A Columbus Day Reprint

This was first posted in 2020. Then tweaked a year later.

Here's the original:

I'd like to take a break from watching our slow-motion Trump-led social suicide and talk a little about this: 

The Pittsburgh Art Commission unanimously voted on Wednesday to schedule a special hearing for the public to voice their opinions on the potential removal of the Christopher Columbus statue in Schenley Park.

Mayor Bill Peduto asked the commission in a letter Tuesday to begin a public review to determine the future of the statue.

The statue, which was erected in Schenley Park in 1958, was vandalized in 2010, 2017 and most recently again in June and July as part of nationwide protests against monuments honoring Columbus.

After the statue was vandalized in June, an online petition was created calling for its removal.

Let me say as a proud Italian-American that it's probably time for the statue to be removed.  As a cultural signifier, "Columbus" has way too much negative baggage to support it's continued presence in Oakland.

But instead of talking about the statues, let's talk about Columbus Day - something with similar calls for removal. What does "Columbus Day" mean? Evidently, different things to different people at different times.

From The New York Times:

Few who march in Columbus Day parades or recount the tale of Columbus’s voyage from Europe to the New World are aware of how the holiday came about or that President Benjamin Harrison proclaimed it as a one-time national celebration in 1892 — in the wake of a bloody New Orleans lynching that took the lives of 11 Italian immigrants. The proclamation was part of a broader attempt to quiet outrage among Italian-Americans, and a diplomatic blowup over the murders that brought Italy and the United States to the brink of war.

Here's the story:

It began with the murder of David Hennessy. A popular police chief, Hennessy was shot down by gunmen while walking home from work. As he lay dying, a witness asked him who did it. “Dagoes,” he reportedly whispered, using a slur for Italians.

And so, more than a few Italians were rounded up and put on trial. The trial ended in a way that the public didn't like (six not guilty verdicts and 3 mistrials) and then:

In response, thousands of angry residents gathered near the jail. Impassioned speakers whipped the mob into a frenzy, painting Italian immigrants as criminals who needed to be driven out of the city. Finally, the mob broke into the city’s arsenal, grabbing guns and ammunition. As they ran toward the prison, they shouted, “We want the Dagoes!”

A smaller group of armed men stormed the prison, grabbing not just the men who had been acquitted or given a mistrial, but several who had not been tried or accused in the crimes. Shots rang out—hundreds of them. Eleven men’s bodies were riddled with bullets and torn apart by the crowd.

It's not surprising that the crowd rejoiced. The Italian government, evidently, did not.

Back to The Times on President Harrison's proclamation:

President Harrison would have ignored the New Orleans carnage had the victims been black. But the Italian government made that impossible. It broke off diplomatic relations and demanded an indemnity that the Harrison administration paid. Harrison even called on Congress in his 1891 State of the Union to protect foreign nationals — though not black Americans — from mob violence.

Harrison’s Columbus Day proclamation in 1892 opened the door for Italian-Americans to write themselves into the American origin story, in a fashion that piled myth upon myth. As the historian Danielle Battisti shows in “Whom We Shall Welcome,” they rewrote history by casting Columbus as “the first immigrant” — even though he never set foot in North America and never immigrated anywhere (except possibly to Spain), and even though the United States did not exist as a nation during his 15th-century voyage.

Seems obvious that the establishment of Columbus Day was initially intended to appease an angry Italian government in light of a brutal Southern lynching and not necessarily a celebration of Columbus himself, who, let's remember, was a man of his time and thus could scarcely be seen today as anything but ignorant and vicious.

Harrison was also a calling for patriotism. From the proclamation:

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States of America, in pursuance of the aforesaid joint resolution, do hereby appoint Friday, October 21, 1892, the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus, as a general holiday for the people of the United States. On that day let the people, so far as possible, cease from toil and devote themselves to such exercises as may best express honor to the discoverer and their appreciation of the great achievements of the four completed centuries of American life.

Columbus stood in his age as the pioneer of progress and enlightenment. The system of universal education is in our age the most prominent and salutary feature of the spirit of enlightenment, and it is peculiarly appropriate that the schools be made by the people the center of the day’s demonstration. Let the national flag float over every schoolhouse in the country and the exercises be such as shall impress upon our youth the patriotic duties of American citizenship.

In order to push the patriotism of the moment, Harrison had to shoe-horn Columbus into something he definitely (and absurdly) wasn't: an enlightenment-age "pioneer of progress." But what about all those who have since felt that the day is not about the misery brought by Columbus (and many others after him) but cultural pride in being written into the American origin story? The day means one thing if you see it as a celebration (or commemoration) of the beginnings of what turn out to be some very bad long-term abuses and another if you see it as a de facto Italian American heritage day and not a celebration of the misery and pestilence that followed Columbus' "discovery" of Hispaniola.

So we're at odds. What does "Columbus Day" mean? Who gets to define its meaning for everyone else? Those pushing for the "heritage day" risk offending those focusing on the very real abuses and those focusing on those abuses risk offending the cultural pride of a large swath of the population.

I don't know the solution.

Here's my domanda piuttosto pericolosa: is an Italian-American Heritage Day even necessary at this point? The fact of the matter is that every ethnic/cultural group deserves recognition for its unique contributions to The American Experience.

Perhaps it's time retire the day and use the temporal space it inhabits to make election day a national holiday instead. Perhaps we can all celebrate the American Experience that way.

A reptint. 

Fetterman Friday

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. I'd like to ask you, again, about Attorney General Pam Bondi.

During her confirmation hearing she said this:

At her confirmation hearing in January to become attorney general, Pam Bondi vowed to fight violent crime and restore confidence and integrity to the Justice Department.

"The partisanship, the weaponization will be gone," she told lawmakers. "America will have one tier of justice for all."

And yet this week DOJ, under her leadership has indicted two Trump adversaries: NY AG Leticia James and former FBI Director James Comey. 

Both indicted after receiving this from President Trump:

Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell...

And:

We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! 

You voted to confirm her as AG. Any comment on how she, in fact, has undermined the integrity of DOJ by politicizing that department? Do you regret that vote? Would you vote for her again?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.

And Now...A Few Words From The Former Vice President

“There is so much about this moment that is trying to make people feel like they’ve lost their minds, when, in fact, these mothafuckas are crazy.”

Oh, Kamala Harris, you have charmed me🤭 pic.twitter.com/XKQ8GQOVro

— kamala book tour (@madampolitick) October 7, 2025

Yep.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

The AP reported early this morning: 

A federal judge late Sunday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Oregon at all, after a legal whirlwind that began hours earlier when the president mobilized California troops for Portland after the same judge blocked him from using Oregon’s National Guard the day before.

During a hastily called evening telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order sought by California and Oregon.

Immergut, who was appointed by Trump in his first term, seemed incredulous that the president moved to send National Guard troops to Oregon from neighboring California and then from Texas on Sunday, just hours after she had ruled the first time.

“How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention to the temporary restraining order I issued yesterday?” she questioned the federal government’s attorney, cutting him off.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said later. “Why is this appropriate?”

Indeed, Senator. Why is this appropriate? 

In the same AP article, we find:

Trump, however, has turned his attention to the city, calling Portland “war ravaged,” and a “war zone” that is “burning down” and like “living in hell.” 

However in Judge Immergut's initial ruling, she wrote:

The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts. 

And:

This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.  

And so I'll ask you again, Senator, are President Donald Trump's actions at all appropriate? Is Trump right about Portland or is Immergut? Are we a nation of Constitutional law or of martial law?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

I'd like to ask you about the recent indictment of former head of the FBI, James Comey.

On NBC this weekend, former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb said this:

Well, I think we should be scared to death. First of all, at 30,000 feet, the fact that a man was indicted—someone the Justice Department in the ordinary course of traditional processes investigated and concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify a criminal prosecution—because he was an enemy of the President, and because the President ordered his feckless Attorney General to prosecute him, that should scare us all. Justice Jackson, when he was Attorney General in 1940, made it very plain that targeting individuals, as opposed to merely investigating crimes, was the distinction between America and Third World regimes.

I'll reiterate what Cobb said:

[T]he fact that a man was indicted...because he was an enemy of the President, and because the President ordered his feckless Attorney General to prosecute him, that should scare us all.  

Elsewhere in the interview he said:

This is narcissistic vengeance at its core. This is authoritarianism. 

On CBS, he said this:

The simple themes are rewriting history. Trump wants to rewrite history so that, you know, the next generation may not know that he incited a violent insurrection, refused to peacefully transfer the power of the presidency after losing an election, stole classified documents and showed them to friends and- and guests at Mar-a-Lago, you know, and that he was a criminal. I mean, he's a convicted felon. All- all anybody involved in those events that offended him, they're- they're in real danger.

The MAGA-GOP for years have been complaining about how President Biden politicized DOJ but, given what this former Trump White House attorney said this weekend, isn't it the case that the real (and dangerous) politicization is occurring right now? 

This is America, Senator. When will you stand up and say, "This is not supposed to happen."?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.

Fetterman Responds!

Lots to catch up on. 

Let's get started.

Last week I received a "response" from Senator Fetterman. I put the word in quotation marks because he, again, doesn't seem to be responding to anything in particular. 

Unlike the previous quasi-answer, this letter is a more general defense of his politicking in DC. 

It starts:

I ran for this office because I wanted to make the federal government work for Pennsylvanians in every one of our 67 counties. That commitment hasn’t changed. I’m continuing to fight for working people by protecting workers’ rights like collective bargaining, pushing for universal free school lunch, safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, holding corporations accountable, giving Pennsylvania’s farmers what they need to feed the world, and making health care more accessible and affordable.

Under President Biden, we were able to get a lot done, and we made significant investments across the commonwealth. Now as we enter President Trump’s second term, my goal of a better, stronger Pennsylvania isn’t changing, and the values I’ve fought for won’t change either. Moving the ball forward on these things will mean working with President Trump and Republicans in Congress on the stuff we can agree on. But I want to be clear that I will fight back when I disagree, and I won’t flinch when it comes to protecting your rights, defending our democracy, and standing up for forgotten communities. 

And a few lines later:

I have decided that the best approach to get things done for Pennsylvanians is to engage directly with Administration officials and Cabinet members to advocate for specific changes and action. I don’t believe that having a brawl in the press is the most likely road to success for our communities, which will always be my ultimate goal. 

OK. Let me first point out that in normal political times, this would an exceedingly practical and rational position to take for anyone. Right or left. 

However, do I really need to point out to our senior Senator that these times are not normal?

For example: 

Birthright Citizenship

From SCOTUS Blog: 

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a pair of nearly identical filings, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to review a ruling by a federal appeals court holding that the order violates the Constitution, as well as a similar decision by a federal judge in New Hampshire. Sauer told the court that “the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”   

The filing starts with this:

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those “born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. [Emphasis added.]

In normal times the executive would understand that he/she/they simply does not have the authority to redefine these words with an executive order:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  

In normal times, this would not stand a chance.

Due Process

Speaking of the 14th Amendment, it starts with this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In normal times, the meaning here is clear: everyone (as it says "any person") is entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws.

And yet NBC reported:

President Donald Trump argued in an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that fulfilling his ambitious campaign promise to rapidly carry out mass deportations may take precedence over giving immigrants the right to due process under the Constitution, as required by courts. 

And: 

When [NBC's Kristen] Welker tried to point out what the Fifth Amendment said, Trump suggested that such a process would slow him down too much.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are — some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”

“I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he added.

Darn courts following the darn Constitution.

Not normal times, Senator.

Not engaging in these (or any of the very many other) egregious assaults on our fundamental rights does nothing but normalize the assault itself.

This is what you're doing, Senator. You're not a voice of moderation. You're allowing the assault to continue.  

Grow a back bone, John. Pull up your big-boy pants and resist Donald Trump. In your heart, you know it's the right thing to do.

The email from the Senator:

Dear David:

Thank you for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.

I ran for this office because I wanted to make the federal government work for Pennsylvanians in every one of our 67 counties. That commitment hasn’t changed. I’m continuing to fight for working people by protecting workers’ rights like collective bargaining, pushing for universal free school lunch, safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, holding corporations accountable, giving Pennsylvania’s farmers what they need to feed the world, and making health care more accessible and affordable.  

Under President Biden, we were able to get a lot done, and we made significant investments across the commonwealth. Now as we enter President Trump’s second term, my goal of a better, stronger Pennsylvania isn’t changing, and the values I’ve fought for won’t change either. Moving the ball forward on these things will mean working with President Trump and Republicans in Congress on the stuff we can agree on. But I want to be clear that I will fight back when I disagree, and I won’t flinch when it comes to protecting your rights, defending our democracy, and standing up for forgotten communities.

We’ve seen a lot of chaos out of the White House over President Trump’s first few months in office – from DOGE, to cuts to critical research programs, to the firing of federal workers in our communities and across the country. When this chaos hurts Pennsylvanians, I’ve pushed back and called it out. When NIH funding was threatened for Pennsylvania’s world class research institutions and universities, I called it out. When the administration took shots at federal unions and workers’ rights, I made it clear where I stand. And with DOGE and Republicans in DC threatening Social Security, I’ve doubled down on my commitment to protecting this sacred, critical program.

I have decided that the best approach to get things done for Pennsylvanians is to engage directly with Administration officials and Cabinet members to advocate for specific changes and action. I don’t believe that having a brawl in the press is the most likely road to success for our communities, which will always be my ultimate goal.

Republicans hold majorities in both the House and the Senate. The unfortunate reality is that this means progress on a lot of the legislation I care about most will be hard to come by for the next few years. But that doesn’t mean I’ll stop trying. I will continue to find every possible opportunity I can to bring federal investments back to the commonwealth and deliver meaningful wins for Pennsylvania families.  

I believe that Pennsylvanians deserve a strong voice in Washington, so hearing from constituents like you about these critical issues is essential to my work. I’m here in D.C. fighting for solutions that deliver real results for Pennsylvanians and every corner of our commonwealth. Please know that as long as I’m your senator, that’s what I’ll always do.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts. Please do not hesitate to reach out in the future about other issues of importance to you. If I can be of assistance, or if you’d like to learn more about my work on behalf of Pennsylvanians and our commonwealth, I encourage you to visit my website, https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/.

Sincerely, 

John Fetterman 
United States Senator

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. Last week, I sent this same question to your senatorial colleague, Senator Fetterman and I am awaiting his replay.  I wouldn't ordinarily do this but the issue is so pressing, I must.

I'd like to ask you about the First Amendment implications of Jimmy Kimmel's "indefinite suspension."

The New York Times reported:

ABC announced on Wednesday evening that it was pulling Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show “indefinitely” after conservatives accused the longtime host of inaccurately describing the politics of the man who is accused of fatally shooting the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

The network did not explain its decision, but the sequence of events on Wednesday amounted to an extraordinary exertion of political pressure on a major broadcast network by the Trump administration.

And:

Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

On the other hand, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued a statement that read, in part:

This FCC does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to police
content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes. If it were to take the
unprecedented step of trying to revoke broadcast licenses, which are held by local stations
rather than national networks, it would run headlong into the First Amendment and fail in
court on both the facts and the law. But even the threat to revoke a license is no small
matter. It poses an existential risk to a broadcaster, which by definition cannot exist
without its license. That makes billion-dollar companies with pending business before the
agency all the more vulnerable to pressure to bend to the government’s ideological
demands.

First, let me point out one thing: Carr asserted that the FCC has remedies to "look at" news organizations that lie to the American People but didn't Fox News lie about the Dominion voting machines?

Anyway back to The First Amendment. As a reminder to you it reads, in part:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. 

Senator, simple question. Do you agree with FCC Chair Carr or FCC Commissioner Gomez? 

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.