesome as Mayberry and just a little funnier with characters who lived through failings and small triumphs — real characters.

The accusation against Keillor, at least as so far has been revealed, is that he placed his hand on the bare back of a female colleague beneath her shirt. He has said that he was seeking to comfort her and that his hand inadvertently touched her bare back. He said he apologized at the time and the two remained friends. But he is not appealing his firing by Minnesota Public Radio and the end of his "Writer's Almanac" daily feature. If that is all there is to this matter, perhaps a firing is too hasty. There is no equivalence between what Keillor described and the accusations against Lauer, and as these accusations pop up non-stop, the public and employers should be willing to distinguish between extorting sexual favors or physically attacking a woman and an inadvertent, unwelcome touch. The former should be punished by firing and, if possible, criminal charges. The latter may be offensive but is not criminal and should not be punishable by firing without warning or even a thorough investigation.

Who is representing "We the people"?

The Republican push to pass a tax bill this year provides a lesson in how things really work 130 years after the creation of the Constitution. The lesson is this: Forget what you might have heard about members of the House of Representatives and the Senate representing the people. (Senators originally represented the states and were selected by state legislatures. The passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 provided for "direct election" of senators.) The voters are not being consulted in this effort to rewrite U.S. tax law. Calling the shots are not voters but corporations and foundations — wealthy donors to political campaigns and the tax-exempt "think tanks" that provide ideas, research and wording for congressional actions.

One look at the tax bill shows the consequences of this shift in representation from voters to big business, from people to money. The winners in the complex tax bill are politically powerful corporations and the top one percent of taxpayers. Despite repeated claims that the "middle class" is getting a tax cut, closer analysis shows the middle-income taxpayers get little or no tax relief. And to provide the tax benefits to rich individuals and richer corporations, Congress is cutting programs aimed at helping the poor and people striving to achieve the upward mobility this country once stood for. Health care, income assistance, education, food programs, low-income housing and other assistance for poor and middle-income Americans are being cut to pay for the tax reductions being given to the wealthy.

Public opinion polls show widespread distrust of the tax bill provisions; the people are catching on to the lies about tax cuts for working Americans. This epiphany compounds long-standing distrust of Congress. Who can blame voters for thinking their opinions and their votes don't matter? If you can't make big donations to political campaigns or establish a tax-exempt research foundation, your voice in Washington is drowned out by those with more powerful amplifiers.

For this system to change, it will take something other than the Steve Bannon strategy of tearing down the congressional establishment and the "deep state" in favor of more government of, by and for big corporations. A slim possibility for major change lies in the likelihood that if the current tax bill passes, voters will find their tax deductions ended, their educational opportunities closed, their health care unavailable and their prospects hopelessly bleak. If that happens, voters may revolt and demand an end to the oligarchy of wealthy donors and corporations controlling Washington. They may demand revolutionary change in campaign finances, lobbying, ethics, party leadership and simple attention to voters' true interests.

Nonpartisan means no party labels

By custom and by law, most municipal elections in North Carolina are non-partisan. There are no party primaries and no party labels on the ballots in these municipal elections. (Most school board elections are the same way.)

But some people just can't abide not having party labels and party officials deciding how things should be run. Republicans in the General Assembly have proposed making all municipal elections partisan so that Republicans can have their own candidates, and Democrats can have their own candidates. The GOP has been riding a powerful wave and thinks it can expand its authority and power by taking control of local government in the same way it has taken over state government.

Democrats are headed down that same path, but without the legislative authority of the GOP. Democrats who want partisan purity have to resort to protests and shaming. The News & Observer is reporting today that some Democrats are upset that former Gov. Jim Hunt endorsed an independent (the incumbent) in the Raleigh mayor's race instead of her challenger, who is registered as a Democrat. These Democrats want to remove Hunt's name from a party fundraiser to punish him for his disloyalty.

If you believe party politics are all that matter in this old world, punishing Hunt makes sense. But a reality check would remind these Democrats that the Raleigh mayor's race was a nonpartisan election. By law there were no party labels. Party registration, whether Democratic, Republican or independent, should not matter. Ideally, party affiliation does not exist in the mayor's race. All that should matter is ability and accomplishments. On that basis, Hunt endorsed the candidate who had proven ability and an impressive list of accomplishments in her three terms as mayor. She has advocated what most people would consider "Democratic" policies, such as low-income housing improvements and buying the Dix property for a landmark city park. Nancy McFarlane won 58% of the vote against her challenger.

The election is nonpartisan. Support for candidates should be as well. The news media have contributed to this insurgent partisanship. The News & Observer frequently mentioned the challenger's registration as a Democrat, even though that is irrelevant in a nonpartisan election. In a nonpartisan election, a candidate's party registration need never be mentioned.

The Democrats who want to "punish" Jim Hunt have short memories. Hunt is the only North Carolinian to serve four terms as governor. His terms were among the most progressive in North Carolina history. If he had not been stopped by Jesse Helms in 1984, he might have been elected president.

And what good will punishing Hunt do? These Democrats would alienate the 58% of Raleigh voters who went for McFarlane, and they will come across as ignorant and vindictive toward a man who should, by all normal standards, be a hero in Democratic politics in North Carolina.

They want an excuse for their preferred candidate's electoral loss. Jim Hunt is not it.

A prediction about Alabama's voters

I usually don't make predictions of any kind — sports, weather or politics — but I'm going to make an exception in the case of Roy Moore of Alabama.

Please note that this is not an expression of preference. I would prefer that Moore crawl back into the hole whence he came. This is what I expect to happen, like it or not, folks.

I expect Roy Moore to be elected to the U.S. Senate by the voters of Alabama. These are the people, after all, who elected him repeatedly to be a judge and even to be the chief justice of the State Supreme Court. All of those elections took place before five women came forward to accuse him of misconduct with them when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s. But Moore's constituency is not focused on 40-year-old molesting/harassment/pedophilia accusations.

Moore has only one thing going for him. He swears that he is a Christian and puts the Word of God before all else. That commitment is what prompted him to install a mammoth stone engraving of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court building. Federal courts ordered its removal. Moore defied the courts and was removed from office. When the U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal, Moore defied the highest court in the land and was removed from office. All these removals and embarrassments just made him more adorable to his supporters. Critics might say that Moore is more interested in using religion for publicity and that many of his actions are not Christ-like.

And so it will go with this year's U.S. Senate election. Alabama voters will send Moore to the Senate, and the Senate will have to decide whether he should be seated. Section 5 of Article I of the Constitution provides that each legislative chamber "shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." Therefore, the Senate can refuse to seat Moore. This authority has not been exercised by the Senate in the past 150 years, but it can be used to deny Moore a seat if Alabama voters elect him. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said he believes Moore's accusers, and several Senate Republican leaders have indicated they agree. Many Republicans would like to see this embarrassment go away.

If the Senate refuses to seat Moore, the Republican governor of Alabama may appoint another candidate to the Senate in his stead. This course of action will not be completed until some inevitable court challenges are settled.

Local newspapers are still indispensable

For the first time in several years, I am subscribing to the local newspaper. When that newspaper laid me off after 29 years, I saw no reason to contribute to the revenues of a company that had, in my view, mistreated me and dozens of other employees who were laid off as the Great Recession and changing media erased print newspapers' business model.

I continued to take a regional daily newspaper and to read other newspapers online. My interest in public affairs, politics and world events was as strong as ever. I just didn't feel a need to purchase a local newspaper.

As this week's election approached and I saw some campaign signs around town, I realized that my thorough knowledge of city/county politics and elected officials had lapsed. Without a local newspaper, I did not know who was up for election and who the challengers were. I didn't miss late nights waiting for results to come in, which was my practice through more than 30 years as a newspaper editor. I did miss getting to know local and state officials and digging into local/state issues.

As I looked at the newspapers tossed into my driveway, I realized I had missed a few other things, such as local entertainment events, festivals, local obituaries, local art and culture reports. Yes, Facebook posts often include such matters, and I knew about many local events from social media, emails, personal contacts. Likewise, the city government posted news on social media that was sometimes helpful but always giving the government's perspective. I was still missing things, which I hope to be kept aware of if the local paper does its job.

Decades ago, when I was in the midst of my newspaper career, I could not understand how some neighbors and friends never subscribed to the local paper. "How can you get along without it?" I would wonder. Reading a local newspaper was integral to my daily life. The paper provided important news of local politics, governmental actions, criminal activity, life events (weddings, etc.), obituaries, business activity, road closures and improvements, sales at department stores and supermarkets, job opportunities, houses, cars and other items for sale, and legal notifications, such as foreclosures and estate settlements.

Alas, many of these news items are now available more promptly and conveniently than traditional print newspapers can provide them. Want ads used to provide newspapers with a steady cash flow, but nearly all of that business has shifted to internet job sites, the same for personal for sale items. That is a large reason why so many newspapers have collapsed. Another reason is many people's unwillingness to read instead of listening to broadcasts or watching videos for information.

Despite the drastic changes in the newspaper business, I am happy to renew my love of local newspapering and to feel its indispensable nature again.

The British model of taxation

Prompted by the 2017 Nobel Prize for Literature, I've been reading "Remains of the Day." It is a Very British novel written by Kazuo Ishiguro. The narrator is an aging butler in a palatial English country house. If you saw any of "Downton Abby," you get the picture. The book was made into a movie starring Anthony Hopkins as the butler/narrator. I saw the movie on TV but had not read the book until now.

British tax laws for generations into the 20th century made possible these huge land holdings populated by a moneyed aristocracy addressed as "My Lord" and "My Lady." America's founding fathers did not want an aristocracy and forbade inherited titles. The Constitution calls for a president, not a king or a duke or a prince. America was to be a land of opportunity and upward mobility.

When the modern U.S. income tax was initiated early in the last century, it was designed to be "progressive," meaning the wealthy paid a higher rate of taxation than the poor and middle classes. With the Republican tax overhaul now before Congress, more than a century of progressive taxation is in jeopardy, and so is the principle that America should have no aristocracy, no landed gentry nor ruling class.

Not only does the tax proposal cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans while reducing funds available for "safety net" programs, it also eliminates the inheritance tax. It is the inheritance tax (deceptively referred to by Republicans as the "death tax" — it is not death that is being taxed but the inherited wealth of the top less-than-one-percent of U.S. taxpayers.

Britain's tax structure once protected the baronial estates and inherited wealth of its aristocracy, but that system resulted in a stagnant, anti-innovation, closed-upward-mobility, anti-working-class economic system as British wealth and power declined. Tax laws were changed to no longer protect the great estates and to encourage entrepreneurs and innovators. 

In the 21st century, members of Congress are trying to resurrect the failed British system of protecting great wealth at the expense of innovation, creativity, and simple fairness. The inheritance tax repeal is especially egregious. The current tax, applied only to estates topping $5 million, affects less than 1 percent of Americans — those who own their own private jets, multiple homes and and enough "bling" to eclipse the sun. Advocates of repealing the tax say it's a tax on assets already taxed as income. But these same advocates want to disallow the deduction of state and local property taxes, sales taxes and other already-taxed assets of the middle class. It is not unusual for assets to be taxed more than once. Each time you purchase something subject to the sales tax, you are paying a second tax using money that has already been taxed. Surely, if the poor and middle class can pay taxes twice, so can the super-wealthy.

Otherwise, the American economy could end up as stagnant as Britain's was 100 years ago.

Weinsteiin and other males

Who's next? Since Harvey Weinstein was outed as a despicable sexual harasser, extortionist, rapist, groper, exhibitionist and other indecent things, there has been no stopping the names added to this disturbing list of men who abused women and the list of women who were threatened, offended or violated. The latest list is of men who harassed, groped or violated other men or boys.

Where will it all end? Whoever knew anything about Harvey Weinstein before all this? People you would never categorize as offensive or boorish are apologizing for past actions. The top guy at NPR News has resigned over inappropriate conversations with women. Dustin Hoffman apologized for an incident 20-some years ago. Former President George H.W. Bush has apologized for patting women's derrieres a long time ago.

Almost as striking as these admissions is the lack of any apologies or admissions from Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — men against whom plenty of evidence exists of their misbehavior.

All of these revelations come as college campuses cope with changing mores and expectations in male-female relationships. Campus rape has become a cause that has caught the attention of the U.S. Department of Education. Under the Obama administration, the department ordered colleges to take action against sexual offenders (usually male) and to base consequences on "trials" that deny due process by limiting the burden of proof, denying the accused access to legal counsel and the right to cross-examine their accusers. Some colleges created strict rules regarding consent to sexual contact, extending even to written permission to engage in Act A or Act B. A Trump administration review of the Obama administration rules has sparked a firestorm of complaints and worries about "rape culture."

What can we conclude from all this? Has society suddenly become more libidinous? Have males suddenly become more sexually aggressive? This seems unlikely, even though the ubiquitous access to online pornography certainly must be having some impact on social mores and perceptions of acceptable behavior.

Maybe society should admit that men are naturally boorish, aggressive, hedonist and eager to take advantage of any opening they might find. In past generations, social mores and economic rules kept these male tendencies under control (at least somewhat). Women were expected to be prim and proper and to not enjoy sex. Marital sex (the only kind allowed) was a woman's obligation, not a recreational pleasure. Only men took pleasure from such acts, and they had no obligation of providing pleasure to their mates. Women were protected by rules about dating, which was always with a chaperone or a group that would harshly judge intimacy.

As society has relaxed its rules on male-female behavior and as women have gained equality in education and work settings (they constitute a majority of college students), the natural male tendencies face fewer barriers. Men have more private encounters with women, and some men — apparently a great many — take advantage of these opportunities.

Society is not going back to the Victorian era, so if men truly are boorish and aggressive, other ways must be incorporated to protect women. The first step must be for women to protect themselves by avoiding risky situations and by speaking out against any sexual discrimination, assaults or misbehavior (touching or offensive language). Most of the Weinstein accusers kept quiet for years, even decades, allowing him to continue his extortions. We must also distinguish between misbehavior, which is unacceptable and punishable by loss of job or social status or other consequences, and rape, which is a criminal offense with harsh penalties. If we can agree that all these acts are offensive and that the most egregious of them should be criminally punished, we can go a long way toward limiting misbehavior and the vulnerability of women.

Modern society will never again see women as fragile and helpless, not when they are leaders and managers and admired role models. The Victorian era's responses to sexual crimes — rape was punishable by execution or justifiable homicide, and consensual sex might be followed by forced marriage — are not coming back. A modern balance to the "battle of the sexes" will look realistically at both males' natural aggressiveness and females' independence and capabilities. That aggressiveness must be curtailed, and women's capabilities should be honored and encouraged.