The Washington Post - 28.08.2019

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A

WEDNESDAY Opinion

T

here is no surer way to convince

people you are going nuts than

to stand in front of a crowd and

announce that you are not going

nuts.

“I want to be clear: I’m not going

nuts,” Joe Biden declared at a campaign

stop Friday as he struggled to identify

the location of a speech he had just

given.

Nothing is more likely to raise doubts

about your mental acuity than to mis-

identify the state you are in. “What’s not

to like about Vermont?” Biden asked on

Saturday — in New Hampshire. He pre-

viously confused Burlington, Iowa, with

Burlington, Vt.

And nothing will get your relatives to

demand power of attorney more rapidly

than misplacing a decade. “Bobby Ken-

nedy and Dr. King had been assassinat-

ed in the ’70s, the late ’70s, when I got

engaged,” Biden said last week.

Oh, God love me! What is this

malarkey?

The former vice president has admit-

ted to being a “gaffe machine.” That’s

false modesty. He is the Lamborghini of

gaffes.

He announced that “poor kids are

just as bright and just as talented as

white kids.” He located the El Paso and

Dayton mass-shootings in “Houston”

and “Michigan.” He recalled a visit with

survivors of the 2018 Parkland shooting

— before the shooting happened.

He confused “Margaret Thatcher”

with Theresa May and Angela Merkel,

referred to the Second Amendment as

the First, tripled the number of casual-

ties of the 1970 Kent State shooting and

mixed up his campaign website with a

text-message code. At the Iowa State

Fair, he thundered: “We choose truth

over facts!”

Less felicitously, he also joked about

gay waiters, entitled millennials and his

too-tactile ways — and praised a segre-

gationist’s “civility.” Things got so bad

that Biden’s neurologist offered a virtual

doctor’s note, telling Politico that he’s

“as sharp as he was 31 years ago.”

True. Biden has been churning out

malapropisms since 1987, when he was

still delivering Neil Kinnock’s speeches.

This is the man who claimed “I’ve

known eight presidents, three of them

intimately.” Even with such intimate

knowledge, he later confided: “I’d rather

be at home making love to my wife

while my children are asleep.”

He proclaimed Barack Obama “the

first African American in the history of

the United States.” During a rally, he

called attention to “a three-letter word:

jobs.” He once introduced his running

mate as “Barack America.”

Some say it’s unfair to draw attention

to Biden when President Trump is the

most mendacious politician ever. I dis-

agree: Biden’s gaffes are to be celebrat-

ed, for they make him exciting. When he

opens his mouth, nobody knows what is

going to come out — least of all Biden.

Biden once said to a paralyzed man in

a wheelchair: “Stand up, Chuck.” He

mourned one woman (“God rest her

soul”) who hadn’t died. He described

Obama as “the first mainstream African

American who is articulate and bright

and clean.”

He disclosed that Franklin

D. Roosevelt went on television in 1929,

before TV existed. He predicted that if

Obama were elected, “we’re going to

have an international crisis.” He de-

clared that Hillary Clinton “might have

been a better pick than me” for vice

president. He reported that “you cannot

go to a 7-Eleven... unless you have a

slight Indian accent.” He frankly told

one audience: “You all look dull as hell.”

Who can forget him saying “this is a

big f---ing deal” after Obamacare’s pas-

sage? Or admitting, as he tried to sell

the stimulus, “There’s still a 30 percent

chance we’re going to get it wrong”?

I am so certain that Biden’s gaffes will

propel him to victory that I have written

him a draft acceptance speech, based on

actual Bidenisms, for the Democratic

convention in Milwaukee:

Hello, Memphis! Ladies, gentlemen

and other genders — there are at least

three! — I say: This is a big f---ing deal! I

see poor kids in the arena and I see

white kids. I see Grandpa Finnegan,

God rest his soul!

I would not be here in Manchester ac-

cepting your nomination without the

support of articulate, clean black peo-

ple. And you disabled veterans — stand

up! I have known you intimately. And so

I say: I would rather be making love to

my wife! You are a dull audience.

Fellow Democrats, there is a 30 per-

cent chance everything I do will be

wrong. Bernie, Elizabeth, Kamala and

the others would have been better picks

than me. But I am here because of a

three-letter word: TRUTH. We choose

truth over facts! If elected, I promise:

We will have an international crisis. Let

me be clear: I am not going nuts! So go

to my website number and help me.

Vote for Joe America! Good night, Mont-

gomery!

Twitter: @Milbank

DANA MILBANK

WASHINGTON SKETCH

The beauty

of Biden:

He could say

anything

BY ELIZABETH WARREN

T

he Federal Communications Com-

mission reports that a staggering

21.3 million Americans don’t have

access to high-speed broadband —

no doubt an underestimate given the notori-

ous loopholes in FCC reporting require-

ments. This is despite more than a decade of

efforts by policymakers at the state and

federal level to end the “digital divide” and

deliver universal access to high-speed

Internet.

This isn’t an accident. Blame Internet

service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon,

Comcast, AT&T and Charter, which have

maximized their profits at the expense of

rural towns, cities, low-income communities

and communities of color across the country.

These companies have deliberately

restricted competition, kept prices high and

used their armies of lobbyists to persuade

state legislatures to ban towns and cities

from building their own public networks.

Meanwhile, the federal government has

shoveled more than a billion in taxpayer

dollars per year to private ISPs to expand

broadband to remote areas, but these pro-

viders have done the bare minimum with

these resources.

ISPs have been able to get away with

fostering pseudo-monopolies because they

spend a lot of money to keep the regulatory

environment and the conversation sur-

rounding it murky. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a

former Verizon lawyer, has been an effective

agent for ISPs. He led the charge to disman-

tle net neutrality last year, and he has done

everything in his power to stop municipali-

ties from building their own broadband

infrastructure. He also attempted to gut the

FCC’s Lifeline program, one of the few tools

the federal government has to provide Inter-

net to low-income consumers.

While the profit motives of ISPs have

disproportionately harmed rural and low-

income communities, urban and higher-

income consumers have been adversely

impacted, too.

Horror stories starring giant Internet

companies are practically universal. In the

wealthiest country on the planet, we lag

behind many other developed nations in

connectivity and speed, while also paying

more for that service. That’s why companies

such as Comcast consistently rank as the

United States’ most hated companies by

consumers. When you eliminate a competi-

tive market and replace it with regional

monopolies or duopolies, providers have no

incentive to improve their service.

In those rural communities where ISPs

have delivered Internet access, consumers

pay egregiously high rates for services that

are far below the FCC’s own definition of

high-speed Internet. And if they go over

their allotted data, they get hit with addi-

tional charges.

Without a stable, high-speed Internet

connection, it’s virtually impossible for a

town to keep or recruit new businesses. Not

having broadband at home creates a “home-

work gap” that makes it much harder for

students to compete. For rural and low-in-

come communities, lawmakers have priori-

tized increased funding for telemedicine as a

way to lower health-care costs and reach

isolated communities. But again, that isn’t

an option without good Internet.

Enough is enough. As president, I would

work to ensure every home in the United

States has an affordable, broadband connec-

tion. I have a plan for a new public option for

broadband Internet, carried out by a new

Office of Broadband Access that would man-

age an $85 billion federal grant program.

Only electricity and telephone cooperatives,

nonprofit organizations, tribes, cities, coun-

ties and other state subdivisions would be

eligible for grants.

The federal government would pay

90 cents on the dollar for construction under

these grants. In exchange, applicants must

offer high-speed public broadband directly

to every home in their application area.

Applicants would have to offer at least one

plan with 100-megabits per second speeds

and one discount Internet plan for low-

income customers with a prepaid feature or

a low monthly rate. The plan would also set

aside $5 billion specifically for 100 percent

federal grants to tribal nations to expand

broadband access on Native American land.

Additionally, we would make it clear in

federal statute that municipalities have the

right to build their own networks, and I

would appoint FCC commissioners who

would restore net neutrality and make sure

our government programs live up to the

promise of universal service. We would also

prohibit the range of sneaky maneuvers that

giant private providers use to unfairly

squeeze out competition, hold governments

hostage and drive up prices.

There is both a moral and an economic

imperative to enact a public option for

broadband. If we stay on our current trajec-

tory, ISPs will continue to decide which

communities succeed and which ones fail.

We imperil the success of future generations,

threaten our competitiveness on the global

stage and risk further diaspora from towns

and cities that are in dire need of economic

turnaround.

Providing universal, public access to

broadband won’t be easy. The ISPs aren’t

interested in competition and will fight to

keep the status quo. But this is a worthy

cause. Together we can change outcomes for

forgotten towns and cities across our country.

The writer, a Democrat, represents

Massachusetts in the Senate and is a candidate

for the Democratic presidential nomination.

My plan

for universal

broadband

BY JOHN FEINSTEIN

L

ike most people, I was sur-

prised when I heard the news

Saturday that Andrew Luck

had decided to retire from the

NFL a few weeks shy of turning 30 —

walking away from almost $60 mil-

lion he was due to be paid by the

Indianapolis Colts over the next

three seasons.

Surprised — yes, but shocked? No.

Having spent a good deal of time

with Luck two seasons ago while

researching a book on playing quar-

terback in the NFL, I knew that Luck

isn’t like most athletes. He loved

playing the game and played it

extremely well. But he doesn’t need

to play the game.

In 40 years as a reporter, I can’t

begin to count the number of athletes

I’ve asked what they plan on doing

when their playing days are over.

Most of the time the answers are

remarkably similar: coach, get a job

in TV or radio, or become a scout

leading to a job as a general manager.

When I asked Luck the routine

question in March 2018, he smiled

almost sheepishly. “Honestly,” he

said, “I think I could be very happy

teaching high school history.”

That is an answer I’d never gotten

before — or since.

When I first sat down with Luck

before the start of the 2017 season, he

was recovering from shoulder sur-

gery. He had spent the entire

2016 season in considerable pain but

played well. When he got to the point

where he couldn’t pull open a door

without feeling pain, he knew he had

to have surgery. He expected to be

ready for training camp because

that’s what the doctors had told him

in January.

He ended up missing the entire

season. And it was a terrible

experience.

He talked about how guilty he felt

standing on the sideline, helpless to

keep his team from losing; about

how depressed he became when ev-

ery time he thought he was making

progress, the pain would return;

about how he had to flee to Europe

for two months to rehab there be-

cause being under the media micro-

scope in Indianapolis was impossible

as weeks passed with no sign of

improvement.

“I love being a football player,” he

said to me after he’d finally started to

feel better. “But it isn’t my identity,

never has been. I love being around

my teammates, being part of a team

and competing. But I had to make

peace with the idea that I might NOT

come back before I could make prog-

ress toward coming back. That was

the hardest part.”

Luck returned last season to lead a

team that had won four games with-

out him in 2017 to 11 wins and a spot

in the second round of the playoffs.

He was voted the league’s comeback

player of the year. No one can say he

didn’t give the team everything he

had. And it’s worth remembering

that he could have spent the season

on injured reserve and been paid the

$9.1 million he was due this fall.

It’s no mere coincidence that no

active NFL player has criticized or

questioned his decision. Those who

do don’t understand how painful it is

to play football at the highest level.

I’m not talking about injuries, I’m

talking about just playing. If you

have ever stood on an NFL sideline

and watched the way huge men hit

one another, it is amazing that any-

one ever gets up, even after a routine

play.

Those who booed Luck on Satur-

day or have criticized him can’t un-

derstand this. It doesn’t look that

painful from a distance. There is

something of a Roman Colosseum

feel to football: If one gladiator falls,

cart him off and bring on the next one.

Because NFL players are paid so well,

many fans feel they are owed a will-

ingness to sacrifice body and soul.

To call Luck’s decision a trend is

going too far. Many — if not most —

players will be dragged (or carted) off

the field still wanting to play the

game. But since the discovery of what

football can do to the brain; since

more and more former players have

come forward to describe the painful

lives they now lead, there has been a

noticeable and steady drop in high

school participation, and more play-

ers are retiring young. They have

made a lot of money, and they want to

walk away with their minds and

bodies intact.

Luck said Saturday that all the

injuries he’s had the past four years —

the latest being a lingering ankle and

calf problem — took the joy out of

football for him. If there’s no joy in

doing something that hurts all the

time, there’s no reason to go on.

And, I suspect, if he decides to

teach high school history, he’ll be

great at it.

John Feinstein is a Post contributor and

the author of “Quarterback: Inside the

Most Important Position in Professional

Sports.”

Luck’s call: A surprise

but not a shock

MICHAEL CONROY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Andrew Luck during a news conference on Saturday in which he announced his retirement from the NFL.

BY SAM LICCARDO

T

he July mass shooting in Gilroy,

Calif., left two San Jose families

mourning the loss of their chil-

dren, 6-year-old Stephen Rome-

ro and 13-year-old Keyla Salazar. As San

Jose’s mayor, I hugged grieving family

members, visited injured residents in

the hospital and attended vigils. My

mind reeled for words that might ease

their suffering and the community’s

pain, but shallow platitudes couldn’t

offer much solace.

Mayors who experience such suffer-

ing in their communities after sense-

less gun violence do not have the luxury

of waiting for Congress to act, as

lawmakers offer their “thoughts and

prayers.” Cities demand problem-

solving over posturing. So this month, I

proposed an oft-considered but as-

yet-never-implemented idea: require

every gun owner in the 10th-largest city

in the United States to buy liability

insurance.

Every U.S. state mandates that auto-

mobile drivers buy liability insurance;

we should require no less of gun

owners. Cars and guns have exacted a

similarly grim human toll, each causing

about 40,000 deaths in 2017. If San

Jose’s gun owners can’t get liability

insurance, they can comply with the

mandate by paying a fee to compensate

taxpayers for the “gun violence subsi-

dy” borne by the public.

That is, for decades, taxpayers have

subsidized gun ownership and the

harms that accompany it. Direct costs

of gun violence to California taxpayers

— for ambulances, cops and emergency

rooms — exceeded $1.4 billion last year,

according to one study. While the

Second Amendment protects a right to

bear arms, it does not require taxpayers

to subsidize the exercise of that right.

Courts routinely uphold the imposition

of reasonable, nonobstructive fees or

taxes on constitutionally protected ac-

tivities, such as forming a tax-exempt

nonprofit, selling a newspaper and

purchasing a gun.

Insurance can provide a useful

mechanism for harm reduction. Risk-

adjusted premiums provide financial

incentives that reward good driving

and installing air bags, and discourage

parents from handing the keys to their

risk-taking teenagers. Similarly, insur-

ers could use premium discounts to

prod law-abiding gun owners to take

gun-safety courses, purchase gun safes

and install child-safety locks — a wel-

come improvement for a nation in

which more than 4.6 million children

live in a household where a gun is kept

loaded and unlocked. Insurers would

also hike the premium on a 19-year-old

looking to buy his first semiautomatic

weapon, someone such as the Gilroy

shooter.

Of course, “the crooks” won’t pay a

fee or buy insurance; only law-abiding

gun owners would. An insurance re-

quirement at the point of sale, if

purchased locally, would make it hard-

er for some guns to get into the wrong

hands. Regardless of where the gun is

purchased, all San Jose residents would

face an insurance requirement for

merely possessing a gun — just as they

would a car. The insurance thereby

provides an additional tool for law

enforcement against crooks. A prospec-

tive burglar casing a home or a criminal

standing watch on a street corner may

avoid arrest due to lack of demonstra-

ble criminality. Yet, if a constitutionally

compliant pat-down search revealed

possession of an uninsured gun, the

suspect would face the consequences of

an uninsured motorist, including a

fine, misdemeanor conviction and sei-

zure of the gun.

What would the insurance cover? At

the very least, we’d want to insure

against the harm that results from

accidental shootings, which claim the

lives of about 500 people per year and

cause more than 17,000 injuries, many

of them to children. Some homeowners’

and renters’ policies already contain

coverage for such liabilities. We might

also consider requiring insurance —

and thereby incentivizing insurers to

offer coverage — for harms caused by

those who acquire any of the 200,000 to

300,000 guns stolen every year from

owners who inadequately secure them.

If some gun owners can’t get insur-

ance, then our proposal simply requires

them to pay an annual fee to compen-

sate taxpayers who have grudgingly

borne the financial costs of gun vio-

lence. Over time, with a sufficiently

robust fee, more insurers will enter the

market.

After two decades of congressional

inaction and more than 600,000 fire-

arm deaths, our sclerotic federal gun

policy needs disruptive thinking. Local

and state leaders increasingly will step

into this void. Others may offer better

ideas, and we should explore all of

them; no one measure will end the

scourge of firearm deaths in our nation.

In the meantime, I’ll push to imple-

ment a gun insurance requirement for

San Jose residents. If we can’t decisively

end gun violence, then at the very least,

we’re going to stop paying for it.

The writer, a Democrat, is mayor of San

Jose.

Why I’m asking San Jose residents

to insure their guns