Best 2019 Novels Read

Since friends usually share some of the same interests, I often ask my friends what good novels have they read recently. And, in turn, they want to know what I am reading and/or recommending. As this year comes to a close, my friend, Buck,  asked me to name my top ten personal favorites for the year (2019).

Buck and anyone else who cares, I settled on these novels. I am not sure exactly when these novels were published, but they are ones that I read this year. If forced to defend the order in which I have listed them, I would not be able. It's just my gut instinct.*

1. Where the Crawdads Sing by Dalia Owens. This was an NYT's bestseller, deservedly so. You will not be disappointed. My nomination for the best of 2019.

2.  The Paragon Hotel by Lindsay Faye. You may want to read a previous blog (3/2/19) with the title, "The Paragon Hotel: Nobody's Home."

3.  The Nickel Boys by Colson Whitehead. I enjoyed this one even more than his previous, The Underground Railroad.

4. The Testaments by Margaret Atwood.** This is a sequel to her popular dystopian bestseller, A Handmaid's Tale. You may want to refer to a previous blog((/28/19) entitled  The Testaments: Atwood Reveals the Future of Gilead.

5. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak. Although this novel has been around for some time, I just read it this year. The story is narrated by Death, the collector of souls, who tells the story of a girl coming of age during World War II in Europe.

6. A Better Man by Louise Penny. The fans of Inspector Gamache will not want to miss this one. Although each of these novels stands alone, newbies might want to start at the beginning of the Gamache saga.

7. The Huntress: A Novel by Kate Quinn. An English journalist and a Russian female bomber pilot search for "The Huntress," a Nazi war criminal. An interesting look at Russian women pilots in WW II.

8. Unto Us a Son Is Given by Donna Leon. This is the latest of Donna Leone's series about the doleful Comissario Guido Brunetti of the Venice Police Department. And of course, Venice has a starring role.

9. The Alice Network by Kate Quinn. A historical novel of two women and two timelines. In 1914 the one is recruited by the Alice Network -- a real female spy network that operated in France during WWI. The other is an American socialite searching for her cousin in 1947.

10. Lethal White by "Robert Galbraith" (J. R. Rowlings). The fourth in a series featuring private investigator, Cormoran Strike, and his partner, Robin Ellacott. A young man with a history of mental illness claims to have witnessed a murder some years before, and Coromoran can't let it go.

In creating this list, I gave consideration to recent works of Linda Costillo, John Grisham, Greg Iles, Laura Lippman, Leanne Moriarity, and John Sanford. Although I did not include them in the "top 10," I enjoyed reading their recent works and would definitely recommend their latest.




* I do, however, have some vague criteria. I like: 1) characters, good, bad, or ugly,  whom I consider original; 2) a captivating story that makes me keep reading when I know I should be doing something else; 3) a distinct writing style; 4) content that forces me to think, perhaps in new ways; 5) realistic, but also clever, dialogue.

** A co-winner of the 2019 Booker Prize for Fiction.

The World According to Trump

Apparently, we all tend to view the world from our own perspective and often try to make reality conform to that perspective.

And then, there's Donald Trump. He has created an "alternative" universe for himself and his cult.

In Trump's world:

"I am the Chosen One."
The Christian Crusades were Europe's proudest moment.
Hitler's Mein Kampf was the acme of civilization.
Russia is our friend.
The United States Constitution is obsolete.

The Eight Beatitudes are fake Christianity.
Jesus was blond with blue eyes and spoke English.
Mexicans are "animals" and "bad hombres."
The First Amendment was a colossal mistake.
Bone spurs come and go as needed.

Greenland is for sale.
Paris is part of Germany
Belgium is a beautiful city.
The state of Colorado borders Mexico.
Minneapolis is one of the fifty states.
"I am a stable genius."
"I slept with Princess Diana."

Weather maps enhanced with a sharpie are convincing,
We should rid ourselves of hurricanes by nuking them.
Climate change is a hoax.
Scientists are a threat to our country.
Puerto Ricans are not Americans.

Friends are disposable once they've served their purpose.
Treaties and International agreements are made to be broken.
Our allies are expendable.
Gold Star parents* are whiny and pathetic.
The Nineteenth Amendment --Women's Suffrage -- a really bad idea.

Fox News is a real news organization,
Bribery and extortion are the "American Way."
Charitable foundations are a good way to pay legal bills.
There is one god and only one god -- money.
Bankruptcy is the consummate way to avoid paying your bills.

Homelessness started two years ago.
Ivanka created 14 million jobs last year.
We and Turkey have a great relationship with the Kurds.
Windmills cause cancer.
NATO is passe'.

"People are flushing their toilets 10 times, 15 times.." ??? In Trump's world?
"...laws allow a baby to be born from his or her womb in the 9th month. It is wrong."
George Washington seized the airports.
Forest fires can be prevented by raking the forest floor.
There is too much "negative press covfefe."
(I'm tired.)

As you know, I could keep going with this list of Trump's augmented reality, but frankly, dear reader, you deserve a break from this nonsense. Also, I am confident that you could add many more examples of Trump's delusional reality.

Notice I have not included cases of outright lies--statement diametrically opposed to the facts. The Washington Post has done a good job keeping a tally of those lies.

Unfortunately, all of this nonsense is emanating from the President of the United States. Not only has he lowered the bar for all future presidents, but he has also ruined the credibility of the United States of America. What ally will be willing to trust us? Ask the Kurds.

*Parents of a child who served in the Armed Forces and was killed in battle.

Humorless and Friendless

When my friend, Buck, and I had lunch together at Nick's Diner, the conversation took an unfortunate turn and we ended up discussing our current president. Since Buck is a conservative Republican and I am a progressive Democrat, we have had many political arguments over the years; but since 2016 we have agreed more often than not. We both are appalled and embarrassed that Donald J. Trump is the president of this great country.

Buck is fond of reminding anyone who listens that Trump is not a true conservative as many Republican conservative columnists have made clear. Our waitress, Salina, approached the table as Buck was complaining about the trillions of dollars Trump was adding to the deficit.

"May I tempt you gentleman to a dessert?" she asked.

This, of course, was a perfect set-up for Buck. "As you can clearly see, there is only one gentleman at this table and it is not that radical sitting across from me."

Salina turned to me, "It's my pleasure, I always wanted to meet a radical. I'm not interested in gentlemen." I gave Buck a thumbs-up, and he snorted in his iced-tea.

After we asked for our checks, we were back to Trump, and I asked, "Policy aside, why do you dislike the guy so much?"

"As a bard once said, let me count the ways." A pause. "First, I can't abide a man with no sense of humor. The man can't begin to comprehend, let alone appreciate, humor. He refuses to attend the Washington Press Corps Roast because he doesn't get it.  The idea of honoring someone by making jokes about him is beyond Trump's comprehension. Have you ever heard him say something humorous? And of course, satire is too complicated for him. He thinks he's being humorous when he tweets that so-and-so is 'a bitch.'  That's it; name-calling is his version of humor."

"I'll not point out that earlier you did a bit of name-calling.  But I understand your point about a sense of humor. I can't help but recall that was a criticism of Hitler.  That aside, I sense you have other issues with Donald?"

"We don't have enough time for me to list all of his personal character flaws,  but there is another factor that is a real red flag and that is that he has no friends. Everybody has friends, you say? Well, name one true friend of Donald Trump. People, of course, say they are his friends because that is to their benefit, but when push comes to shove, they know he will throw them under the bus and move on. A person that repeatedly does that has no friends. Trump has no friends. Even people with conflicting ideas become friends. Take Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia.  But Trump has no friends, not even people who agree with him."

"What," I ask, "about Vladimir Putin? Trump claims they're friends and he seems to repeatedly make decisions that ultimately help Russia and Putin.",

"They're not friends. Neither is capable of friendship. In Trump's case, it's all about money and fame.  In Putin's case, it's all about power and his ability to manipulate Trump. That's not friendship. A puppeteer and his puppet are not friends."

As we were walking to our cars, it occurred to me that DonaldTrump accomplished what I had never envisioned: Buck and I are in agreement on a political issue.

They vs. He or She

How do you feel about the following sentence? "Somebody left their briefcase in the restroom." Some of us will feel sorry for the poor cretin who lost his or her briefcase; others of us will feel no sympathy for the poor devil but will fixate on the fact that the author used a plural pronoun, their, to refer back to the singular antecedent, "somebody." For shame! How can "they" or its forms, them, their, and themselves, be a pronoun for a single person? An abomination! Sister Pius should rap your knuckles with a ruler for such an abuse of the English language.

So, what's a person to do? The purists, I presume, would want the sentence to read: "Somebody left his or her briefcase in the restroom." That is downright awkward, my friend. Not to mention the germs that briefcase has been exposed to.

The problem is the English language does not have a gender-neutral singular pronoun. That is why so many of us use the plural pronoun, they, as a gender-neutral substitute.

Which is better? A. Ask each of the children what they want for a snack. B. Ask each of the children what she or he wants for a snack."*

To the consternation of the grammar purists, choice A  is becoming the accepted norm. The Washington Post in its 2015 style guide recognized the use of they as an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun. In 2016 the American Dialect Society chose this particular use of they as the "word of the year."And as the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary points out, this usage has been around since the 1300s. In 1881 our quite proper Emily Dickinson was availing herself of this usage.

On the other hand, The stodgy Modern Language Association is somewhat reluctant to give its imprimatur. And as you would suspect, "The Gray Lady" (NYT) is ambivalent about such usage. Its style guide permits the usage if the individual so desires, but warns about the dangers of using it too frequently.

The bottom line is this usage has been around since the 1300s and is not going away. The purists need to move on to another battle. This one has been lost. And, like Farhad Manjoo,  writing in the NYT observes, not only does this usage solve a problem, it is "inclusive and flexible." 

Of course, everybody is entitled to their (her or his) own opinion.

* Farhad Monjoo in the NYT writes that the phrase, "he or she," is the "clunkiest phrase ever concocted by small-minded grammarians."

The Testaments - Atwood Reveals Gilead's Future

I know you haven't asked, but it is my opinion that some iconic novels should never have sequels. Just a few examples are The Great Gatsby, 1984, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, and To Kill a Mockingbird  (the attempted sequel proves my point).

Thus it was with a great deal of skepticism that I began reading Margaret Atwood's sequel to The Handmaid's Tale.

From  the TV Series

As with the dystopian original, the sequel, The Testaments, is set in Gilead,  a totalitarian theocracy that has replaced the United States of America. Although fifteen years have passed, the Republic of Gilead has survived, only more corrupt than ever. Women are still treated as "two-legged wombs," a distorted form of Christian fundamentalism is used to justify discrimination and the elimination of human rights. The abusive, totalitarian Republic of Gilead demonstrates the dangers of not maintaining a wall of separation between religion and government. For example, Gilead uses religion and a redacted bible to eliminate nonwhites and so-called unbelievers (Jews, Catholics, and anyone who does not adhere to their extreme dogmas).

The Testaments, unlike the original, tends to be a spy thriller, which in the hands of a storyteller like Margaret Atwood captures the reader's attention and does not let go. The "testaments" in the sequel are those of Agnes Jemima, a Commander's adopted daughter; Nicole, a sixteen-year-old in Canada under a different name; and Aunt Lydia, the most powerful woman in Gilead. The three characters tell their stories from their own particular point of view with the result that the reader slowly becomes aware of the total story.

Agnes grew up in Gilead and wants and prays to be a true believer, but the abusive behavior of the leaders force her to question her faith. At one point she writes: "Still I wanted to believe; indeed, I longed to; and, in the end, how much of belief comes from longing."

Nicole, a sixteen-year-old refugee from Gilead and living in Canada under a different name slowly becomes aware of her true identity; and, after the murders of her step-parents agrees to infiltrate Gilead and bring back damning evidence of Gilead's corruption.

Aunt Lydia, recognized as a "founder" of Gilead leads a double life as an enforcer of the extreme doctrine and a resistance fighter hoping to bring about the collapse of Gilead.

Although Atwood does not dwell on the inhumane, abusive crimes of Gilead or make predictions, the attitudes and temperament of that society have a frightening resemblance to the post-2016 cultural changes taking place in this country. And, perhaps, that accounts for the success of Hulu's TV version of "The Handmaid's Tale," now in season three.

Unlike some other dystopian novels, Atwood makes a point of not including anything "that had not already happened" at some time in history. One can readily recall theocracies engaging the same inhumane techniques as we find in Gilead. And to her credit, she does not create new technologies. She uses nothing that is "not already available."

In short, Atwood has created a solid stand-alone sequel that recounts the story of three women whose "testaments" challenge a cruel regime that tries to silence and denigrate women.

Tennis Has a Problem - Medical Time-outs

Now that the US Open tennis tournament is in full swing and "Coco Mania" is a thing,  many casual observers are watching some or many televised matches, and I suspect some are wondering about the so-called "medical time-out."

Maria Sharapova in a medical time-out

As far as I can determine, this phenomenon is unique to tennis. The usual scenario is that a player indicates to the umpire that a trainer/doctor is needed. When the trainer/doctor arrives he attempts to evaluate the player's physical problem. Many times, I suspect, the problem is mental or emotional. This evaluation process can take as long as the trainer/doctor chooses. It is only after the evaluation is declared complete that the umpire starts to time the treatment--presumably three minutes. And eventually, the match resumes.

This process, I am convinced is absurd and unfair.*

In what other sport, individual or team, is an injured player allowed to stop the action, receive medical treatment and then return? When Tiger Woods broke a bone in his leg, he had to continue to play in a debilitating condition or withdraw from the tournament. A boxer cannot delay a bout because of shoulder pain. A triathlete cannot request a time-out to receive treatment for the blisters on her feet.

In team sports, an injured athlete has to continue to play or be immediately replaced by a substitute. Of course, in the case of baseball, the pace of play is so slow that fans would not even notice a medical time-out.

The most obvious problem with tennis' medical break is that it can be used by a player to break an opponent's momentum. Without mentioning names, there are some players who are notorious for this. When their opponent starts to make a run and turn the match around, the player calls for a trainer/doctor, and complains of a vague injury or is simply seeking a massage with lidocaine. The result is a five to fifteen-minute break which interrupts the match while the opponent who had the momentum has to sit and wait. Gamesmanship such as this should not be allowed.

If a player can't continue to play in the allotted time, that player should forfeit gracefully. If the so-called injury does not preclude playing, the player should be back on the court in the allotted time.

On the other hand, since some matches, especially men's matches, can last four or more hours, players should be allowed to take a bathroom break between sets.

* Although my qualifications to suggest this may be challenged, I am a fan, a player, and a former USTA official, referee, and tournament director.

Age of Information is also Age of Disinformation

We are living in the age of information. Never before have people all over the world had access to so much information. Today we, unlike our ancestors, do not have to travel to the great universities, libraries, and museums of the world to access arcane and obscure information. We just "google it." The world of information is a few computer clicks away. What a great time to be alive.

Data appears to be the gold standard these days. As just one example, data drives sports whether professional or junior varsity. NFL players consult their laptops on the sidelines. MLB, always a data greedy sport, uses almost instant data to analyze every aspect of the game. Back in the day, managers would shift their infields based on a hunch. Today infield shifts are much more prevalent because the manager possesses precise and up-to-date data on each opposing player.

Watching a professional golf tournament on TV is frequently like being in a physics classroom. In addition to the data golfers often referred to ( distances, speed of greens, number of birdies on a particular hole), today's TV viewers know the angle of impact, clubhead speed, trajectory, and distance traveled. All of this almost immediately after the swing.

Unfortunately, the same technology that provides all of this instant information is also being used to spread disinformation.

Back in the day, we would receive detailed information from newspapers which appeared on our doorsteps once a day. We would receive more up-to-date, albeit brief summaries on the radio, and then in the evening, we were able to watch a fifteen-minute TV account of the world and national news. These news sources were held to a standard of truth and fairness. Readers, listeners, and viewers could be reasonably certain of the facts reported. (Of course, even in those days, the question of what to report or not to report was a concern.)

False on so many levels, but repeated by many.

Today, almost anyone with a computer can publish whatever information they choose, and therein lies the problem. Anyone can fabricate a story and throw it out into cyberspace and there will be some who believe it, no matter how absurd because it plays to their fears and reinforces their prejudices. In the 2016 presidential election, fanciful, undocumented stories were everywhere on the internet, and many readers/viewers believed them and reposted them on Facebook or Twitter.


And then there are the bots--algorithms designed to send out millions of misleading or false stories. Most recently, Russian bots bombarded US internet users with seemingly scientific information about the evils of the MMR vaccinations. The resulting confusion prevented parents from vaccinating their children, and then the US experienced an unnecessary number of cases of measles.

On the one hand, the Age of Information is the best of worlds in that it allows everyone a voice and makes unlimited amounts of information available to all. The great democratizer. On the other hand, it is the worst of worlds in that it allows almost anyone to spread lies or recruit suicide bombers.

So what's a person to do in this new age?

The rules of navigating this new arena are quite obvious, but a bit cumbersome.

Check the source. If the source of an anti-vax article is an institution that no one has ever heard of, it's probably bogus, but one can always use independent fact-checking sites. The top fact-checking sites are FactCheck.org, Politifact.com, FactChecker.com (Washinton Post), Snopes.com. Images as well can be misleading, and TinEye.com will trace the origin of a particular photograph.

Depend on established news organizations whose reputations depend on getting the story right the first time. NPR, ABC, CBS, or NBC are run by real journalists who get the story corroborated by several sources before publishing it.

Triangulate. If the story is from an unfamiliar source, check to find it in the New York Times, The Hill*, Politico, Axios or other mainstream sources. If you have three respected sources agreeing, the fundamentals of the story are most likely accurate.

Facebook etc. channel information to you based on what you read and send to friends. Therefore one should view items from sources other than those catering to your point of view. You will then be exposed to uncomfortable information with the result that you have to give the issue some serious thought.

Share judiciously. If a news item seems sensational or extreme, don't share it; it's probably not true. Recall those people who shared the false article about Pope Francis endorsing Trump in 2016. You don't want to be one of those people.

Another challenge of the Information Age is that it threatens our privacy. In order to participate in the advantages of the internet, we have to expose some of our personal information. Fortunately, governments are beginning to demand that internet companies protect our private information.

The Information Age is upon us whether we like it or not. Ignoring it is not an option. We can embrace it and demand that it "do no evil,' and respect our privacy. Not easy, but necessary.






* The Hill, a conservative news organization, has a tendency to report and perpetuate conspiracy theories.

Memorial or Decoration Day

Everybody loves Memorial Day. It is the traditional beginning of summer, a well-deserved three-day weekend of relaxation and leisure recreation.

But then we remember that this day is set aside to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of preserving our constitutional democracy. 

Images of Arlington National Cemetery, the American Cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer in Normandy, and the Vietnam Wall in Washington remind us that trying to solve problems on a battlefield destroys both the victorious and the vanquished. In the Civil War, for example, 500,000 soldiers died - 2% of the population.

Some of us who have been hanging around this planet for quite a few years will remember this day was often referred to as Decoration Day. At a Civil War memorial event at Arlington National Cemetery, General John A. Logan declared May 30 to be "Decoration Day." He said the fallen should be honored by "...strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating, the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country..."

However, in the 20th century, especially after WWI (over 100,000 American deaths), the term. " Memorial Day," became increasingly popular in that it honored all American military fatalities, not just those of the Civil War.*

In 1971 Congress made Memorial Day an official national holiday to be celebrated on the last Monday in May.

In 2019, the last Monday of May is a good time to not only remember the fallen but remind ourselves of the indiscriminate and senseless slaughter of war.

*Veterans Day, on the other hand, pays tribute to all who have served in the military.

Is there any limit to what Trump can get away with?

A constitutional democracy is in danger when elected officials choose loyalty to party or fidelity to a president over the constitution. Regrettably, the USA has reached this perilous point.

We currently have elected officials who are willing to ignore the rule of law in order to maintain the power their party enjoys; or even more frightening, they are afraid to incur the wrath of the president.

President Trump "reportedly told Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan that he would grant him a presidential pardon for breaking immigration law. Trump specifically reassured McAleenan that he can count on a pardon if he is arrested and convicted of denying lawful asylum seekers entry into the country." (Robert Reich)

Such behavior has to be an impeachable offense, but our elected officials are remaining silent. And what is worse, the media and the citizenry have become desensitized to this sort of attack on the rule of law. We have been bombarded for two years with presidential behavior no one could have predicted. 

The sad fact is we have a president who has no respect for the rule of law or the constitution. Within the past few days, the President of the United States tweeted: " We have the worst laws of any country in the world." Let that sink in for a minute. 

Perhaps they are the "worst laws" because Mr. Trump so frequently finds himself in conflict with them. Since Congres has requested Mr. Trump's tax returns from the Treasury Department, the Secretary, after consulting with the White House, is refusing to turn them over as required by law -- that must be one of the "worst" laws.

And lest we forget, in the early hours of his presidency Trump shared in the Oval Office secret information with  Russian officials. I think there is a law against that sort of behavior.

Our elected officials cannot continue to ignore this president's attack on our country's laws.

Over and above the rule of law, our country subscribes to the rule of decency. Consider for a moment how often Mr. Trump has violated our sense of decency. At the present time, it appears that the White House, influenced by Stephen Miller, is about to reintroduce the policy of separating children from parents seeking asylum.

History has recorded the Japenese internment during World War II as a low point in our history, but at least in those days, we did not separate the children from their parents.

And finally, there is the rule of common sense. Just recently, our president has told us the wind power causes cancer, and that the US if full -- I guess in that case, the government should start dispensing birth control pills. 

When will elected officials demonstrate the courage to reinstate the rule of law, the rule of decency and the rule of common sense? Hopefully, sooner rather than later.

The Paragon Hotel: Nobody's Here

This novel, The Paragon Hotel, by Lyndsay Faye brings to mind a poem by Emily Dickinson:


I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you - Nobody -too?
Then there's a pair of us!
Don't tell! they'd advertise - you know.

Alice James, 25,  the central character in the novel, acquires the sobriquet of "Nobody" because as a child when asked "Who's there?" she answers: "Nobody." Her mother jokingly starts referring to her as "Nobody" and surprisingly, Alice likes it. She likes being inconspicuous, always lurking about unnoticed, listening and observing. 

This trait, however, does not go unnoticed. A "friend" of her mother realizes the advantage of being a Nobody and recruits her into his Mafia family in the Harlem of the 1920s. Being part Italian she moves about the neighborhood unnoticed, but ever vigilant and observant. and provides Mr. Salvatrici information about his enemy, the Boss of Bosses.

Such doings, of course, lead to trouble and Nobody, nursing a couple of bullet wounds, flees Harlem and heads cross country to Portland, Oregon, because that is as far as she can go in this country and she can get there by train. And, it is in Portland that she ends up as the only white in the all-black Paragon Hotel.

And thus begins an entertaining, and somewhat surprising, view of Harlem and Portland in the 20s.

In the course of following Nobody's captivating tale, the reader also becomes acquainted with interesting bits of  American history.

For example, in 1896 the state of New York, in an effort to reduce the consumption of alcohol, passed Raines Law which among other provisions, prevented the sale of liquor on Sundays except in hotels. The result was that any building with a few rooms on the second story became a "Raines Hotel." It was not long before the ingenious owners realized they could use the upstairs rooms for prostitution.

And then there is Oregon, established to be an all-white utopia. In 1844, prior to statehood, the territory passed a provision that all blacks had to leave the territory, and those refusing to leave were to be flogged every six months until they left. Once it became a state, it was the only one among the fifty to explicitly deny blacks the right to live and work there.

In 1870, Oregon was only one of six states that refused to ratify the 15th Amendment which granted people of color of the right to vote. They eventually ratified it in 1959!

The Ku Kluz Klan plays a significant role in The Paragon Hotel, and in the 1920s Oregon boasted the largest KKK organization west of the Mississippi

KKK In Portland in 1920s

One might wonder why a Paragon Hotel even existed in Portland, given the prevailing fear of blacks. The answer is the railroads. The staff on most transcontinental railroads was black, and they needed a place to stay before returning on an eastbound train. Some clever entrepreneur recognized the need and founded an all-black hotel.

Readers will find many reasons to like Nobody and the supporting cast of interesting characters in both Harlem and Portland, but the one ingratiating aspect of Lindsay Faye's novel is her mastery of 1920s slang. Nobody, the narrator describes her mother this way: "In any case, she emigrated to New York in 1893 with nothing but a scalawag husband. After a week, she misplaced, him and she wasn't too sore. Everything was jake."

On the other hand, she can be quite "literary," as when she writes: " The skies are enormous, flung open and sprawling. A bucket of spilled cerulean."

I have avoided revealing much of the plot because I hope you will read The Paragon Hotel, experience the story as it unfolds, and appreciate what it says about our current situation.

The Wall: Belief "Trumps" Reason

Since Donald Trump did not attempt to get Congress to fund "The Wall" when his party controlled both houses of Congress, it seems likely he doesn't give a damn about the wall.* His problem is that his GOP base does. He promised them a wall that would be paid for by Mexico and they believed him. Obviously, Mexico is not interested in wasting money for a wall, so now Trump has waited until the Democrats control the House of Representatives to ask Americans to pay for his glorious wall. Of course, he knows the Democrats, just like Mexico, are not interested in wasting money on a third-century concept. But he can now tell his base that it's the Democrats' fault the wall will not be constructed.

But the problem is the GOP base still believes that a glorious wall is a solution to all of our problems. This past week, amid all the noise about Jeff Bezos, the National Enquirer, and Virginia politicians who wore blackface 30 years ago,  the House of Representatives was holding a hearing on gun violence. During a discussion about easily accessible guns, ammo and automatic weapons, a GOP member from Florida, Matt Gaetz, dismissed considerations like background checks and suggested "...a wall, barrier on the southern border may have..." prevented gun-related murders.  Really? Americans are being killed by guns every day because we lack a wall? Clearly, Mr. Gaetz has been drinking the NRA kool-aid as well as taking their money.

The problem is that a large segment of Trump's base/cult has convinced themselves that not only is the "Wall" of great importance, but also look upon it as the solution to many of our problems. The fact that this line of thought makes no sense is not important. We are not talking about reason, we are talking about belief. If one believes, one is not concerned about facts, science or rational arguments. Belief does not require proof.

Therefore, our country has reached a point where a president can repeatedly lie and one of his assistants can refer to his lies as "alternative facts." He can characterize whatever is happening on our southern border any way he chooses and his followers will believe him. If he suggests that the lack of a big, beautiful wall is a threat to our security, they will believe him. In fact, like Mr. Gaetz, they will see the wall as a solution to gun violence, the opioid crisis, the scarcity of meaningful, middle-class jobs, the recent measles outbreak, and perhaps even the recent Polar Vortex.

The fact that illegal border crossings are at an all-time low should, therefore, mean that gun violence, the opioid crisis, the lack middle-class jobs, and the measles outbreak, should be at an all-time low. That they are not would seem to be one indication that the wall is not the solution, right? Wrong.  Such reasoning means nothing to the Trump cultists. Belief "trumps" reason in their world-view.

Why? Why do people choose belief over facts? There may be many psychological reasons, but I presume the main reason is fear. They see the asylum seekers, not as human being fleeing violence and seeking a chance to raise their families in peace and security, but as an army of desperados intent upon destroying American society. The President has gone to great lengths to fuel his followers' fears. He continually refers to asylum seekers as criminals and rapists. His propaganda network, Fox, refers to them as "dirty." The message is simple: be fearful of these brown people trying to become Americans, they are a danger to you, the true Americans. And, one who is fearful will believe almost anything that they perceive as eliminating their fear.

Democracies like ours are susceptible to demagogues like Donald Trump, but the hope in the United States has always been that an educated electorate will recognize absurdity when it sees it. The fallacy of that is that it does not acknowledge people's fears and their willingness to believe rather than think logically. (It's worth noting that demagogues fear an educated electorate and tend to attack educational and journalism institutions.)

The "wall" is about so much more than the wall, and thus the debate has closed down the US Government for the longest period of time in our history.

*Of course, the idea of having his name on the wall is irresistible to Donnie. Ask any junior-high kid about that.

Wastin' Away in Ohio

If you're from Ohio, you know that your state is home to some great art museums in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. You also are aware of the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, and the Wright-Patterson Air Museum near Dayton You may even be aware of COSI (Center for Science and Industry) in Columbus and Toledo, but many Buckeyes are not aware of the other many and various museums that call Ohio home.

Toledo Museum of Art

Even if you are living a full,  busy and eventful life, you might want to carve out some time to attend Ohio's major museums of art and possibly some of the other above-mentioned museums and halls of fame.

On the other hand, you may choose to pass on some of the lesser-known Ohio museums. I guess what I'm saying is: if you have half of a day to waste, maybe you should forget about some of these and instead get out the Monopoly board and teach the young-uns the basics of ruthless capitalism.

On the other hand, if you are retired but not too tired, if you're looking for reasons to get out of the house, and if you can't afford to take a real trip to St. Petersburg, you may want to gas up the Ford, pack a lunch, and take a day trip to one of these Ohio museums.

Here they are in no particular order:

The National Construction Equipment Museum located in Bowling Green. This, of course, is an outdoor museum, and I suspect you and your spouse could eat your lunch in the cab of a road grader. Who is going to object?  After all, you'll be the only ones there.

If that's too much excitement for you, there is the Pencil Sharpener Museum in Logan. If you go, take all those little pencils you stole from various golf courses and get those babies sharpened, not to put too fine a point on it. (Give me a break, sometimes I can't help myself.)

Those of us feeling particularly pious may want to visit the Museum of Divine Statues in Lakewood. I think that when Catholics remodeled their churches after Vatican II, someone gathered up these statues and took them to Lakewood. Joan of Arc being consumed by flames. Jesus with his heart on the outside of his tunic. St. Patrick chasing snakes. Save your lunch for later in the day.

If the Missus and you own a motorcycle, you may want to consider a trip to Pickerington's Motorcycle Hall of Fame. You can check out the Harley hogs, Indians, and Victorys of yesteryear as well as a variety of newer Japanese two-wheelers. Speaking of two-wheelers, the Bicycle Museum of America in New Bremen features all the neat bicycles that your parents refused to buy for you when you were too young to appreciate the value of a dollar.

If you happen to be in Hilliard with time on your hands, you should reevaluate your life or visit the Early Television Foundation and Museum. Presumably, they have working models of TVs from the 1920s. For kids who watched test patterns (you know who you are), you might enjoy a grainy screenshot of Howdy Doody and creepy Buffalo Bob.

In Cincinnati, one can attend the American Sign Museum which is a shrine to American advertising. I think what happened was, back in the day, Ladybird Johnson launched a campaign to beautify our highways, and somebody took down all of these signs and bestowed them upon Cincinnati. Therefore, Mail Pouch, Howard Johnson's and Phillips 66 will live on.

If you happen to be near Case Western Reserve, attending the History of Contraception is a possibility. Please don't take the children. It's not a good idea to show our offspring all the things human beings have done over the years to not have children.

More child appropriate is the Carousel Museum in Sandusky or the Lego Museum in Bellaire. And, in Cleveland, you can take them to the house (now a museum sans Ralphie) in which the movie, Toy Story, was filmed.

There are more, but if you have attended all of these, you may have a problem. Perhaps you should stay home and self medicate or go to the Senior Center and cheat in a game of Rummy.

The Uneven Playing Field of Ohio Schools

In a democracy, "the land of opportunity" implies equal opportunity. Every citizen should have an equal chance to succeed. 

We all know that such talk is a utopian idea that will never occur in our flawed country. If for no other reason than geography or skin color, Americans will not have equal opportunities. However, the lack of equal opportunities does not prevent some of us from succeeding, even against seemingly insurmountable odds.

For example. success was possible for many of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents because of public education. They may have been living on starvation diets, but they had a future if they were able to acquire an education.


Unfortunately, in Ohio and other states, public education is not equal and fails to provide equal opportunities. To illustrate that point, I offer the following letter written by Jim O'Connor, a Princeton high school teacher, entitled "A Tale of Two Districts."


"Years ago, Ohio’s General Assembly borrowed the idea from other states that the best way to evaluate public school districts is to categorically compare them by letter grade. The goal, as stated in the Ohio Department of Education Report Card website, is to “ensure equitable outcomes and high expectations for all of Ohio’s students.”

One would think that equitable outcomes imply a level playing field in terms of financial inputs. After all, equality is the flip side of the equitable coin. However, when you scroll down to the bottom of each district’s Report Card, the amount spent per pupil says otherwise. The difference in funding between wealthy and modest/low-income school districts is striking.

The tale of these two school districts in the same county (Hamilton) sheds light on what Jonathan Kozol called, nearly thirty years ago, the “savage inequalities” of school funding. The two districts are Indian Hill and North College Hill.

Indian Hill

Take a look at the data and make your own conclusions. In 2016-17, Indian Hill spent $12,189 per student (1929 students). NCH spent $6,629 per student (1,590 students). IH student body: 91% White or Asian and 7 % Free or Reduced Lunch (at or near poverty). NCH student body: 92% Black or Bi-racial, 81% Free or Reduced Lunch.

Savage inequalities, indeed! Because of an unconstitutional over-reliance on local property taxes, NCH can only spend 55% of what Indian Hill spends on each student. For IH, this means better-paid teachers, more electives and counselors, less staff turnover and smaller class sizes. For NCH, the opposite is true.

Despite this “Have and Have Not” funding system, the state of Ohio uses the same measuring sticks for each district. The Report Cards are mostly the result of standardized tests. Yet, there is nothing standardized about the allocation of resources to fairly educate ALL of Ohio students.

The Indian Hill-type districts will continue to receive awards and platitudes while the North College Hill-types will continue to receive condemnation and punishment.

The state leaders of Ohio are not fulfilling their constitutional mandate of a “thorough and efficient” education system. It is thorough for White, wealthy districts; it is not for Black and/or low-income districts. Ensuring equitable outcomes can only be achieved, and fairly compared, by the equitable inputs of resources and funding for each and every district.

On May 17, 1954, Justice Earl Warren stated in the Brown v. Board of Education case,  “in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place,” as segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” They were then and they still are today."