No, We're Not. He Isn't, Either.

Behind 45's latest messing with the Constitution is his firm belief that Americans are better than everyone else: That we are somehow specially blessed by heaven in a unique way (bringing back Manifest Destiny, which debuted in the 1840s), and anyone else who wants to come in--and doesn't look like us--has to climb a bunch of major steps, and good luck with that.

If heaven's scratching its head, I wouldn't be surprised. There's nothing superior about anyone living within the borders of the United States of America. Yes, Jefferson was right: We have natural-born rights. But go back and look at our Declaration: He meant that statement for all humankind, everywhere. He just felt he needed to point out to the British, in 1776, that it also applied to their colonists. Without guarantees of those rights being allowed to flourish, it was time to part ways, thank you very much.

What makes America unique? For one thing: Nothing more, and nothing less, than geography. It's allowed us to utilize our enormous natural resources to thrive economically and create a juggernaut without much threat of being invaded. Those two big oceans are still out there, and--Pearl Harbor and 9/11 not withstanding--it's been pretty tough to mount an invasion force that would make much difference--never mind the weaponless group of refugees that he's sending 5200 National Guardspeople to thwart, a baldly political gesture (at the 11th hour of a mid-term campaign) that makes many of us want to vomit.

The other thing that makes it unique is its founding: on an idea, not a plot of land. That idea was, again, liberty in law. Our Constitution, imperfect though it may be, still serves as a beacon to other democracies in the world.

Until now.

Now, the president wants to circumvent the whole thing by claiming that by simply writing his words on a piece of paper, the process of amending the Constitution--a cumbersome, difficult, time-consuming process that just won't do for such a busy man--is inadequate to accomplish what he wants for the country that he imagines it to be.

Which is nothing close to what it really is.

The amendment process is what makes the very concept of a constitution, instead of passing mere legislation (never mind how difficult that now is as well), an exercise in establishing a legal bulwark. Making it difficult to amend gives it a foundation that has lasted us most of the 231 years of its existence.

The process is also unique in that it is purely legislative in nature. The president doesn't need to sign amendments or even to like them, and the Supreme Court can't touch them. They need to be approved by first, a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress, and three-fourths of the state legislatures (within a time frame that Congress may or may not attach; the latest amendment, the 27th, for instance, was initially passed in 1791, but the failed Equal Rights Amendment had a seven-year sunset).

Good luck with that. But that's the idea. If something needs to be attached to our fundamental document of law, it should be very difficult to do and not be a function of quickly-passing political winds. Or, if they do, those winds need to be very strong (as with, for instance, the Civil War Amendments (13, 14, 15); filling a vacancy in the vice-presidency (25); or voting at age 18 (26)). Support for the rest have evolved over time, as the Constitution fills a need for an ever-changing nation.

But it's one of those Civil War Amendments, the Fourteenth, that 45 is planning to subvert. He wants to stop natural-born people of non-citizens from being automatic citizens. We're being sandbagged, he thinks, by people fleeing to the U.S.--somehow getting past border guards, which will happen whether refugees risk and sometimes lose their lives or not, whether actual walls are built or not--and giving birth to children within our borders. Then, he whines, we have to take care of them by giving them (gasp) health care and education. Good golly, they don't even have to know English!

And they aren't white. Our purity is at stake! Are refugees actually having sex within American borders so the women can get pregnant and create an assembly line of citizens that don't look like what is a diminishing majority of the rest of us? What's next--an attempt to reinstitute a ban on cross-racial marriages?

What makes an American? That this must be said, here and elsewhere, is a tragic reflection of our times, but--first of all, it has nothing to do with skin color; it has nothing to do with religion; it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Nothing. Outside of actually being born on this soil, or born of an already American parent (looking at you, Ted Cruz), it means that people have had to go through a process we call naturalization--also mentioned specifically in the original Constitution. See Article I, Section 8.

But that power is the one to make rules regarding naturalization, which belong to Congress, and specifically stated as such. (Please pay attention, Justice Kavanaugh, oh ye of the Federalist Society, which prides itself on the original intent of the Founders.) That issue has also been limited by the Fourteenth Amendment's automatic granting of citizenship on newborns.

So 45, not that he minds much, is way out of line here. He's not so special that he can make up any rules or processes he wants and literally paper them over with executive orders. And the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment (Think that was meant to be put there?) says, "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."

But 45 says: No, that's not fair to the rest of us real Americans, who somehow materialized here all by ourselves without forebears who couldn't possibly have come from somewhere else or, if they did (Who in the world didn't, including Natives?), it's too long ago to be relevant. They're getting away with something. (A good hospital? A good school? Food stamps? Cubic inches of space? And eventually, jobs nobody else wants?)

I'm guessing that official, state-based institutions will quickly sue him (Because of the phrase "and the state in which they reside") and the Supreme Court will rule. I'm also guessing that he thinks that, with the Court being newly stocked with conservatives, he will hold sway. His lawyers will say, probably, that the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to guarantee rights for the newly-freed slaves, rights that are now moot. They will argue that the expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment's key phrases: "privileges and immunities," and "equal protection," need not cover those merely born on our soil without the previously established citizenship of one or both parents. So now we can eliminate their citizenship--and send them away if we want. (Instead of keeping them in internment camps, way too messy, right?)

Except: The circumvention of the Constitution by a sitting president has been attempted elsewhere and been thwarted before--as with Obama's attempts to make recess appointments to the federal bench (the politically nasty resistance to which, it must be said, began with Senate Democrats against George W. Bush). That was a process issue (decided unanimously), so 45's attempt to begin a new process that satisfies him can be successfully challenged on that basis, as well.

One more time: Who does he think he is, beyond an ego so massive it defies description? We'll find out.

But he isn't that special. There are rules for him, too. We'll see if this constitutional anarchist can be reined in.

Be well. I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

When Everything's Just A Joke

Mockery is his middle name.

When someone believes in nothing but himself and how he feels at any given moment without logic or consistency, hasn't had an original thought in thirty years, and thinks that anything that someone disagrees with constitutes a personal insult, this is what you get--someone who is devoted only to undoing institutions, doesn't see the need to know anything else about them, and cares only about hearing cheers and adulation and certainly not the truth about anything.

Instead, he mocks, ridicules, and tells crude jokes about whatever he doesn't care for. It's for the entertainment factor, not in service of the truth, justice, or certainly not propriety.

He thinks of himself as a part-time comedian. If people laugh at his mockery, it's because he's brilliant (just ask him). If people chant with him, it's because they, and he, have nothing better to say. Nobody there cares about how the country is served by his presence; they only care about having had a good time.

It's all just a joke. The UN? What a joke. NATO? A bigger joke. Body-slamming a journalist? Sure. It's funny. Just a joke. He doesn't really mean it, but he doesn't really mean anything.

Public education? What a joke that is. So much so that a portion of an inaugural address was devoted to attacking it as part of the "carnage." He left a woman in charge of it who has proven to be quite the joke herself. The Capitol Steps, which appeared here in Milwaukee a few weeks ago, parodied her quite sharply as a nice lady who smiles a lot but knows nothing, who will surely pay the deconstructionists to take her very position apart, though--and anything that it means, which, too, is slowly morphing to nothing.

Public education is, after all, an extension of government, and government is a joke: It takes your taxes and gives you--nothing good. Does it? Everybody went to school. What good did it do?

Political correctness--that is, choosing one's words to keep focus on the issue and not on personal degradation--that's a joke, too. Nobody understands all those big words, so he'll use the same, simple words again and again: Never mind that they constitute, together and separately, big and small lies, buried in the minds of those who will never take the country seriously, only their own backyards.

So easy to cling to bromides that keep us from thinking: the left-wing conspiracy, led by George Soros (as repeated by his Supreme Court nominee). Lock up Hillary Clinton (also mentioned by him). Obama, the worst president ever. Anybody he doesn't like? He'll make up a derogatory name for them. The mockeries are the non-facts masquerading as facts that disguise, ignore, and divert from the facts.

So one of his devotees gets on Bill Maher's show and says that his lies are different--they are said to gain effect. Hello? What lie isn't told to gain effect? "But," he adds, "It works."

So the mockery of the American public can be justified. So the vagaries of politics allows constant lying to gain effect. Don't all politicians lie, after all? Does any of this matter if he can get away with it--get and keep the pulpit, spread the lies and mockery and degradation and ad hominem attacks, bringing all to his level of disgust?

Because if it doesn't, then we are all at risk. When nothing matters, nothing as an idea then matters, too--no values, no history, just the here and now and never mind the results or consequences or the possibly rational reasons that anything has ever taken place. We go down that rabbit hole and we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to return. Things that cannot possibly be justifiable will quickly become not only justifiable, but popular.

The mainstream will disappear, as it has been doing for some time now--indeed, for all of this century so far. When that happens, no government can hold back the disastrous effects because the ideas and values by which it has been created will not matter. If the economy goes bad, and millions go back on the unemployment rolls (which I have done, and that struggle for the maintenance of self-esteem was enormous), we will see the awful results: everyone for themselves.

Even if the election results are more positive next week, even if we manage to provide something of a check on the abuses of power and the descent into meaninglessness, even if we structurally push back against the idea that government is a joke, that alone won't do it. The leader of this nonsense is still there and he will feel threatened, so he will continue and even accelerate the assault on decency.

It's possible that we might establish a new foothold and hopefully so. But under new threat, the forces of nihilism will rebound. We should know by now that that's not a joke. Either.

Be well. I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Why I Won't Look Away

I had never been to a synagogue until Friday.

Rebecca Dallet, the latest addition to the Wisconsin state Supreme Court, spoke at Shalom Synagogue. She, her husband and three daughters, are members there. I attended because I'd never heard her speak before. After all, I voted for her. I wanted to know what I was getting.

It's quite a bit. She graduated summa cum laude from both Ohio State and law school at Case Western Reserve. She still (How does she find the time?) does religious teaching to the synagogue's youth. We did well when we put her on the state's highest court.

Dallet spoke on the enormous racial inequities in the Wisconsin criminal justice system. She should know. She dealt with 12,000 cases, civil and criminal, in the eight years she was on the Milwaukee County Court (and is the only member of the Supreme Court with Milwaukee roots, so that's another excellent reason she's there). She quoted statistics that are staggering, one of which is that black people stand ten times the chance that they will be incarcerated over whites. Think about that. The speech was entitled "Serving Justice Justly," which doesn't look to me like it's anywhere near  happening right now.

That, and so many other pressing concerns, is being lost in the present cacophony that is our political and social discourse. One of those concerns was driven home again Saturday, when another radically-afflicted wildman shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing 11 people. Some of them had these ages: 97, 88, 86 and 84.

These, he said on his social media entries, were the ones underwriting the "invasion" (Note that word: both he and 45 used it) of some 5,000 political refugees from Latin America, seeking a little justly-served justice themselves, who would be crossing the border some 1500 miles away, on foot. Some national threat.

Meanwhile, Friday evening, Dallet's speech was preceded by a genuine Sabbath celebration in the synagogue. It represented a new frontier for me, a humbling but exciting one.

A former teaching colleague at Cedarburg, Jim Ross, is a member at Shalom. By sheer chance, without noticing, he and his wife had plunked themselves down in my very row. I got up and said hello, and they invited me to join them. I picked up the book of celebration--I'm not sure what it's called--and joined in when the prayers were said in English.

As I did so, I discovered three pretty interesting things:

• The book's pages are displayed from right to left;
• Many of the songs are sung in Hebrew, and many members know them by heart (Do you know one Christian hymn by heart? Even a single verse?); and
• The one, constant theme throughout the prayers is that of peace--being the one, most essential thing that God can deliver.

The celebration that begins Friday evening extends into Saturday morning. That would begin at 10 a.m., it was announced.

I wonder if that same time was the time that the Tree of Life Synagogue began its continuation of Sabbath services, too. We do know that the gunman walked in and opened fire at about 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time on Saturday.

In all likelihood, then, they were saying those same kinds of prayers, too--prayers for peace within one's soul, prayers for peace in the world, prayers for peace for those a little short on it right now--when the gunman entered and delivered a very different message.

That brought an especially deep chill when I learned of the murders Saturday, the reports of which I watched for hours. The radio went off this morning at 8 a.m., and I heard the authorities hold their first actual news conference on the shooting. My first reaction was to turn it off. Yet another senseless, deranged person had gone off and taken out his fantastically paranoid attitudes on others. Same old, same old.

This time, though, I'm not just shaking my head and going on with my life. I got up and watched the news conference and absorbed the terrible facts of it all.

This isn't going to stop anything this very moment. But what I resolve to do is to face all of it, all the time it happens. I will not look away, though it would be easy, even understandable, to do.

I will not ignore for a moment the enormity of this barbarism. To do so is to first of all, diminish the lives and deaths of the victims, to condemn them to a kind of assembly line of the helpless, along with the children of Sandy Hook and the animals shot by people needing trophies to display.

It is to dodge the debate that's been raging on automatic weapons, which are completely unnecessary in our society. The gunman had an AR-15 as well as three pistols with him. He was ready for battle, and shot four police officers before being taken down. 

Would he have shot fewer people with just those three pistols? That's not the point. Here's my question: Why would anybody want to make it that much easier to kill others? 

Do you have a constitutional issue, too, those who kneel at the altar of the supposedly sacred Second Amendment? I have news: Each one of our freedoms and constitutional guarantees have limitations on them--you can't just say or print anything you want, you can't justify any action based on religion, you can't hold any kind of trial anywhere you wish, you can't interfere with a woman's body just because you don't like the decision she has made about it, you can't punish anyone in any fashion that feels okay to you--to note just a few examples of liberty under law that most of us still observe.

All of these freedoms have limitations depending upon circumstances and depending upon how we as a people wish to draw lines regarding their practice. Where abuses are committed, there needs to be new discussions. 

I hereby bring back an old one: There is no functional reason why anyone who is not a member of our armed forces or police to have an automatic weapon in America. None. Define the term "automatic weapons" as you wish: You know what we're talking about here. We're talking about those which wiped out kids in Columbine and Sandy Hook; the ones which picked off literally hundreds in Las Vegas. Those.

Take them away, and you do not end ridiculous, outrageous, destructive barbarism. But you slow it down while we do the real repairs of alienation, loneliness and intellectual isolation that plague our daily interactions; while we work on the real meaning of justice that Rebecca Dallet addressed last Friday night--the lack of which erodes trust and faith in each other that we so dearly need right now.

I'm sure I will have to write this many more times until we kick-start the debate again. But I will. I will say so here, there, elsewhere, anywhere and everywhere, until someone listens.

And I will not look away.

Be well. See you down the road.

Mister Mark

The Tiger of Intolerance

Three examples of homosexuality leading to violence arose within a week.

One was the case of Aaron Hernandez, whose sad story was written in the Boston Globe recently. Hernandez, it was revealed, was bisexual. He had had love relationships with several males but also had a child with his fiancee' before being sent to prison on murder charges.

His home background was awful. Hernandez gave off effeminate actions and mannerisms, which infuriated his hot-tempered father, who administered terrible, angry beatings. Anyone who has read about home-centered violence knows that the victims are inclined to take it out on others in bullying and other self-destructive actions. That it caught up to him was no surprise. Hernandez then committed the ultimate act of selfishness and self-destruction by hanging himself in his jail cell.

Another was Matthew Shepard, whose ashes were interred this week, finally and permanently, in Washington National Cathedral, more than a thousand miles from his home in Wyoming. In 1998, Shepard was robbed, pistol-whipped, and left for dead, hanging from a fence. He later died in a hospital. His two killers now serve life sentences.

Shepard was gay. His murder was a hate crime. His parents have always feared that his remains would be desecrated. A young, peaceful man, he attracted violence because of his innate nature--only that. Diminutive at 5-2, he was no doubt considered an easy mark, so he was lured to travel with two men who made him believe they were gay, too.  They actually couldn't even abide having a gay person among them, though he meant them no harm.

His funeral became an international cause celebre, in no small part because it was picketed by the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church, whose signs said, in addition to other things, "God Hates Fags."

That his parents felt they needed to solicit a national monument to be sure of the safety of their son's remains, across the continent, is a sorry comment on the lack of tolerance that has always existed.

The person accused yesterday of allegedly sending pipe bombs to several Democratic critics of 45 was known to make critical comments of gays and transsexuals. That President Obama and Vice-President Biden, who began the momentum toward accepting gay marriage in the U.S., were two of his targets (Did he not know Anthony Kennedy's home address?) spoke to his potential motivations (Though we have not heard from him yet and, considering his other targets, there were in all likelihood a host of other twisted reasons. This is assuming, of course, that his identity is accurate).

It is an albatross of this society that it cannot settle upon the inevitable fact of homosexuality within it. It is an albatross of this educational system that teachers cannot reasonably discuss it--including the possible hereditary explanations and its long history, including important world figures who were homosexual.

It is also an albatross of religiosity that clerics of some religions, Christian or otherwise, consider homosexuality sinful, to be reviled and hated, instead of a condition of the human race that, while not pervasive, is a consistent phenomenon--and, with acceptance, might be reduced in its effects instead of having them accentuated. At least it has nothing to do with being a bad person.

I have been approached by good, decent gay men a few times (each time quite surprising) over the years, inquiring in their ways whether I was one of them. But that has nothing to do with my consideration of their equality under the law and the basic acceptance of their humanity. I do not diminish them for asking, and I seriously doubt that they diminish me. As much of the Bill of Rights implies, we live and let live. But my attitudes, too, had to evolve, and my deep connection with the National Education Association had a great deal to do with it. I'm glad for that.

There is too little of that nowadays. The specter of intolerance has been unleashed again, rambling like a tiger escaping from its cage. It is there, stalking. If you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, well--too bad for you. When it pounces, it is already too late. The proliferation of weapons only makes it easier to fulfill.

Intolerance of sexual preferences provides much of the base of what motivates people to hate--in addition to religiously-based incitement and locked-in definitions of what it is to be a man. When those religions, or clergy, give their implicit permission, it gives permission to preclude additional thought and consideration, leads to grossly inaccurate generalizations about the deterioration of society as we know it, and raises frustration and anger to irrational impulses. 

That was at the base of the three examples above. To overcome this is a heavy lift. But we must try.

A transsexual was standing right behind me at the Obama speech at North Division High School yesterday. Seemed like a nice lady. The gymnasium was plenty big for both of us.

Be well. See you down the road.


Mister Mark

It Will Stick To 45, Too

When you're a superpower, your interests never end. They are a poiuyt of never-endings, never-beginnings. They appear to be simple but the closer you look, the more complex they appear.

But the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi journalist living in the U.S., exposes our dependence upon forces beyond our control--and makes us look bad regardless of intent or global strategy.

It's clear that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salmon wanted Khashoggi to be at least detained, captured and, well, leaned on a bit. Khashoggi has written critically about his country's policies--though he has also said good things, too--and dictators (which crown princes are) don't like that. As they can in authoritarian states (which the U.S. has become), they take all criticism personally because they can't or won't look beyond it to find root causes.

Here, the press is gleefully called "the enemy of the people." It's clearly that in Saudi Arabia, too, when it does not fit the regime's definition of loyalty. But here, journalists can't be detained merely for being critical here, and they can't be sued successfully for criticism of the administration--at least, not yet. Over there, though, they have different ways to deal with dissent, however far away it's based.

Which is to say: Rendition, the fancy synonym for torture. Remember that word? It was popular during the Iraq War era, in which supposed terrorists were subjected to, uh, persuasion that they should tell U.S. captors what they knew. Those persuasion techniques included being chained to walls, wearing no more than loincloths (if that) in freezing cold cells, robbing them of sleep, and the ultimate tool--waterboarding.

When exposed at Abu Ghraib, those treatments stopped. But it took a while. We acted the same way Saudi Arabia acts normally; to a perceived enemy of the state, we made up "legal" reasons (See: John Yoo and David Carrington) to extort information from people we thought were out to get us (disguised as presidential power expanded due to an "emergency," except it has a funny way of remaining expanded).

We also connected ourselves to allies who were willing to offer "dark cells" to us to keep the general public from discovering our excesses until it was too late to stop them. One of them was Poland, which, too, is experiencing a resurgence of authoritarianism. Strange how that happens.

But the Saudis just keep on keeping on. They tried to lure Khashoggi back into Saudi Arabia through a succession of friendly persuasions (or so says the Washington Post in an article today), but Khashoggi wouldn't bite. Instead, he surrendered himself due to love. He entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to receive permission to get married to his Turkish fiancee'.

He is filmed going in. He is not filmed coming out.

Saudi operatives apparently utilized that opportunity to hold Khashoggi captive inside the Consulate. There they reportedly killed him. Not only that, but they filmed both the torture and the murder itself. They brought in a chain saw to carve up his body into parts.

We know about the detainment because the Post reported that U.S. intelligence intercepted orders from bin Salmon to do so. Turkish officials say that Khashoggi was captured by a Saudi security team.

What 45 can't say about this, then, is that it's 'fake news.' His own people gathered it.

People died at the hands of Americans, too. We know that in their zeal, Americans went over the line in their information gathering. I'll bet that's just exactly what happened to Khashoggi, whose fiancee' eagerly awaited his return to be married.

She waited a lifetime. His.

All of which leaves 45 and friends in a ticklish spot. To come right out and accuse the Saudi regime with murder completely compromises the U.S. relationship with it. And that relationship has another linchpin that is sacrosanct, and has been for some time now: Israel.

Saudi Arabia is supposed to be the balancing act between Israel and its enemies, especially Iran. Iran and Saudi Arabia have populations that worship two different types of Islam. The U.S. has supplied Saudi Arabia with jets and weapons that would, if necessary, counterbalance whatever dangerous influence Iran might supply to the Middle East region--such as an attack upon Israel, which Saudi Arabia cannot stand but which ensures its military hardware from us. All of this is there to ensure that the U.S. gets oil from both countries, which together comprise nearly half of the foreign oil we import from the rest of the world.

All that is tied up in sustaining U.S. corporations. And you know how fond 45 is of sustaining corporations. It is his religion. It overwhelms all other considerations. Yesterday, he was quoted as saying that he's not going to get in the way of anything that employs that many Americans.

Oh, I see. Saving jobs takes priority over saving lives. Explain that to Ford employees who will be laid off because of the ridiculous set of tariffs against China.

You also know how fond 45 is of praise and being made to look great. Saudi officials went out of their ways to do so when 45 visited their country last year. They literally rolled out the red carpet for him.

Which is to say: They played him the way Russians have. They are buying him. He knows that. He loves it.

But now he's trapped and he knows that, too. When that happens and someone in the press asks about that, as happened just yesterday, he makes up generalizations, pretends that he cares, and says he'll look into it. But he said a single word that was revelatory because he can't help himself, a single word that cut off that line of inquiry: "Okay?"

"Okay?", from him, means "get off my back. I have now said that I care about this, and I'll take no more questions about it." If you can, go and replay the response. Listen for the tone of voice. It's quick. It's dismissive. It's obvious.

What that means, as it has about so many other things that have corrupted him and this awful presidency, is that he wants to buy time to sweep this under the rug for a while, to let other things emerge that, due to their own immediacy (and exposing the unrelenting incompetence of this horrible band of operatives), dwarf two things he cares nothing about: journalists who don't write what he wants and foreigners who cause him headaches, meaning they aren't grateful enough to be here and remain submissive.

Oh, he'll respond, all right, but weeks later, when he has more information and lets us believe that he either knew it all along, or he was statesmanlike in waiting to determine the real motives or the real events. In any event, we will be inclined to throw up our hands again and move on--and the U.S. will be complicit in a genuine murder, whether it might have had the "duty to warn" Khashoggi or not if it knew that he was in danger. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not commented yet.

Senator Lindsay Graham, he of the temper tantrum of the Kavanaugh nomination fight, says that Saudi Arabia will be in big trouble with the U.S., and the White House is discussing ways to 'punish' the Saudis for this horrible crime. Will such 'punishment' fit the offense?

Why do I doubt this? Because 45 has blown up the nuclear agreement with Iran. That will no doubt cause Iran to react (if it already hasn't) in a way hostile to American interests. Recall that Iran's terrorist friends, Hezbollah, have conducted attacks upon U.S. allies in Europe. It isn't too great a stretch to suppose that it is planning something right here, right now, in revenge.

In just a few years, too, Iran will have nuclear capabilities to hold a sword of Damocles over Israel's head because it no longer has a treaty with the U.S. that it needs to observe, however imperfectly it had done so. Enter the Saudis. Or not, because we will have made them look bad for their little act of rendition gone wrong.

We can't afford to have that happen without fomenting a ferocious war in the Middle East. Remember: We will never abandon Israel. No administration has since 1947.

So this has to go away for 45. But it won't. Along with the Mueller report, this will have a very sticky way of returning--kind of like that little hunk of toilet paper that stuck to his shoe while boarding Air Force One the other day.

It's disposable, like he thinks of journalists. But it will also smell bad. Very bad.

Can Democracy Survive Humanity?

Here's the theory: As people become more intelligent, their judgments become sounder. Thus are they able to govern themselves better. Their choices are reflected in the governments they have.

The smarter people are, then, the better democracy, the ultimate challenge of governing, can work. Look at the USA.

Okay, look. Look carefully. We have a greater percentage of college-educated people among us than ever before. Our politicians, especially those in our nation's capitol, have at least bachelor's degrees if not law school certifications, which are considered equivalent to Ph.Ds. All the members of the Supreme Court are from Yale or Harvard.

And democracy is in deeper trouble here than it has been since the Civil War. If we aren't careful, the abortion issue, soon to come to a head, will result in another one. People are bailing out on democracy, leaving decisions in the hands of one man and one group, and not seeming to mind it at all. Instead of reining in power, too many are passively permitting it to take over.

As a result, more and more, anger and emotionalism have taken over this land. As a greater percentage of people become better educated, reason and rationality are supposed to overcome emotionality as bases of judgment and action.

But they aren't. We're supposed to make better decisions than we've made 50 years ago. We're supposed to adjust better to the world we have made.

Have we? How are we doing with respect to climate change? To evolving roles of women and men? To immigration challenges, which grow greater by the day? To economic challenges, including the lingering aftermath of the recession, now ten years ago? To extending world peace?

The problems of the present day are no more and no less a reflection of our common humanity, and what remains some of its greatest drawbacks: Lack of perspective caused by ignorance or rejection of history. Selfishness. The lust for power. Racial condescension. Inability to adjust to technological changes--stem cell research, social media, and automation, to name a few--which drive social and cultural change whether we like it or not.

The word that defines 'democracy' best is, I believe, together. We can, and I believe must, find solutions together--the ones that an overwhelming number can live with. That word is another one essential to the maintenance of democracy--consensus. That's a word we no longer seem to be reaching for.

Democracies operate by majority rule, but the best of them accept and leave room for the loyal opposition. 45 does none of that. He insults and lies about those who oppose him. He crushes people beneath him, or he believes he does. His party is fine with that.

Brett Kavanaugh was anything but a consensus choice for the Supreme Court. It is a reflection of the wrong person being president at the wrong time (Would there ever be a right or good time for him?), someone who demands his own way at the expense of the general public's peace of mind. It was a naked power grab, which, now completed, will only result in more insults and more anger to follow. But he is also a natural growth of what the Republican Party has become (or has always been, research and extrapolation to follow)--a cutthroat, vicious, power-hungry group bent on domination because their ideas, as they well know but cannot admit to themselves, cannot otherwise survive the scrutiny of time and tide, and cannot and will not bend to changes that are right in front of them.

Democracy is supposed to work this out. It is supposed to weed out this awfulness and replace it with something more palatable--reflecting, as Lincoln said, "the better angels of our nature" (an appeal which, at the edge of the Civil War, fell unaddressed). In 28 days, we will see how well that will work.

What We Must Stop Before Its Momentum Destroys Us All

The final scene in this week's episode of "Madam Secretary" has the Secretary of State commenting upon a nuclear arms agreement between India and Pakistan (okay, it's a TV show) in the wake of an assassination attempt at the White House (ditto). Her comments about the threat of hyper-nationalism should be taken in slowly, and with careful reflection, by all. I believe it was written by someone with his/her finger on the pulse of what's really going on in this nation--and the hair trigger on which someone else's finger is poised. I reproduce the bulk of those comments here:

What is an even greater threat than nuclear weapons? That which makes the use of them possible: Hate. Specifically, the blind hatred one group or nation has for another. And that is why I am convinced that nationalism is the existential threat of our time....

Nationalism is not the same as patriotism. It is a perversion of patriotism....Nationalism promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion represent weakness, that the only way to succeed is to give blind allegiance to one race over all others. Nothing could be less American.

Patriotism, on the other hand, is about building each other up, and embracing our diversity is the source of our nation's strength. "We the people" means all the people.

America's heroes didn't die for a race or region; they died for the ideals enshrined in our Constitution: Above all, freedom from tyranny. It requires, above all, our unwavering support of a free press, freedom of religion--all religions--the right to vote, and making sure nothing infringes on any of those rights, which belong to all.

Look where isolationism has gotten us in the past: Two world wars. Seventy million dead. Never again can we go back to those dark times, when fear and hatred, like a contagion, infected the world....And it is why we must never lose sight of our common humanity, our common values, and our common decency.

I was reminded our our nation's founding motto: E pluribus unum--out of many, one. Thirteen disperate colonies became one country, one people. Today, we call on all Americans and people everywhere to reject the courage of nationalism. Because governments can't legislate tolerance or eradicate hate. 

That's why each of us has to find the beauty in our differences instead of the fear, listen instead of reacting, reaching out instead of recoiling. It's up to us--all of us.

Be well. See you down the road.

Mister Mark

Two Roads, Merging As One for the Winners

The preacher was a guest at the church I attend: a liberal, progressive place. It baptized the adopted daughter of two lesbians, for instance, in the middle of the last decade. Its approach stresses peace, tranquility and harmony among others. It believes in a God that is kind, forgiving, and enveloping.

He began his sermon by noting how divided people were. That's nothing new. We are.

He used rhetoric that suggested he was referring to the political realm. But he wasn't there at all. He was referring to the Christian religion. He called out people who called themselves Christians for using words of hate and division.

If he had been referring to politics, would there have been any difference?

The comments about Christians were news to me. I hadn't known that internally, the major religion in the U.S. was rife with the same clashing.

But then, I should have known. Nobody's examining this very well or often, but the conflict over religion--New Testament approach versus the Old Testament version, a God who has returned to wreak vengeance upon us for being bad people--is at the heart of our political division, too.

Old Testament folks think that humankind must be controlled or it will wreck itself, that God's power and force will straighten things out. New Testament folks think that if left alone, people tend to take care of each other, and God's mercy and love will lead people to treat each other kindly.

Thus, government is either an actor, in which it will provide at least the minimum for all of us--a degree of socialism, under which we now live though in a very underserved way--or a reactor, which should allow people to work things out on their own, competing for resources in a land of winners and losers. Government should get out of the way of such an arena, so those who deserve to win do so completely--at the expense of the losers, of course. The winners get what they deserve. So do the losers.

Somehow, an interpretation of history has emerged in which Americans have come to think of themselves as a chosen people: the "city on a hill" as first posited by the Puritans, then by Ronald Reagan. Geography, resources and timing have pretty much determined that viewpoint. That ignores the price Native Americans and African slaves paid to be used and pushed out of the way of progress for white Europeans, but then--they didn't win.

The common denominator of this approach, though, is the connection with the Almighty that is implicit. We're so successful because we're obviously God's chosen people, so whatever we do, it's meant to happen. The twisted part--perhaps part of it--comes from the loss of history, in which it's pretty easy to see that that domination by whites over non-whites came with disempowering non-whites from the start, not because the whites were better. But with time and tide and the rush of succeeding moments, we become obsessed with the result of things, not their causes, which become too messy to consider. After all, that was then, this is now, right?

So we do what we want and invoke heaven in the aftermath, regardless of who gets hurt and why, as long as we come out on top. This road, the one that blesses uncontrolled capitalism and marketing, well, everything in the name of profit for someone who's continuing that kind of thinking because it's sure working for them, provides the profiteers with sufficient psychological cover, controlling the masses with pseudo-religious fervor in order to keep them from rebelling against it, lest they begin to get jealous of what isn't theirs but could easily be.

I have spoken to those who have spoken with supporters of 45, with his hyper-capitalist, racially condescending approach, and it's been reported to me that those supporters completely buy into the idea that their lives will become better, but they just have to wait for 45 to kind of 'get to them' and they, and America, will be just fine. They have been taught to believe in things not seen, after all. It's a simple adjustment for them to make that sideways transfer to someone they think was meant to be here at this time, because their preachers said so--making him an extension of the Almighty who, as we know, works in mysterious ways. So, too, they think that should 45 be shunted aside with whatever unjust legal methodology that's out there, Mike Pence, a true man of God, will take over and then things will really get better.

It hasn't occurred to them that they wait for Godot if they believe that the powers that be care one whit about them and their futures. The only thing worse than government suppression is self-suppression, and that's what 45 wants. It'll make things so much easier on him.

So this is not two separate roads leading to one mentality someone down the line. It is one mentality into which many people are locked immutably. They are now freed up to express themselves in condemning feminists, gays, minorities, and liberals as ungodly, demonstrating during 45's speeches in nearly unglued ways. The expected downfall of the groups they believe to be "un-American" will be interpreted as God's vengeance for being bad--and back we may easily go into a dark age, in which only one version of truth, that of the supernaturally-anointed Leader, need be followed by anyone.

The only thing in the way is the Constitution. But with the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, that, too, might now be shaped in a way that falls into this ditch.

Those who bluff by using religion in this way preach the gospel of freedom. But it's a repressive, non-thinking, mentality of domination that's really what they want. So long as they win.

Be well. See you down the road.

Mister Mark

In the Aftermath

The considerably agitated dust will settle within hours. The insufficiently qualified Brett Kavanaugh will be voted into the Supreme Court.

Insufficient because, as his tirade indicated, he's just not ready to take on the impact of the cases he will be studying and deciding. He faced it, person to person, right there in the Senate Judiciary Committee's Q-and-A sessions. 

He lied, he obfuscated, he whined, he completely blew his cool. In terms of legal background, he has as many chops as anyone else. In terms of attitude and emotional steadiness, he has left too many questions unanswered--or, to be more accurate, with unacceptable answers.

He is, instead, an extension of a president who needs, demands and finds unacceptable anything that isn't exactly the way he has foreseen it. With his childish, obstinate tantrum and his wild-eyed insults, Kavanaugh echoes he who nominated him.

Here's a seat-of-the-pants analysis of those Kavanaugh left behind:

• 45: Another disgusting display of insults and humiliation of Christine Blasey Ford--but one that apparently fired up the base. Again. Give him this: He knows his people. He never lost control of the process--legally, procedurally, emotionally.
• McConnell: Tougher than he was previously thought. Undermining, the ultimate hypocrite, taking Democrats to task for their resistance to his resistance of process in 2016. His disgust is returned in kind.
• Grassley: The template for old, white men who have nearly burned out. His values and bluntness are perfect for his party, in addition to his attitude toward the Senate women, who, he says, are too afraid of the workload to be named to the Judiciary Committee. Women as lazy: Now there's a twist. His handling of Ford in the hearings can be characterized as either gentlemanly or deeply condescending, depending on your own derivation.
• Graham: The ultimate sycophant. He wants to be something in the 45 administration, so he cops the attitude of scorched earth with cookie-cutting, incessant, vituperate attacks. He demonstrated the maturity of a baby elephant. He has been faking something, either his friendship with the late John McCain (who would never put up with such behavior), or his prior objection to 45 himself. Feisty wouldn't be the word I'd use for his sudden explosions; hotheaded hysteria would be far closer to it.
• Hatch: Far past his prime, ignoring anything or anyone who doesn't meet his idea of support. It is past time for him to retire. His admiration and near adoration of 45 strikes me as odd, but perhaps he and/or Graham have been hiding their contempt for Democrats this long and, now that he need not ever truly answer for it, he can say what he pleases. But his previous statesmanship has been quickly forgotten with the pettiness he has displayed the last two years.
• Flake: We will never know whether he utilized the FBI investigation that he demanded, and got, as a true cooling-off period that didn't work, or to provide himself cover to vote Kavanaugh in anyhow. He is a man without a base. It has been rumored that he wants more. I have no idea how he will get it. He had a chance to leave a lasting mark on the process. It is now dust in the wind.
• Collins: Her angst in this process now wears thin. Her speculation--and that's all it is--that Kavanaugh will maintain Roe v. Wade as established law, and her insistence that Kavanaugh is actually more of a centrist than it has been reported, strikes me as either a colossal piece of naivete, especially considering the sophistication at which she should be now operating with this much time in the Senate, or a comment grounded in information and savvy that no one else has. We will soon see.
• Feinstein: The Democrats' botching of this opportunity begins with her. Her failure to get Ford to make up her mind--and then, to make it up for her by invoking a strangling timeline (I could be wrong here, and the full story is yet to be written, but that's how it looks right now), made everyone try to get on a train which the Republicans wouldn't, and needn't, slow down. Those that wish to buy time need to purchase it early, not late, if they don't have the power to make all else happen. Feinstein needed to be pro-active in tracking this down. Regardless of the efforts she undertook, it did not remove the too-little, too-late impression of being half-baked. She really looked helpless, and that's not the way for the ranking member to look.
• Klochubar: Her set-to with Kavanaugh on the issue of drunken blackouts, combined with her cool, calculating manner, impressed many. Rumors of a presidential run will now grow louder. They should. She should run (too), and if she wins, she should make Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris the next Supreme Court justice when a spot opens (and vice versa).
• Schumer: He couldn't possibly have shepherded all 49 Democrats to vote against Kavanaugh, what with the mid-terms threatening too many in red states. That he got all but one is to his credit. It was either bring in Pence to break the tie or watch it happen by itself. Is this process a tribute to a party used to herding cats unsuccessfully, or to the one where so many appear to be now in silent, submissive lockstep?
• Manchin: Without a Democratic takeover of the Senate after November--which appears now to be less likely--his vote for Kavanaugh will appear to be the self-preservative bailout of the decade. He's leading right now, and his Senate race isn't that close. He decided after Collins and Flake provided him with cover, too. That didn't look good, and even 45 Jr. noticed.
• Heitkamp: If there's a sacrificial lamb in all this, it will be her. Her position is much like that of Claire McCaskill in Missouri: Nearly impossible in a state with too many who slavishly follow 45's lies. I predict she will be back, though. She will come away with as much respect as anyone connected with this sad, sordid business.
• Ford: Diminished now as a confused, inadequate pawn. I believed her from the start, but the spotlight was too intense and the stakes way too high for her to get to the top of the hill with nothing more than her trustworthy, but unverifiable, word, even with a genuinely professional background to support it. If anything, her description of how Kavanaugh tried to remove her clothes lacked sufficient, if potentially prurient and even salacious, details. What do you mean he tried to take off your clothes? Where exactly did he put his hands? Did he actually get beneath that swimsuit? Did he touch your private parts? BUT--How do the Democrats accomplish that bit of detailed storytelling without making her look like an actual rape victim?
• Avenatti: He stopped by to pester but faded just as fast. He was a mere annoyance. To insert himself into the streetfight, he needed a weapon by which to take on top Republicans right in their front yard. He missed it, and Jon Cornyn's back-handed insults (referring to him as "Stormy Daniels' lawyer" without saying his name) resonated too well without adequate chances to answer. It was a side comment to a side issue. He'll have to do better if he's to gain notice as a competent challenger to 45's second term, for which he lusts endlessly.
• Kavanaugh: It is impossible to say how much this process has changed him. It should have. It should have thrown open the door of his privileged background and gotten his feet squarely back on the ground. Now, it's entirely possible that, even if he tries, he may not be able to shake off feelings of bitterness and vengeance. What goes around, comes around. He will have to live with those words, however admittedly uttered inappropriately, for his entire term--that is, most of the rest of his life. Bias already assumed has now been doubled down. Regardless of any effort to be fair-minded (as he claimed he would be in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that was obviously set up for him to play last-minute nicey-nice and which I don't believe for a moment), his back will be stabbed continuously. He had his chance to back away. Now he may change the country permanently, and potentially in reciprocity, either real or imagined. Nothing good can come of it for him. He will have to hide behind partisanship, instead of emerging as a healer or mediator, for him to get any traction on the Court--a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nor can it be good for the country. There are no winners here, only losers, by degree and as future events will demonstrate. Like the dust-up with Merrick Garland, both sides will try unsuccessfully to gloss over the bitterness. But new events will bring them back--now doubly certain to explode into more and deeper shouting and repercussions.

Thought we were in trouble before? You were right. But now....

Be well. I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Tweeting As Protected Speech for 45? How About That for Class Discussion?

I have a master's degree in Journalism from Marquette University. First Amendment issues are a deep interest of mine. Along with an examination of where we are as a country and how we got there must also accompany the reporting of information and how it's done. It establishes our impressions of reality--reality that is taught in our schools.

My conclusion, among many others, about this is simple: We need schools to create courses on interpreting media.

It's a radical, even dangerous notion. To do that would be to allow all kinds of media to be examined, including non-mainstream publications and blogposts and internet missives that would by nature be provocative.

It would open up school boards to be hyper-political--or not, depending upon their particular derivations. But it would bring nationwide, worldwide issues right to everyone's front door, very currently, very hot and percolating. Parents don't like that. 

Communities don't like that, either, and the smaller the community the more it doesn't like it. It shatters the protective bubble around which their comfortable notion of reality revolves. It makes people uncomfortable because it makes them think too much. 

And the very media that would be discussed would descend upon the communities in which such studies would cause the greatest controversy--thus proving what some consider the largest problem with media, namely that only the strangest and non-mainstream issues ever see light. Small towns are boring, and the adults want it to remain that way.

People love the First Amendment, but only from a distance, like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. Confronted with its immediacy, they often reject and try to ignore it. They do their best to insulate themselves from it.

Thus (and to no one's surprise) is the position of 45, who is being sued by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 45 is fond of tweeting those itches that he wishes to scratch. People have responded to his address with, well, protestations that are probably as insulting as those he has put out there. As others do with those they do not care for (and I have done with a few people on Facebook), he has blocked them simply because he doesn't like what they have to say.

Is that fair? Is it fair that the one person who should face whatever commentary he has, engendered very publicly, and willingly provided that same commentary, the one person who has been willingly subjected to as much public commentary in response to whatever he has said and done--in the ultimate elected position--should be allowed to shut off that which he doesn't like?

First Amendment protections are not only those which protect expression, but those which protect the exchanges of expression--which, on its face, is what the protection is about. After all, if I can't get into a conversation with someone about things we do not agree with, what is the point of protecting what anyone says? We will just turn to what's comfortable amongst each other, get nowhere, continue to build resentment and misunderstandings, and engender lashings-out that have extended, now, to the White House and the Senate floor.

The president has every right to say what he wants, publicly or otherwise. But does he have the right, as the ultimate public figure, to shut down exchanges, since they exist to potentially change his mind about things (good luck with that)?

His lawyers say yes. They say that his Twitter account pre-existed his presidency; and that, as a private account, he has the same rights as others who exercise acceptance and non-acceptance of exchanges. He gets to have his cake of insults on social media and eat it, too. 

If President Kennedy, for instance, made a controversial speech and then retired to his getaway in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, wouldn't he have had the perfect right to ward off protesters and maintain some semblance of privacy, if for no other reason than to rest a little, because, you know, that's a tough job?

The Knight Institute's lawyers say: Hey, wait a minute. 45's Twitter feed is direct communication with the public, willingly entered into. And on another matter, a federal court has already ruled that the feed is official White House communications--like a press conference, like any other comment on paper with The White House logo at the top of the page. If he dishes it out, he has to be able to take it.

Should 45 have a modicum of privacy? Sure he should. He has Mar-A-Lago for that purpose. But to keep tweeting from there and demand that some people shouldn't be able to respond seems to me like the person who opens her front door, shouts insults at passers-by, and then sues to prevent people from gathering outside to shout back from the sidewalk because she wants her "privacy." Seems to me she gave that up by willingly engaging in something of a conversation that she wants to be one-way only. I refer to the last sentence in the previous paragraph.

Right now, the White House is on the losing side of this, pending appeal. Out of 48 names, they allowed seven to resume the Twitter connection. That leaves 41. The Knight Institute provided those names online. I didn't recognize any of them, save one: David Hogg, the student activist and survivor of the attack on Parkview High School in Florida, who has been eloquently outspoken in the ongoing conversation on gun violence, particularly in schools. He hasn't been able to tweet with the president since June 11, 2017.

I'll be surprised if this issue doesn't make it to the Supreme Court. Seated there will, in all likelihood, be Brett Kavanaugh--who has already commented that the president should be protected against subpoenas while in office. Would it be a stretch to suppose that he would say that 45 should be shielded from other kinds of unpleasantries as well? 

Wouldn't this be a great discussion topic in schools, if people are allowed to actually have it?

Be well. I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Lombardi's Question, and An Apology

The film clip is simple and direct, the way he was. He strides the sidelines while his team flounders. His exasperated comment comes as a leading question: "What the hell is going on out there?"

That was Vince Lombardi, who coached the Green Bay Packers to an era unequalled in the team's history. It probably wasn't the first, or only, time he said such a thing. I coached for a while. I know.

That's the question I pose to the United States of America. It's time we examined it.

I taught history and government at a high school in Wisconsin for 30 years. I wish to extend an apology to the students who were assigned to me.

I did not prepare you for what you are experiencing right now. I taught the system of our government and how it developed by making some underlying assumptions, or perhaps not examining those assumptions because I couldn't imagine being without them, about what could not possibly happen.

Those assumptions have been shattered. People entrusted with the republic's destiny are not acting the way they have previously acted.

Or, perhaps, they are. History blurs distinctions as well as enlightens them.

Has there been someone as unhinged as 45 in the Oval Office? Well, yes. Andrew Jackson had the same explosive temper, though he could also play politics. He made racist decisions that reverberate today. He made economic decisions that became disastrous.

Have there been disagreements as ferocious as those simmering in Congress right now? Well, yes. The decades of run-ups to the Civil War provided plenty of them (and there's a new book out about that). U.S. Senators, the paragons of decorum, viciously and physically attacked each other on the floor. Fistfights broke out. Canes were wielded. People were genuinely injured. Insults were flung wildly, irrationally, stupidly. We haven't descended to that level. Yet. (But Lindsay Graham's angry lashings may be a forerunner.)

The issue back then, of course, was slavery, the well-established, unanswerable issue, in which famous people (think Washington for one, Jefferson for another) knew it was wrong but couldn't let go of it, and their slaves, until they were gone from the earth. Jefferson knew trouble was coming, and couldn't do anything about it unless he would have denied his entire culture and freed his slaves.

The issue now, of course, is abortion, perhaps another unanswerable issue. The Republican Party has managed to win the long game by maneuvering the appointment of enough Supreme Court justices (assuming the next appointment, regardless of who it is, belongs to them) to provide a bulwark of rejection of a right that most women depend upon--if not to utilize it, then to list it as a guarantee that other rights will not go wanting. Without the right to choose to control their own bodies, other rights seem, well, inconsequential--and can and probably will be reduced if not eliminated. Once stairs are descended, too often doors close behind them.

But it's no longer enough for millions of women to harbor the resentment that stems from such an attitude. They now express it. They line the streets in protest. They run for office in unprecedented numbers.

This ferociousness was, perhaps, inevitable. The clash is building to levels that may become simply intolerable, accelerated by a minority-elected president who doesn't care about anything except himself--raw, naked power, the power of insult, the power of innuendo and half-truths for effect, the enjoyment of watching someone else feel bad. Politics get as damaged when there are poor winners as with poor losers.

We've never had anything remotely like this in my life and the lives of just about everybody else presently in existence in the U.S. I'm sorry I didn't prepare you for that, my students. I just couldn't foresee it.

But we need to promote and extend the study of history all the more. To this amended question: How did we get here? How long did it take, really? Were there any noticeable turning points? Or is this just human nature, confronted with staggering possibilities that even the best possible governmental concepts can't overcome? Will democracy fail, and in a nation this large, has that been our fate all along?

Or, are we doing the same thing so many have done--noted by the late historian Daniel Boorstin back in 1970 (when it also seemed like things were completely becoming undone)--in moaning about things in hypocondrial angst, attached to the repeated thought that we've never been through anything else like this before, except that we have?

We've missed something in our educational system, though, something very crucial. I'm going to examine it. If you want to as well, watch this space and let's talk.

Be well. I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Someone Who Can Handle All This?

I like to read things that challenge me, and Reflections on Judging, by Richard Posner, fits that category.

Posner is a well-known legal writer and practitioner. He's an appellate judge for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, the federal area of jurisprudence which includes Wisconsin. The court meets in Chicago.

The book is an excellent compendium (so far, because I haven't read it all yet) of the legal challenges that awaits judges of all levels. It is theoretical and pragmatic. It discusses things that judges and lawyers, I would guess, discuss often over dinner and drinks and phone calls and the like.

Example: Legal formalism versus legal realism. Just the names would suggest a difference in inclination. The former basically means that a judge has a pre-ordained system in her head, and tries to fit a situation or decision into that template--kind of like finding shelves in a closet to organize new things that need to fit there because there's nowhere else to fit them. It isn't necessarily rigid, because the flexibility derives from the subject matter.

Legal realism, on the other hand, basically means that situations must be taken with acceptance of newness, and decisions must be fashioned from either previous reasonings (if they fit) or new reasonings (if they don't). So in that same closet, judges either build new shelves or rearrange items or tear them down and start over with a new configuration.

It's an interesting dichotomy. I appreciated reading about it. It expressed the depth at which judges must interpret cases--one of those who-knew aspects.

Just past that was a listing of, "Sources of Complexity That Are External to the Judicial System". Posner just mentioned things that he has encountered, like Biochemistry, Bite-Mark Evidence, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Evidence, Fertility and Pregnancy, Gun Violence, Immigration, Jury Psychology, Marketing, Mental Illness, National Security, Physics, Sociology, Statistics (including Multiple Regression Analysis), Survey Research, and Telecommunications. I just plucked from the list he made.

And just past that was a listing of "Fields of Law Affected by External Complexity". Ready? Antitrust, Bankruptcy, Computer Crimes, Contracts, Copyrights, Corporations, Criminal Law, Education, Election Law, Evidence, Property, Second Amendment, Social Security Disability, Torts, Trademarks--and that, too, is an edited list.

Now take, if you would, a sheet of paper. Make these lists on two columns heading down the page. Then start drawing what you would think to be relatively logical connections. You'll be right about some of them. You'll also miss a whole lot of them. Contracts and National Security? Of course there is a connection, and a strong one. The government contracts out to corporations (oops, there's another one), certainly to do Energy analysis (Statistics), and things like that. And on and on.

So when it comes to approving federal judges, these kinds of conversations are vital. Above all, someone on the top court in the country has to be ready to take on the most confusing, complex, and society-changing topics, and be prepared to explain the decisions made in both legal and pedestrian language, designed to engender respect for the rule of law, regardless of whether we agree or not. In other words, they have to be pretty smart cookies.

Some seat-of-the-pants courtroom experience would be nice, too. But the present candidate for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, doesn't have any. He has never tried a case.

Which begs the following question: What the hell happened to that conversation? The Senate isn't having it. The Senate can't have it. It is paralyzed.

It is paralyzed because of its recent past, in which one process for Supreme Court selection was torpedoed by the party with the power to do so, never mind the spirit of the Constitution. It is paralyzed because of new accusations, corroboration for which cannot possibly be established because of a window of FBI investigation that is impossibly narrow--thus confirming that the control over the process never really left the White House. It is paralyzed because Kavanaugh, decided to shout and blame and cry and condemn the process--much like the person who nominated him--instead of riding the high wave and saying with a reasonable tone (crucial to selling one's legal position) that he's imperfect, like the rest of us, had to do a lot of growing up, and he regrets anything he might have done to hurt someone else during his immature wing-dings (which, I think, would have soothed enough raw nerves to have continued down the path without nearly the tension), which a lot of us had, including Yours Truly.

Chance alone saved many of us from crueler fates during those regrettable nights, and perhaps it saved Brett Kavanaugh, too. By flinging himself upon that bed, sending the three people flying and allowing Christine Blasey Ford to escape, Mark Judge may have unwittingly saved Brett Kavanaugh from a sexual assault charge at the point at which it could have ruined him in 1982, because though Ford was clearly traumatized by such a stupid, sexist, drunken frivolity, and though Kavanaugh may have tried to remove her clothes, he actually didn't--which, I believe, is the basis of his denials, regardless of his intent. So yes, he may indeed get to weasel out of it, in his mind if not universally. Under pressure, people can create enough of a tweaking of reality to get, or remain, comfortable with a situation they may not wish to face.

Let's pull off the road a minute. Is this what we want on the Supreme Court? We got that with Clarence Thomas. Now we'll have two--two of nine, who seem to agree philosophically on nearly everything. That's not called an exception: that's called a judicial bloc.

Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh, ever the victim here, has not had his life ruined if he doesn't get the vote he apparently so desperately wants. He's still a federal appellate judge in the DC Circuit, perhaps the most prestigious of them all. He resigned his teaching position. It was not taken from him. Yes, he's been compromised. But Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court 27 years now, and though a shadow remains (caused partly by his bitter refusal to ask any questions from the bench for more than a decade after his confirmation), his decisions have now gained traction over time. And anyone who subjects herself to the vicissitudes of this incredibly high-stakes vetting process should understand that phony smiles and glad-handing may certainly not be all there is to it.

But the politics of judicial nominations, especially at the federal level, have to this point been fairly well a gray area, often opaque and almost always handled behind closed doors, with one party giving way to the other with the knowledge that tomorrow's another day and, in the larger scheme of things, the other side will have its moment, too. That day has ended.

It's showdown time for Roe v. Wade, showdown time for women's rights. Which is why the irony of a woman coming forward, albeit reluctantly, 35 years after being scared out of her wits by an act that was potentially illegal and criminally punishable is delicious from one standpoint, utterly infuriating from another.

We are at a frightening moment in our history. The nation seems to be a train hurtling downhill with no one, no barrier, to stop it, no ability to calm things down. The only way to head it off, if only temporarily, is to reject Brett Kavanaugh and replace him with someone whose past doesn't have hiccups this big--though judicially, there's no way that Democrats and women's rights advocates will stave off the tilting of the Court to the right.

The conventional wisdom seems to believe that should Kavanaugh lose, there won't be enough time to vet another Supreme Court nominee before the mid-terms. But 45 has defied all conventional wisdom to this point, and Mitch McConnell, infuriated as he now is, would do his best to usher another candidate through. Remember another unpleasantry: the president--the guy with the ongoing list of candidates--can, and certainly would, make Congress stay in town, regardless of the members' desires to go home and campaign, and vote on another Supreme Court candidate: It's right there in the Constitution. If you think that card can't be played, think again. If you think the Republicans can't move faster than this, think again.

Politically, Kavanaugh's tribulations have rallied Republicans. Interest in the upcoming off-year elections is now just as high on the right as on the left. Democrats may easily have it worse in the Senate. Their only hope is to retake the House, if they can even do that.

I wonder what Judge Posner thinks about all this. Maybe we'll learn one day. Someone should publish something about how judicial decision-making has never avoided, and nearly always has included, political interests and ramifications. (It actually accelerated and very definitely established itself in 1803, with John Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison, the holy grail of the Court's declaration of its final arbiter status.) We now have an example of that, turned raw with exposure.

Be well. I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark