Funny thing happened the other day. I don't do it it often, but--I looked at the number of people who've been reading this. Google keeps track, but not for names. Facebook does, when I make this part of "my story" to give you a heads-up. Those people, I know about.
There are several that number in the dozens now. Several, meaning dating back months. They didn't have those kinds of numbers before.
I know what that means: You're looking back there, too. I want you to know that I am sincerely humbled, which is a deeper, other side of the coin from believing that you really have something to say and that someone would like to read it. My gratitude is always larger than my ego. It had better be. You have plenty of other things you could be reading.
Thirty-plus years ago, I had a weekly (for five years, twice weekly) newspaper column that lasted for eighteen years. It appeared in the sports section of the News Graphic Pilot, now the News Graphic in Cedarburg, WI. And it did cover sports of all kinds and all levels. The editors allowed me to range widely, for which I was always grateful. I was paid a nominal stipend, which wasn't a driving force, believe me. It won a statewide newspaper award one year, the plaque from which I still have in my bedroom (Inside baseball note: It was presented to me by a Milwaukee newspaper editor who, fifteen years earlier, growled at me when I wanted to be a summer intern during my college years. Somewhat cowed, I backed away. I probably shouldn't have, and I'm quite sure he didn't remember me. But that moment felt good in sweet irony. I have the posed picture somewhere in an old storage bin.).
Gradually, I inserted more social and political relevance into those sports columns. It began to pull me away from the relative safety of the sports world, which while enlivening is also maddeningly repetitious. I needed more. Politics, education and union activities drew me away. I thought I'd miss writing about sports, but I must now say that I don't. They can have their importance and I have been tempted to write about them in a more sociological way (as in, why are they so much more than a pastime for so many of us now), but eventually, it faded amidst new priorities.
I make not one dime for this. But it allows me a certain freedom which, if you know me personally, is a force undeniable. Now that I know that my audience is growing, it's becoming a staple of my existence. You will see more, I promise. Heaven knows, there's plenty to say.
Reading has always been a big part of my life and still is: Journals and magazines; the Sunday New York Times (which Starbucks no longer carries; a social crime of immense proportions, but I suppose I could actually--duh--subscribe and avoid worrying about it); and books galore partly because I happen to live, not by accident, one block from the best independent bookstore in Milwaukee, Boswell Books. I have a collection of a few hundred books, most of which are non-fiction, and I have given away several times that amount, mostly to libraries wherever I have lived (at Chippewa Falls, they're probably still in shock). I'll never read every page of every one of them. Who does? They feel cozy and I feel relevant, though, and that feels good. And though not quite as squishy as teddy bears, one can get comparable mileage out of them.
Call me a Luddite, but I tried the Kindle thing: It left me cold. I like how new books smell, how they crackle when you turn the pages, and the surprises they bring around each corner. I like returning to them, dogeared and covers a bit torn. Old friends sat on their park bench like bookends, sang Simon and Garfunkel. Can you imagine us years from today, sharing our park bench quietly? How terribly strange to be seventy. They got that one right. I'm nearly there. Can it be?
I can't keep up with everything. I have the feeling no one can. It can cause stress and too many piles that leak out of the office and onto surfaces meant for other activities. But I'd rather have that than just sitting around watching daytime network TV, the bane of civilization. It all feels like I'm a dog at the track, chasing the ne'er-catchable rabbit. But it's the pursuit that energizes, and the writing that comes from that energy. I'm working on some other stuff, too; a couple of books will happen before too long, I hope.
Let me take a minute to wish you and yours the best of the holidays. (No, this isn't part of the 'war on Christmas', which is the ultimate in victimization and gaslighting. See, there I go again.) I'll be back here at the turn of the year. I won't exactly be vacationing; writers never really do. I'll be thinking, though. And probably taking notes so I don't forget what it was I knew I wanted to say when I return.
As always: Be well, my friends. Be careful. And thank you so much. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Monday, December 23, 2019
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Howard Baker? Not Yet. Maybe "Anonymous." Either Way, We Need A Daniel Ellsberg.
"Where is Howard Baker?" Adam Schiff cried out at the end of one of the sessions of the House Investigations Committee. Of course, he was referring to the Senator who, back in 1973-74, helped lead the investigations that drove Richard Nixon to resignation rather than certain impeachment and removal.
Baker was a Republican. Schiff was saying what it's been said here: In order for the nation to turn back the existential threat to our democracy that 45 represents, Republicans, not Democrats (preaching to the choir there) will have to cross over, if only temporarily, and rescue the republic, forming a coalition of the willing to thwart his lawlessness.
But before that, Baker and his fellow Senators needed something else. They needed information from inside the White House. And they got it: They got John Dean, still alive today, who spilled his conversations with Nixon; and Alexander Butterfield, who revealed the jolting information that Nixon had taped conversations inside the Oval Office. Those revelations got the Senate committee the momentum it needed, drove Nixon into an unnavigable corner, and forced him out of office rather than drag the country through an impeachment trial that, for all practical purposes, looked like a slam dunk against him.
The information necessary to impeach 45 took some digging and, again, some people stepping forward. But these people were foreign service officers, and beyond Gordon Sondland's exculpatory but admittedly circumstantial evidence, it's possible but a stretch to put together the pieces and reveal what 45 has done against his country.
It says here that that's enough to convict and remove from office, but unquestionably, too many Republican Senators will be able to hide behind, among other things, the lack of the evidence's proximity. Nobody inside the White House has spilled. Nobody will do so. The White House has stonewalled any documentation or testimony that could be given to the Investigations Committee. That, all by itself, is and should be enough to convict. But it isn't and it won't be. Republicans can create a narrative that ignores that, reaching back to the circumstantial evidence to say that, well, it just ain't really there, is it? They can slip right past it and out the door, knowing full well that with full revelation, the issue has way, way too much guilt attached to it and they'd be forced to turn against 45.
We need to get inside the White House. We need witnesses. But they're ignoring subpoenas, and waiting for the courts to rule. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell wants to rush through whatever evidence is there, rubber-stamp the finding of innocence, and it's on to the election. The courts can say what they want. With the impeachment trial concluded, it's all moot.
Barring them, we need information, on paper or on e-mail. It's there. Everybody knows it. Someone has to get it.
Watergate and Nixon's downfall began with the people inside the White House. Reaching still farther back, though, it all began with his rage about the 'leaks' that turned the Pentagon Papers over to the New York Times and Washington Post, which caused Nixon's overreaction and the creation of the "plumbers" by the Committee to Re-Elect the President to fix "leaks," except they got caught in the act. That happened because Daniel Ellsberg, who worked with a government contracting agency called the RAND Corporation, got hold of the Papers in 1971 and stole away with the enormous report that showed that several administrations had been misleading us about the hopes of winning the Vietnam War. It took several weeks for a team of Times reporters (to begin with) to go over them, verify their authenticity, and run effective summaries of their findings. He broke the law, in other words, to reveal a greater abuse of public trust. He stood above the fray and committed civil disobedience, risking imprisonment.
We need a brave, civilly disobedient public servant in the largest possible sense. We need it now. We need another, perhaps far less traceable, Daniel Ellsberg.
It won't be a big-timer like Mulvaney and Pompeo who turns up the evidence. They're huddled into the same corner, with the possibilities of further embarrassment, at the very least, hanging over their heads, too. It'll be some staffer. It could, in fact, be "Anonymous."
That's the White House insider who has now, apparently, gone one better after writing his summer '18 Times op-ed explaining that he and others were keeping some semblance of decorum and propriety intact while 45 keeps trying to puncture all of it. Now he's published a book about how awful 45 has been and continues to be--raising the ante on getting him out of there in 2020. He's the real whistleblower, operating incognito in plain sight just like 45 is also violating all we hold dear in plain sight.
But if he agrees that this is really an emergency, that we can't wait the eleven more months it'll take to remove 45 by an election that's clearly still in doubt, then he or someone nearby has to find a way to reveal documents that, although illegal to produce (by executive privilege, though certainly challengeable in court except it's painfully slow), would create the unmistakeable imagery of lawlessness that would make Senate Republicans second-guess the prevailing attitudes and cross over to vote for conviction. (Note: "Anonymous" has promised to out himself. I wonder if he's rethinking that.)
This has to happen quickly, as in just a few weeks. Nancy Pelosi can't sit on the articles forever. At a certain point, she has to play her hand and deliver them to the Senate. Public opinion, now firmly on her side, can switch away from her, too; it's a fickle mistress. She wouldn't want that.
The clock ticks. The new or old whistleblowers have to be very courageous. They also have to be very sneaky.
None of this is impossible, though. Staffers talk to other staffers; it's often how legislation moves along the assembly line (I've worked there and lived there; I know this.). Conversations happen in cabs, in bars, in city parks; the key is not to be seen. If someone still having a conscience contacts someone who can keep a secret, the machinery of revelation can be put into motion. All you'd need then is a scanner and a copy machine. Note that absolutely nobody knew that the Times and the Post were sitting on the hot news of the previous century until it was far too late for the Nixon Administration to effectively quash it (though it certainly tried, fast-tracking it to the Supreme Court within that month). That's what you get when you know that you've done the "wrong" thing legally, but the "right" thing morally.
Think, too, of the other, more electronically-orientated but progressively friendly news outlets, like Huffington Post, Politico, or Axios; all of them would hunger for such information. Keeping things under wraps would be far more challenging. It's the stuff of a page-turning novel writ very large. And we are all in the middle of it.
So, Adam Schiff, I get where you're coming from, but we're not there just yet. We need the intermediary to put those that might be Howard Bakers into the position where they'd have little choice. Remember, and it's been said here more than once: Many, some would say the deciding number of Republicans who turned on Nixon did so when and only when the "smoking gun"--the precise quote from Nixon himself that his assistants should "cover it up", meaning the Watergate break-in--was revealed by a Supreme Court ruling that the tapes themselves, not a transparently redacted effort to summarize them, should be made public. That, and only that, made Republicans unable to rhetorically hide from the clear and convincing truth. Courage would be great at a time like this, but you can't ever count on it.
It sure isn't your fault, Mr. Schiff, that you didn't get enough evidence to crush all opposition to it. You did what you could. But those upon whom the scale-tipping will depend need more. With it, this might just get pulled off. Without it, 45 will skate and, as a former business associate of his told Rachel Maddow tonight, he will exact revenge upon those who have attacked him unsuccessfully. Count on that like you know your name.
We need sneaks. We need them now. We need them not to get caught.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Baker was a Republican. Schiff was saying what it's been said here: In order for the nation to turn back the existential threat to our democracy that 45 represents, Republicans, not Democrats (preaching to the choir there) will have to cross over, if only temporarily, and rescue the republic, forming a coalition of the willing to thwart his lawlessness.
But before that, Baker and his fellow Senators needed something else. They needed information from inside the White House. And they got it: They got John Dean, still alive today, who spilled his conversations with Nixon; and Alexander Butterfield, who revealed the jolting information that Nixon had taped conversations inside the Oval Office. Those revelations got the Senate committee the momentum it needed, drove Nixon into an unnavigable corner, and forced him out of office rather than drag the country through an impeachment trial that, for all practical purposes, looked like a slam dunk against him.
The information necessary to impeach 45 took some digging and, again, some people stepping forward. But these people were foreign service officers, and beyond Gordon Sondland's exculpatory but admittedly circumstantial evidence, it's possible but a stretch to put together the pieces and reveal what 45 has done against his country.
It says here that that's enough to convict and remove from office, but unquestionably, too many Republican Senators will be able to hide behind, among other things, the lack of the evidence's proximity. Nobody inside the White House has spilled. Nobody will do so. The White House has stonewalled any documentation or testimony that could be given to the Investigations Committee. That, all by itself, is and should be enough to convict. But it isn't and it won't be. Republicans can create a narrative that ignores that, reaching back to the circumstantial evidence to say that, well, it just ain't really there, is it? They can slip right past it and out the door, knowing full well that with full revelation, the issue has way, way too much guilt attached to it and they'd be forced to turn against 45.
We need to get inside the White House. We need witnesses. But they're ignoring subpoenas, and waiting for the courts to rule. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell wants to rush through whatever evidence is there, rubber-stamp the finding of innocence, and it's on to the election. The courts can say what they want. With the impeachment trial concluded, it's all moot.
Barring them, we need information, on paper or on e-mail. It's there. Everybody knows it. Someone has to get it.
Watergate and Nixon's downfall began with the people inside the White House. Reaching still farther back, though, it all began with his rage about the 'leaks' that turned the Pentagon Papers over to the New York Times and Washington Post, which caused Nixon's overreaction and the creation of the "plumbers" by the Committee to Re-Elect the President to fix "leaks," except they got caught in the act. That happened because Daniel Ellsberg, who worked with a government contracting agency called the RAND Corporation, got hold of the Papers in 1971 and stole away with the enormous report that showed that several administrations had been misleading us about the hopes of winning the Vietnam War. It took several weeks for a team of Times reporters (to begin with) to go over them, verify their authenticity, and run effective summaries of their findings. He broke the law, in other words, to reveal a greater abuse of public trust. He stood above the fray and committed civil disobedience, risking imprisonment.
We need a brave, civilly disobedient public servant in the largest possible sense. We need it now. We need another, perhaps far less traceable, Daniel Ellsberg.
It won't be a big-timer like Mulvaney and Pompeo who turns up the evidence. They're huddled into the same corner, with the possibilities of further embarrassment, at the very least, hanging over their heads, too. It'll be some staffer. It could, in fact, be "Anonymous."
That's the White House insider who has now, apparently, gone one better after writing his summer '18 Times op-ed explaining that he and others were keeping some semblance of decorum and propriety intact while 45 keeps trying to puncture all of it. Now he's published a book about how awful 45 has been and continues to be--raising the ante on getting him out of there in 2020. He's the real whistleblower, operating incognito in plain sight just like 45 is also violating all we hold dear in plain sight.
But if he agrees that this is really an emergency, that we can't wait the eleven more months it'll take to remove 45 by an election that's clearly still in doubt, then he or someone nearby has to find a way to reveal documents that, although illegal to produce (by executive privilege, though certainly challengeable in court except it's painfully slow), would create the unmistakeable imagery of lawlessness that would make Senate Republicans second-guess the prevailing attitudes and cross over to vote for conviction. (Note: "Anonymous" has promised to out himself. I wonder if he's rethinking that.)
This has to happen quickly, as in just a few weeks. Nancy Pelosi can't sit on the articles forever. At a certain point, she has to play her hand and deliver them to the Senate. Public opinion, now firmly on her side, can switch away from her, too; it's a fickle mistress. She wouldn't want that.
The clock ticks. The new or old whistleblowers have to be very courageous. They also have to be very sneaky.
None of this is impossible, though. Staffers talk to other staffers; it's often how legislation moves along the assembly line (I've worked there and lived there; I know this.). Conversations happen in cabs, in bars, in city parks; the key is not to be seen. If someone still having a conscience contacts someone who can keep a secret, the machinery of revelation can be put into motion. All you'd need then is a scanner and a copy machine. Note that absolutely nobody knew that the Times and the Post were sitting on the hot news of the previous century until it was far too late for the Nixon Administration to effectively quash it (though it certainly tried, fast-tracking it to the Supreme Court within that month). That's what you get when you know that you've done the "wrong" thing legally, but the "right" thing morally.
Think, too, of the other, more electronically-orientated but progressively friendly news outlets, like Huffington Post, Politico, or Axios; all of them would hunger for such information. Keeping things under wraps would be far more challenging. It's the stuff of a page-turning novel writ very large. And we are all in the middle of it.
So, Adam Schiff, I get where you're coming from, but we're not there just yet. We need the intermediary to put those that might be Howard Bakers into the position where they'd have little choice. Remember, and it's been said here more than once: Many, some would say the deciding number of Republicans who turned on Nixon did so when and only when the "smoking gun"--the precise quote from Nixon himself that his assistants should "cover it up", meaning the Watergate break-in--was revealed by a Supreme Court ruling that the tapes themselves, not a transparently redacted effort to summarize them, should be made public. That, and only that, made Republicans unable to rhetorically hide from the clear and convincing truth. Courage would be great at a time like this, but you can't ever count on it.
It sure isn't your fault, Mr. Schiff, that you didn't get enough evidence to crush all opposition to it. You did what you could. But those upon whom the scale-tipping will depend need more. With it, this might just get pulled off. Without it, 45 will skate and, as a former business associate of his told Rachel Maddow tonight, he will exact revenge upon those who have attacked him unsuccessfully. Count on that like you know your name.
We need sneaks. We need them now. We need them not to get caught.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Friday, December 20, 2019
Withdrawal into Their Caves: How Long Can It Last?
When there is danger, the most immediate reaction is often to find a safe place. For 45, that would be first, within the White House amongst sycophants; and second, on the road with his minions, who find him both entertaining with his insults and wild, non-sensical accusations and fulfilling of their pipedreams--namely, that they have gained far more relevance than before, when the purveyor of that message couldn't care less whether they have or not.
But therein lies the real danger. More than one president has, under crisis, withdrawn into their caves to find solace. When that happens, an atrophying of the mind begins. To quote a bad Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, it's what you don't know you don't know that drives you mad.
Now that impeachment has actually taken place and all that has to happen is the settling of the trial procedure--not a small issue, as we have found--45 has resorted to even more outrageous commentary. He has not only utilized his alter ego, Stephen Miller, to poison-pen a six-page list of grievances and victimization to Nancy Pelosi on the eve of the impeachment vote, he also sent it, along with Christmas cards, to each member of the U.S. Senate. Might that represent his only actual defense? Will he bother to actually send someone to the Senate to plead his case?
Then with his mindless trashing of another dead politician, this time Michigan Rep. John Dingell, because his wife, Debbie, who occupies his former seat, did the unthinkable in turning against him in voting for impeachment when he arranged for some of the funeral procedure upon his passing--as if she "owed" him something as Mr. Transactional always assumes anyone who crosses his path does--it may have cost himself the state of Michigan in next year's election. There's a far more visceral reaction to that assigning Dingell to hell, even worse than the outcry over the disgusting insults hurled toward Sen. John McCain, also undeserved if there ever were any.
When under crisis, whether self-inflicted or not, this president lashes out instead of listens. That's been his M.O. from the get-go; counterattack, counter-punch, so they don't get the headlines for long. But now former friends are turning on him:
But therein lies the real danger. More than one president has, under crisis, withdrawn into their caves to find solace. When that happens, an atrophying of the mind begins. To quote a bad Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, it's what you don't know you don't know that drives you mad.
Now that impeachment has actually taken place and all that has to happen is the settling of the trial procedure--not a small issue, as we have found--45 has resorted to even more outrageous commentary. He has not only utilized his alter ego, Stephen Miller, to poison-pen a six-page list of grievances and victimization to Nancy Pelosi on the eve of the impeachment vote, he also sent it, along with Christmas cards, to each member of the U.S. Senate. Might that represent his only actual defense? Will he bother to actually send someone to the Senate to plead his case?
Then with his mindless trashing of another dead politician, this time Michigan Rep. John Dingell, because his wife, Debbie, who occupies his former seat, did the unthinkable in turning against him in voting for impeachment when he arranged for some of the funeral procedure upon his passing--as if she "owed" him something as Mr. Transactional always assumes anyone who crosses his path does--it may have cost himself the state of Michigan in next year's election. There's a far more visceral reaction to that assigning Dingell to hell, even worse than the outcry over the disgusting insults hurled toward Sen. John McCain, also undeserved if there ever were any.
When under crisis, whether self-inflicted or not, this president lashes out instead of listens. That's been his M.O. from the get-go; counterattack, counter-punch, so they don't get the headlines for long. But now former friends are turning on him:
- John Kasich, Republican ex-governor of Ohio, has kept things close to the vest for a while, but has come out favoring impeachment.
- Christianity Today, a publication founded by Billy Graham, has made an official break with 45 and declared that he should actually be removed from office. To summarize its statement: Yes, his opponents have been out to get him from the start; we'll give you that. But he did what he did, and that can't be tolerated. Either evangelicals push away from him, or nobody will listen to them any longer. What they're doing politically no longer matches with what they say they believe religiously. Just when they think they'll be able to cash in their chips, it'll all fall in on them. Wise up and get with the program.
There will be more. They will seep slowly into the air, like a leak in a radiator that keeps trying to build restorative pressure but can't. Whether it bursts into full-fledged outpouring of reaction in disgust is anybody's guess.
Start watching the Senate. If as one pol suggested that 30 Republican Senators, at least, are that appalled by 45, the focus of the spotlight on them now will start to bring that forward (and to start figuring out who those 30 might be). Someone else has suggested that they will either stand solid or cave all at once.
I think the betting's about even that either could happen. You can sit on this only so long before comments blurt out. Sources will, through staff to other staff to press, rarely in person so as not to be seen together, send out trial balloons (e.g. censure instead of conviction), whether on purpose or not (as happens so often in governmental circles). When they do, 45 and/or his people will dart around the Hill, frantically trying to divert or thwart the onrush of momentum, doubling down on insisting complete exoneration. Watch the number of times he utilizes Fox and Friends, for instance, with rambling, interruptive morning calls; it's the only place he can go with a sympathetic audience, save Hannity.
This stonewalling will be of the mind. There are lots of minds to sheath, though. Senators don't think like House members do. They don't operate with caste-like blinders. And some would like to be re-elected.
If this goes as fast as Mitch McConnell wants it to and without much comment from his side of the aisle, the country is in more trouble than even we've imagined: more firewalled, more withdrawn, more dug-into their own caves. Decorum will start to break down, almost without helping it; no pressure this intense can simply dissipate. The other side knows--they know--that this is a bad man who's making us look very, very bad. It's starting to bother them.
In their book, How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt say several times that it's those on the favoring side, not the one that opposes, who need to cross over and save democracy when it's in crisis. Republican Senators didn't ask for it, but they're exactly there now. We are at that moment. They will provide the safety net or there won't be that safe place to hide any longer.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Why I'm Glad I'm Not A Member of the House of Representatives Today
Today (or tomorrow, if Republicans decide to stick to their delaying tactics) the House of Representatives--that is, the Democrats within--will impeach 45 of abuse of his powers and obstruction of Congress. It's not only perfectly justifiable, but it's been nailed down repeatedly by 45 himself, flaunting and daring the Democrats to take action.
Well, they have. They have not only exposed 45's utter lawlessness, but also the Republican lock-step in supporting it. It's out there now for all to see, and we will see the amount of it that will be allowed in the coming weeks, even though Mitch McConnell, that complicit plotter of absolute power, will do his best to thwart it. Nancy Pelosi has called 45's repeated bluffs, and will put him into the small but growing ash-heap of history, that being those presidents subjected to impeachment. From that, he can no longer hide--six-page, irrational screeds of utterly pathetic defense notwithstanding.
I'm glad I'm not a member of the House today, though. Really glad. Because I'd have to rise to the microphone and tell the Republicans that, in my case only perhaps, they're right about something: I would not feel sad about this occasion.
Hell, I'd feel great. Actually, I do feel great right now. Somebody has finally called this charlatan for what he is: A lawless, rotten person who has been trying to break the very Constitution under which we live for his own, and only his own, sake. Somebody has finally tried to take him down.
Madam Speaker:
Republicans have whined that Democrats have wanted to get rid of him from the very moment his term began. Well, hell, yes, I have, that's for sure. Anybody who hadn't already shut off logic and reasonable thought for the sake of ridiculous party loyalty had already seen that 45 didn't, doesn't, and never will care one hoot or holler about this country; will do whatever he can get away with to enhance only his own wealth; and can't possibly conceive of the damage he's already done (along with his party) to our national discourse.
It's only in Republican minds, which have chosen to turn themselves off to any and all consequences this disgusting person can cause, which have conjured sound principles and justifications of 45's behavior. He said the word "us," as Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (who gave the opening speech for the House litigators during the Clinton impeachment trial) keeps saying, and it obviously means the whole country that 45 was concerned about. But I'd like to remind the gentleman that so many members of his party, especially those still loyally working and trying to shroud his true intents to the rest of us (unsuccessfully), keep saying that it isn't exactly what he says that one should pay attention to; it's his overall meaning--which, of course, is subject to any and every interpretation that pleases only him.
Well, that's not an obligation on my part, sir. My obligation is to the truth, and the several foreign service officers who we managed to finally get to committee hearings (as opposed to the absolute stonewalling that the administration has committed, which of course has led to Article 2 of these accusations) have, together and separately, led us down the road to betrayal of this country's policies and purpose, and placing it in jeopardy to be extorted for some other country's (read: Russia) purposes of control.
We don't have that "absolute" proof exactly because this president is so good at hiding his every intent by watching his every word. Ambassador Sondland concluded what anybody else could have concluded: the quid pro quo was there for all to see. Everybody knew about it. That your side, sir, keeps saying that it was never expressly stated is an attempt to dodge the truth by utilizing facts that aren't even there--the same way you keep saying that somehow, whatever 45 says makes sense because you have to step back and look at the overall meaning.
Your colleagues keep saying that Ukraine actually got the money that Congress had granted it. But that happened after it knew that 45 was withholding it for his own purposes. Oh, you say that 45 was actually concerned about Ukranian corruption. Okay, then show us how exactly he said and did anything that indicated that. He didn't. You know it. You can't, once again, purport meaning where there is no actual evidence that we should draw inferences.
Take it on trust, you seem to say. Right. As if. I'm happy to tell you that I'm glad this completely untrustworthy bag of garbage has never been worthy of anything close to that, anywhere, any time. So that excuse gets swept away. And I'm still happy.
You keep saying that your colleagues have been treated so unfairly by this process. It began by the unquestioned leader of your party insisting that nobody inside the White House be allowed to testify in the investigation. What is fair about that? I might ask. What is anything but exculpatory about it? If you knew it was the right and best thing to do, and could tell us so, this would have been over last month and we Democrats would be red-faced.
But he didn't want to do that and neither do you. You'd rather fall into step behind him, operating in his enormously corrupt shadow, needing to satisfy the gerrymandering you've managed to manipulate in many states so you don't need to, and can't possibly, answer to any reliance on the rule of law but instead to what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority."
This is about politics, you now say. I see. Then impeachment now means nothing in terms of what the Constitution is supposed to fulfill--a check upon a corrupt president's power to do what he wants, when he wants, with whom he wants. You don't mind that. And you can't tell me you do. I'll be happy to tell you that I wouldn't believe that if you said so, being presented with this situation and your choice to avoid what needs to be done. And I'll be happy to tell you that you're ruining the Constitution and what it means--and that, from this point onward, any extrapolation about that and lawlessness that exudes from it will be on your backs, not ours.
Yes, this is divisive. Yes, this has been coming for a long time and can be seen as an extension of issues that have never been satisfyingly settled not that long ago. But the Constitution and the facts remain on our side and no spinning to the contrary can reverse them.
You'll stop it, of course, because Mitch McConnell, too, doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and its ultimate meaning. If he had, Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court (or someone else at least agreeable to President Obama), we would have needed just one more nomination by 45 (Neil Gorsuch, who's now shilling for his new book, another interesting bit of ethical stretching), and would have avoided the me-too showdown of Brett Kavanaugh, complete with crocodile tears (hey, it worked for Clarence Thomas). So we're used to that bullying, too.
But I'm happy to tell you that your time, too, is running out. What you represent won't stand forever. It may take more than one election, but demographics and propriety are at your doorstep. They are about to knock.
You're trying your best to manipulate institutionalism to hold them back, and not doing a bad job to this point (one effort of which has come to county in Wisconsin in which I grew up, Ozaukee, a matter for another essay), I must say. In fact, it might look like the shoreline has been cleared. That's what happens just before the tsunami begins, and you'd better not be in the way.
So, no, I'm not solemn whatsoever. I'm happy. I'm not going to fake it. You mean to tell me you weren't snarky-happy when you got this embarrassment of a president in through the backdoor on an Electoral College technicality, which reflected an end-run of the process instead of the true will of the majority? Were you apologetic in the least? I don't recall a single interview or essay or op-ed written to that effect. Get over it, Mulvaney said to the knowledge that 45 had resorted to this extortion. Okay: Your turn.
You could admit that this absolutely needs to happen, and that, as Rep. Cohen of Tennessee made sure to say, the Republicans would still hold the White House with the very right reverend Mike Pence taking over (my wording for that second part). That might even be more fun, what with divine intervention nearly everywhere, anointing nearly everything: think of the moral momentum you'd have! But at least he wouldn't try this nonsense, this corruption, this extortion for nothing more than his own benefit.
See? No way that I'd be given enough time to say this. And no way I'd be allowed to put it this plainly for all to hear. I'm okay with that. I've heard many people echo these sentiments, though not quite so bluntly. I yield the rest of my time, Madam Speaker.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Well, they have. They have not only exposed 45's utter lawlessness, but also the Republican lock-step in supporting it. It's out there now for all to see, and we will see the amount of it that will be allowed in the coming weeks, even though Mitch McConnell, that complicit plotter of absolute power, will do his best to thwart it. Nancy Pelosi has called 45's repeated bluffs, and will put him into the small but growing ash-heap of history, that being those presidents subjected to impeachment. From that, he can no longer hide--six-page, irrational screeds of utterly pathetic defense notwithstanding.
I'm glad I'm not a member of the House today, though. Really glad. Because I'd have to rise to the microphone and tell the Republicans that, in my case only perhaps, they're right about something: I would not feel sad about this occasion.
Hell, I'd feel great. Actually, I do feel great right now. Somebody has finally called this charlatan for what he is: A lawless, rotten person who has been trying to break the very Constitution under which we live for his own, and only his own, sake. Somebody has finally tried to take him down.
Madam Speaker:
Republicans have whined that Democrats have wanted to get rid of him from the very moment his term began. Well, hell, yes, I have, that's for sure. Anybody who hadn't already shut off logic and reasonable thought for the sake of ridiculous party loyalty had already seen that 45 didn't, doesn't, and never will care one hoot or holler about this country; will do whatever he can get away with to enhance only his own wealth; and can't possibly conceive of the damage he's already done (along with his party) to our national discourse.
It's only in Republican minds, which have chosen to turn themselves off to any and all consequences this disgusting person can cause, which have conjured sound principles and justifications of 45's behavior. He said the word "us," as Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (who gave the opening speech for the House litigators during the Clinton impeachment trial) keeps saying, and it obviously means the whole country that 45 was concerned about. But I'd like to remind the gentleman that so many members of his party, especially those still loyally working and trying to shroud his true intents to the rest of us (unsuccessfully), keep saying that it isn't exactly what he says that one should pay attention to; it's his overall meaning--which, of course, is subject to any and every interpretation that pleases only him.
Well, that's not an obligation on my part, sir. My obligation is to the truth, and the several foreign service officers who we managed to finally get to committee hearings (as opposed to the absolute stonewalling that the administration has committed, which of course has led to Article 2 of these accusations) have, together and separately, led us down the road to betrayal of this country's policies and purpose, and placing it in jeopardy to be extorted for some other country's (read: Russia) purposes of control.
We don't have that "absolute" proof exactly because this president is so good at hiding his every intent by watching his every word. Ambassador Sondland concluded what anybody else could have concluded: the quid pro quo was there for all to see. Everybody knew about it. That your side, sir, keeps saying that it was never expressly stated is an attempt to dodge the truth by utilizing facts that aren't even there--the same way you keep saying that somehow, whatever 45 says makes sense because you have to step back and look at the overall meaning.
Your colleagues keep saying that Ukraine actually got the money that Congress had granted it. But that happened after it knew that 45 was withholding it for his own purposes. Oh, you say that 45 was actually concerned about Ukranian corruption. Okay, then show us how exactly he said and did anything that indicated that. He didn't. You know it. You can't, once again, purport meaning where there is no actual evidence that we should draw inferences.
Take it on trust, you seem to say. Right. As if. I'm happy to tell you that I'm glad this completely untrustworthy bag of garbage has never been worthy of anything close to that, anywhere, any time. So that excuse gets swept away. And I'm still happy.
You keep saying that your colleagues have been treated so unfairly by this process. It began by the unquestioned leader of your party insisting that nobody inside the White House be allowed to testify in the investigation. What is fair about that? I might ask. What is anything but exculpatory about it? If you knew it was the right and best thing to do, and could tell us so, this would have been over last month and we Democrats would be red-faced.
But he didn't want to do that and neither do you. You'd rather fall into step behind him, operating in his enormously corrupt shadow, needing to satisfy the gerrymandering you've managed to manipulate in many states so you don't need to, and can't possibly, answer to any reliance on the rule of law but instead to what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority."
This is about politics, you now say. I see. Then impeachment now means nothing in terms of what the Constitution is supposed to fulfill--a check upon a corrupt president's power to do what he wants, when he wants, with whom he wants. You don't mind that. And you can't tell me you do. I'll be happy to tell you that I wouldn't believe that if you said so, being presented with this situation and your choice to avoid what needs to be done. And I'll be happy to tell you that you're ruining the Constitution and what it means--and that, from this point onward, any extrapolation about that and lawlessness that exudes from it will be on your backs, not ours.
Yes, this is divisive. Yes, this has been coming for a long time and can be seen as an extension of issues that have never been satisfyingly settled not that long ago. But the Constitution and the facts remain on our side and no spinning to the contrary can reverse them.
You'll stop it, of course, because Mitch McConnell, too, doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and its ultimate meaning. If he had, Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court (or someone else at least agreeable to President Obama), we would have needed just one more nomination by 45 (Neil Gorsuch, who's now shilling for his new book, another interesting bit of ethical stretching), and would have avoided the me-too showdown of Brett Kavanaugh, complete with crocodile tears (hey, it worked for Clarence Thomas). So we're used to that bullying, too.
But I'm happy to tell you that your time, too, is running out. What you represent won't stand forever. It may take more than one election, but demographics and propriety are at your doorstep. They are about to knock.
You're trying your best to manipulate institutionalism to hold them back, and not doing a bad job to this point (one effort of which has come to county in Wisconsin in which I grew up, Ozaukee, a matter for another essay), I must say. In fact, it might look like the shoreline has been cleared. That's what happens just before the tsunami begins, and you'd better not be in the way.
So, no, I'm not solemn whatsoever. I'm happy. I'm not going to fake it. You mean to tell me you weren't snarky-happy when you got this embarrassment of a president in through the backdoor on an Electoral College technicality, which reflected an end-run of the process instead of the true will of the majority? Were you apologetic in the least? I don't recall a single interview or essay or op-ed written to that effect. Get over it, Mulvaney said to the knowledge that 45 had resorted to this extortion. Okay: Your turn.
You could admit that this absolutely needs to happen, and that, as Rep. Cohen of Tennessee made sure to say, the Republicans would still hold the White House with the very right reverend Mike Pence taking over (my wording for that second part). That might even be more fun, what with divine intervention nearly everywhere, anointing nearly everything: think of the moral momentum you'd have! But at least he wouldn't try this nonsense, this corruption, this extortion for nothing more than his own benefit.
See? No way that I'd be given enough time to say this. And no way I'd be allowed to put it this plainly for all to hear. I'm okay with that. I've heard many people echo these sentiments, though not quite so bluntly. I yield the rest of my time, Madam Speaker.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Barnstorming for Education: The Candidates Wax Forth
Last Saturday, the two main education unions, the NEA and AFT, helped to host a Presidential Education Forum in Pittsburgh. It was live-streamed and I caught it on You Tube.
If you'd like to watch yourself--it's over five hours, but of course you can fast-forward through breaks--just put MSNBC Education Forum 2020 in your browser. Of course I'm happy that MSNBC went to the trouble of actually giving educators a chance to weigh in on the candidates. That goes without saying.
What will NEA and/or AFT's endorsements mean? Not as much as they used to. Yet, so many crucial states are still close and I don't see how that's going to change, impeachment results notwithstanding. Educators could still make that 1% difference in enough states to swing the persnickety Electoral College one way or another. There were some good ideas tossed out there; I just hope they don't get left behind, even in victory.
I couldn't help but reflect that the forum got jettisoned to a Saturday morning. You know, shoving it into a corner so it doesn't get in the way of the more serious stuff. But, as usual, the unions took what they could get, what with their numbers sadly whittled down though successfully treading water for now. The educators in attendance, some of whom had come from a considerable distance, also didn't need to ask anyone for a day off.
The following analysis comes with a definitive bias (as if you didn't know). Full reveal: I am a retired member of the NEA. I was once a member of its top governing body, the Executive Committee, that former status being a large reason why I hung in there for five hours of this (and if you didn't, well, you couldn't be blamed). I am going to vote for whatever Democrat emerges out of this battle for the nomination, in no small part because Betsy DuVos, like 45, is an existential threat to public education and must be shown the door ASAP. She is a one-person wrecking ball for public education and a leading advocate of privatization and thieving charters, which have abandoned their former not-unfriendly, experimental approach and now undermine the system, drain it of its funding, and help deepen its drawbacks, quite on purpose despite same-old-thing disingenuous language attempting to divert attention from its sinister effects. 45 was the first person to directly refer negatively to public education in his inaugural address, and Betsy DuVos is the monster he directed to ruin it.
Enough now. Here's what I think of who showed up--those that did not themselves being noticeable with their absence: (Note, please, that I'm writing about these folks in the chronological order of their appearances, not in terms of who I'm supporting and how much. That's for later.
Quite honestly, I'm still not sure who I'm backing, partly because things are still pretty fluid and since William McRaven isn't running--my endorsement being made way-way long ago and before I knew he was a cancer survivor, which may or may not have affected anything. But I still think he'd be best.)
Bracketing the event with commentary were:
Quite honestly, I'm still not sure who I'm backing, partly because things are still pretty fluid and since William McRaven isn't running--my endorsement being made way-way long ago and before I knew he was a cancer survivor, which may or may not have affected anything. But I still think he'd be best.)
Bracketing the event with commentary were:
- Hosts Ali Velshi of MSNBC and
- Rehema Ellis, national education correspondent for NBC News;
- Lily Eskelsen Garcia, NEA president;
- Randi Weingarten, AFT president; and
- Presidents of Pittsburgh NEA and AFT locals.
Now for the candidates, who came out with brief comments of their own, followed by questions from Velshi and Ellis and then pre-arranged questions from union or social activist members:
Michael Bennet--You could tell his enthusiasm (and, perhaps, his desperation; he isn't exactly knocking it out of the park poll-wise) in his voice and body language. Bennet is a former school superintendent and has the most on-the-ground, direct knowledge. He speaks the language of the profession and nobody needed to prep him with any cliches. He might have impressed more if he hadn't worn the albatross of Denver across his neck, though, for there's where he directed one of the first major merit pay programs--which not only didn't work, but fomented a later teachers' strike (which he didn't address, to his detriment; they keep forgetting what we know). He kept saying how much more money they paid teachers in Denver, but that was under that plan, which utilized the increasingly bogus strategy of partly judging teachers by test scores, then paying some a greater raise than others.
All the research the NEA has done on that topic demonstrates the futility of it. It was ignored. Suspicious of NEA's bias, districts did it anyhow. Bennet is likable and the way he stood up to the weasely Ted Cruz on the Senate floor a while back was bracing; if you're in a political battle, Michael Bennet would be great to have in your corner. He won't get the nomination, but as a campaigner, a Veep slot shouldn't be out of the question.
Tom Steyer--The little billionaire that could. He also has great enthusiasm for public schools, and it seems very genuine. He 'gets it' on the tragedy of excessive testing. I like him a lot and love his social awareness background, but it's very much out of his realm to consider being president. He should be kept in the loop for something important for which to be selected--Council of Economic Advisors, maybe, or Secretary of Education or HUD. His heart's where it should be, and you can't fault him for seeing the existential threat of 45 way out in front of others. It's a good place to start.
Amy Klobuchar--Sold herself and her public education background as well if not better than everyone else. Sold her candidacy the way she's been doing it elsewhere on the road: eschewing Medicare for All (smart) and stressing that we're going to need cooperation from somebody on the other side if we're going to recover from this sinking ship. She's a non-educator with educators in her family who was convincing to educators that she'd be thinking about them.
Don't sleep on her candidacy; as others like Kamala Harris fall away, she may sweep up the leftovers and create an afterthought-type surge. She keeps insisting, though, that the Democrats have to not only win, but win by a lot; that's too much to ask. The nomination might be too far to reach, but a Veep slot might just be the thing for her.
Pete Buttigieg--You have to admire his mind; like Obama's, it's a steel trap. He remembers everything and remembers how to say it. He has this endearing, Midwestern niceness about him (like Klobuchar) that forms an earnestness that's easy to take. He also has a husband (the topic on which the country doesn't really have to deal with, yet) who's a classroom teacher, so he gets a chance to speak to intraclassroom items that even someone like Bennet misses. That connection is not a minor one.
This was an opportunity for him to try to cozy up to minority members, who within the unions comprise a significant political force, and he did so by highlighting how he feels about buttressing Title I (give young teachers a chance to have their college loans forgiven by teaching for seven years in a Title I school, and triple the funding for it beyond that, and get some badly needed funding to Historical Black Colleges and Universities.). But he, too, has had a dalliance with charters, and that, too, went unaddressed. He isn't too young to be president, he's too poorly connected to the big picture, having been merely a mayor of a town much the size of Green Bay. Yet, he's earned a spot within the national picture--where, it isn't clear yet.
Elizabeth Warren--It seemed odd that her interview was the place where Ellis decided to drill down on charter schools, noting where plenty of minority parents have decided to enroll their children in them. It forced Warren to delineate, carefully, between for-profit charters and non--except Ellis wouldn't let her off the hook, citing the nation's report card. All great, but where was Ellis beforehand, when she could have done that to the other candidates? Warren deftly fended off what sounded (at least by tone; it's clearly been bugging Ellis) like a defense posing as an attack by continuing to stress that, with her two-cent tax on the very, very wealthy, she'd be bringing a bunch of money to the table in terms of quadrupling Title I funding (which sounded like she was raising Buttigieg's bet at that poker table: Triple? Hell, I'll quadruple), and fully funding IDEA (which, if I had a dime for every time I'd heard that one through the decades, I could have retired at 55), close to her heart because she'd started her journey as a special education teacher of kindergarteners (and I believed her when she said she still thinks about those kids; there isn't a teacher who doesn't). It kind of left charters as something of a white (sorry) elephant, neither bad nor good, which can neither disappear (way too many now) nor be expanded (see above).
At any rate: Madam I-have-a-plan-for-that came off as forthright, determined, and dogged. She's either becoming president, going back to the Senate where she can bug Republicans (not a bad thought), or a federal judge or Attorney General. No Veeping for her. Would seem like a demotion.
Bernie Sanders--This was probably the most far-ranging, both in form (he nervously paced and stood up to answer questions and the moderators followed suit) and in content. He made sure to thank teachers for their actual campaign support--he noted that in sheer numbers, they led in terms of donations; something that the unions' leadership has probably already noted--and made sure to put out a $60,000 minimum salary for teachers and tripling Title I funding in his introductory remarks. Ellis challenged him to declare how many black children had attended the schools he attended; he said that only one did where he went to elementary school. (To me, that's something of an a-ha question that he can't help, and doesn't and can't necessarily determine how empathetic he is to children of color.) He was the first one to actually bring 45's name into the conversation, the first one to use the phrase "teaching to the test" upon discussion of his 'no' vote on No Child Left Behind, and added "and lunch and dinner as well" to the idea of making sure all schoolchildren had their breakfast. But he also riffed on the ease with which he preferred unions to be formed, the right to strike, and the disgust with which he holds right-to-work; he echoed Warren's support of collective bargaining. He managed to throw in his favorite word--"revolution" into a discussion of educational philosophy, based on Ellis' statement that only 14% of U.S. kids could distinguish between fact and opinion (a classroom crisis if I've ever heard one). But there were also questions from the crowd on the school-to-prison pipeline and school safety, which he fielded deftly.
Bernie's the most quixotic answer to the pestilence of 45, but Medicare for All might get him beat. It's going to be very, very interesting to see how his candidacy plays out at the NEA-RA this year--whether the NEA "owes" it to him for recommendation, the way it did after Obama-v-Clinton in '08, when the state affiliate presidents were badly split (at least, it appeared so on the conference call) the same way the Democrats were, and then jumped way out in front in '16 to kind of apologize and endorse her months before it did in any past campaign. Things looked so much different at that moment, though, so I think NEA could be forgiven; it was mimicking not only other unions but the whole country's attitude of let's-get-this-over-with-because-of-course-she'll-win. Not quite, and now we have Betsy DuVos besides.
Joe Biden--He was late to the gathering; much of the crowd had dispersed by then. His approach is deeply personal. Listening carefully, you can tell why people noted early on in the debates his propensity to cut himself off during answers: He's not wimpy, he's a gentleman and dissemblingly polite and considerate, almost to a fault. Some would say so, and hesitate to endorse him with debating the obnoxiously insulting 45 a distinct possibility. "Am I supposed to say something here?" were his first words on stage; it was as if he'd appeared all of a sudden without being briefed, which indeed might have been, since he'd been to the Texas border earlier that day and encountered rough weather en route to Pittsburgh. (Very noticeably, Randi Weingarten, AFT president, was sitting right next to his wife, Jill, a community college teacher, and he directly addressed Weingarten at one point in one of his answers.)
Biden addressed familiar themes--Title I multiples of funding (3), IDEA, teaching to the test, early pre-K (At age 3? A little much there. But the research has been clear; pre-K pays off)--but what one couldn't ignore was the quiet tone that the rest of the candidates didn't have. Maybe he was tired. It was undoubtedly a long day, but then, presidents (except the one we have who doesn't care) tend to have lots of long days, and it was in a way important to see Biden at the end of one. He almost knew that Ellis would be asking him about desegregating schools the same way that Kamala Harris did, but his answer was pretty much the same as the one he tried to get in edgewise back then, adding how economic issues, too, contributed to the 'new' segregation evident today.
He also stood, but didn't prowl the stage like Sanders did. He spoke far more in terms of what teachers were capable of doing with respect to kids. He spoke to the group as people who happen to be educators, rather than the other way around. As a politician, there's something about him that none of the rest really have, something he's never lost in all his campaigns--a talent for making people think he's only talking to them. It has a calming effect, which may be the single thing he has going for himself most of all--and which might just carry him through to the nomination. That, and the obvious experience he's had with Obama. Can't discount that.
Michael Bennet--You could tell his enthusiasm (and, perhaps, his desperation; he isn't exactly knocking it out of the park poll-wise) in his voice and body language. Bennet is a former school superintendent and has the most on-the-ground, direct knowledge. He speaks the language of the profession and nobody needed to prep him with any cliches. He might have impressed more if he hadn't worn the albatross of Denver across his neck, though, for there's where he directed one of the first major merit pay programs--which not only didn't work, but fomented a later teachers' strike (which he didn't address, to his detriment; they keep forgetting what we know). He kept saying how much more money they paid teachers in Denver, but that was under that plan, which utilized the increasingly bogus strategy of partly judging teachers by test scores, then paying some a greater raise than others.
All the research the NEA has done on that topic demonstrates the futility of it. It was ignored. Suspicious of NEA's bias, districts did it anyhow. Bennet is likable and the way he stood up to the weasely Ted Cruz on the Senate floor a while back was bracing; if you're in a political battle, Michael Bennet would be great to have in your corner. He won't get the nomination, but as a campaigner, a Veep slot shouldn't be out of the question.
Tom Steyer--The little billionaire that could. He also has great enthusiasm for public schools, and it seems very genuine. He 'gets it' on the tragedy of excessive testing. I like him a lot and love his social awareness background, but it's very much out of his realm to consider being president. He should be kept in the loop for something important for which to be selected--Council of Economic Advisors, maybe, or Secretary of Education or HUD. His heart's where it should be, and you can't fault him for seeing the existential threat of 45 way out in front of others. It's a good place to start.
Amy Klobuchar--Sold herself and her public education background as well if not better than everyone else. Sold her candidacy the way she's been doing it elsewhere on the road: eschewing Medicare for All (smart) and stressing that we're going to need cooperation from somebody on the other side if we're going to recover from this sinking ship. She's a non-educator with educators in her family who was convincing to educators that she'd be thinking about them.
Don't sleep on her candidacy; as others like Kamala Harris fall away, she may sweep up the leftovers and create an afterthought-type surge. She keeps insisting, though, that the Democrats have to not only win, but win by a lot; that's too much to ask. The nomination might be too far to reach, but a Veep slot might just be the thing for her.
Pete Buttigieg--You have to admire his mind; like Obama's, it's a steel trap. He remembers everything and remembers how to say it. He has this endearing, Midwestern niceness about him (like Klobuchar) that forms an earnestness that's easy to take. He also has a husband (the topic on which the country doesn't really have to deal with, yet) who's a classroom teacher, so he gets a chance to speak to intraclassroom items that even someone like Bennet misses. That connection is not a minor one.
This was an opportunity for him to try to cozy up to minority members, who within the unions comprise a significant political force, and he did so by highlighting how he feels about buttressing Title I (give young teachers a chance to have their college loans forgiven by teaching for seven years in a Title I school, and triple the funding for it beyond that, and get some badly needed funding to Historical Black Colleges and Universities.). But he, too, has had a dalliance with charters, and that, too, went unaddressed. He isn't too young to be president, he's too poorly connected to the big picture, having been merely a mayor of a town much the size of Green Bay. Yet, he's earned a spot within the national picture--where, it isn't clear yet.
Elizabeth Warren--It seemed odd that her interview was the place where Ellis decided to drill down on charter schools, noting where plenty of minority parents have decided to enroll their children in them. It forced Warren to delineate, carefully, between for-profit charters and non--except Ellis wouldn't let her off the hook, citing the nation's report card. All great, but where was Ellis beforehand, when she could have done that to the other candidates? Warren deftly fended off what sounded (at least by tone; it's clearly been bugging Ellis) like a defense posing as an attack by continuing to stress that, with her two-cent tax on the very, very wealthy, she'd be bringing a bunch of money to the table in terms of quadrupling Title I funding (which sounded like she was raising Buttigieg's bet at that poker table: Triple? Hell, I'll quadruple), and fully funding IDEA (which, if I had a dime for every time I'd heard that one through the decades, I could have retired at 55), close to her heart because she'd started her journey as a special education teacher of kindergarteners (and I believed her when she said she still thinks about those kids; there isn't a teacher who doesn't). It kind of left charters as something of a white (sorry) elephant, neither bad nor good, which can neither disappear (way too many now) nor be expanded (see above).
At any rate: Madam I-have-a-plan-for-that came off as forthright, determined, and dogged. She's either becoming president, going back to the Senate where she can bug Republicans (not a bad thought), or a federal judge or Attorney General. No Veeping for her. Would seem like a demotion.
Bernie Sanders--This was probably the most far-ranging, both in form (he nervously paced and stood up to answer questions and the moderators followed suit) and in content. He made sure to thank teachers for their actual campaign support--he noted that in sheer numbers, they led in terms of donations; something that the unions' leadership has probably already noted--and made sure to put out a $60,000 minimum salary for teachers and tripling Title I funding in his introductory remarks. Ellis challenged him to declare how many black children had attended the schools he attended; he said that only one did where he went to elementary school. (To me, that's something of an a-ha question that he can't help, and doesn't and can't necessarily determine how empathetic he is to children of color.) He was the first one to actually bring 45's name into the conversation, the first one to use the phrase "teaching to the test" upon discussion of his 'no' vote on No Child Left Behind, and added "and lunch and dinner as well" to the idea of making sure all schoolchildren had their breakfast. But he also riffed on the ease with which he preferred unions to be formed, the right to strike, and the disgust with which he holds right-to-work; he echoed Warren's support of collective bargaining. He managed to throw in his favorite word--"revolution" into a discussion of educational philosophy, based on Ellis' statement that only 14% of U.S. kids could distinguish between fact and opinion (a classroom crisis if I've ever heard one). But there were also questions from the crowd on the school-to-prison pipeline and school safety, which he fielded deftly.
Bernie's the most quixotic answer to the pestilence of 45, but Medicare for All might get him beat. It's going to be very, very interesting to see how his candidacy plays out at the NEA-RA this year--whether the NEA "owes" it to him for recommendation, the way it did after Obama-v-Clinton in '08, when the state affiliate presidents were badly split (at least, it appeared so on the conference call) the same way the Democrats were, and then jumped way out in front in '16 to kind of apologize and endorse her months before it did in any past campaign. Things looked so much different at that moment, though, so I think NEA could be forgiven; it was mimicking not only other unions but the whole country's attitude of let's-get-this-over-with-because-of-course-she'll-win. Not quite, and now we have Betsy DuVos besides.
Joe Biden--He was late to the gathering; much of the crowd had dispersed by then. His approach is deeply personal. Listening carefully, you can tell why people noted early on in the debates his propensity to cut himself off during answers: He's not wimpy, he's a gentleman and dissemblingly polite and considerate, almost to a fault. Some would say so, and hesitate to endorse him with debating the obnoxiously insulting 45 a distinct possibility. "Am I supposed to say something here?" were his first words on stage; it was as if he'd appeared all of a sudden without being briefed, which indeed might have been, since he'd been to the Texas border earlier that day and encountered rough weather en route to Pittsburgh. (Very noticeably, Randi Weingarten, AFT president, was sitting right next to his wife, Jill, a community college teacher, and he directly addressed Weingarten at one point in one of his answers.)
Biden addressed familiar themes--Title I multiples of funding (3), IDEA, teaching to the test, early pre-K (At age 3? A little much there. But the research has been clear; pre-K pays off)--but what one couldn't ignore was the quiet tone that the rest of the candidates didn't have. Maybe he was tired. It was undoubtedly a long day, but then, presidents (except the one we have who doesn't care) tend to have lots of long days, and it was in a way important to see Biden at the end of one. He almost knew that Ellis would be asking him about desegregating schools the same way that Kamala Harris did, but his answer was pretty much the same as the one he tried to get in edgewise back then, adding how economic issues, too, contributed to the 'new' segregation evident today.
He also stood, but didn't prowl the stage like Sanders did. He spoke far more in terms of what teachers were capable of doing with respect to kids. He spoke to the group as people who happen to be educators, rather than the other way around. As a politician, there's something about him that none of the rest really have, something he's never lost in all his campaigns--a talent for making people think he's only talking to them. It has a calming effect, which may be the single thing he has going for himself most of all--and which might just carry him through to the nomination. That, and the obvious experience he's had with Obama. Can't discount that.
If you'd like to watch yourself--it's over five hours, but of course you can fast-forward through breaks--just put MSNBC Education Forum 2020 in your browser. Of course I'm happy that MSNBC went to the trouble of actually giving educators a chance to weigh in on the candidates. That goes without saying.
What will NEA and/or AFT's endorsements mean? Not as much as they used to. Yet, so many crucial states are still close and I don't see how that's going to change, impeachment results notwithstanding. Educators could still make that 1% difference in enough states to swing the persnickety Electoral College one way or another. There were some good ideas tossed out there; I just hope they don't get left behind, even in victory.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
The Parallels Are Striking, and Very Scary
Three years of resistance have come to nothing. The mindless goofball won a decisive victory and will lead his country down a road of divisive withdrawal. He insults, bumbles his comments, and bullies those with whom he disagrees. He's a jokester, not a serious politician or leader. He mostly just pounds the table and shouts (Try watching it on C-SPAN).
And that's in Great Britain, where Boris Johnson's Conservative party has just smashed all hopes of avoiding Brexit by dominating the Labor party in the very recent parliamentary elections. It will mean that, by the end of next month, Great Britain will be out of the European Union--to what effect, absolutely no one knows--and will sow instability throughout much of the world.
How did this happen? The signs are evident and worth considering across the Atlantic, where more than three years ago now, an unthinkable victory there forecasted another one right here:
And that's in Great Britain, where Boris Johnson's Conservative party has just smashed all hopes of avoiding Brexit by dominating the Labor party in the very recent parliamentary elections. It will mean that, by the end of next month, Great Britain will be out of the European Union--to what effect, absolutely no one knows--and will sow instability throughout much of the world.
How did this happen? The signs are evident and worth considering across the Atlantic, where more than three years ago now, an unthinkable victory there forecasted another one right here:
- A weak opposing candidate. Jeremy Corbin excited exactly no one. It's one thing to avoid the bombast of the other side and to project calmness and competence; it's quite another to bore everyone to death. That's been known there for some time now; I recall reading about it at least two years ago.
- A campaign too leftist for appetites. The Laborites leaned farther left than people were comfortable with. Socialism, or any breath of it, can be weaponized to instill fear. Conservatives did just that.
- Good, simple, winning political ad strategy. Conservatives tend to keep things very simple. Their best ad had Johnson knocking on someone's door to tell them, with signage not speech (flipping cards at the doorstep), their campaign in a nutshell: We have to get on with things and get Brexit done.
- People got tired of all the conflict and battling. They began giving up. Worn down, they withdrew from the strife and said either okay-have-it-your-way-stupid, or didn't engage at all, which is to say they stayed away from the polls.
Ensconced as we now are in a futile impeachment process, the same attitudes are emerging. Republicans in the House of Representatives were taken to shouting and dissembling in front of a nationwide audience as charges against 45 were trotted out in logical, dressed-down fashion. Republicans conjured a mindset that has never existed--namely, that 45 was thinking about the country at all when he tried to undermine both Ukraine's government and our own to secure a second term by extorting $391M in military aid that Congress had already granted it in exchange for arranging non-informational, speculative, "official" announcements that would have had the effect of smearing the person 45 fears the most, Joe Biden. The only reason more than a dime of that money got where it was supposed to go was that 45 got caught in the act, then tried to get out in front of it by swearing it off to one or two people upon the discovery. It was, as it always is, all about him.
45 hasn't gotten down on his knees and begged for forgiveness--indeed, has firewalled all evidence possible from his office--because that could implicate complicity. So that "proves" to his shameless, mindless Congressional minions that he's done nothing wrong. The claim does not establish the fact but, as is true of their leader, that need not be relevant to them. They're trying to do to these charges what they did to the Mueller report--shout long enough to bury it amidst wild countercharges that make little sense but resonate with people due to effective messaging techniques.
The 2020 campaign operates within this cesspool. Because Senate Republicans are nearly sure sustain their political support for him and let him get away with these crimes against the Constitution, it is vital to understand the distinct parallel with Great Britain--namely, that the "good guys" and logic and propriety and in our case, the rule of law, aren't going to win this national crisis. On the other side lurks ripe, manipulative possibilities for Republicans--see, you got beat and wasted our time; told you so--that can be pounded down the electorate's throats as we approach next November. They don't have to say it with any other language than that; it's already on the silver platter for them.
All the more reason that the Democrats must come up with the best possible candidate to not only oppose this horrible person, but to project a different, better nation up the road. Just putting someone who seems to have earned the spot won't get it done. Whether the primaries will carve out enough delegate support, or whether they will need a brokered convention--not the first time I've noted that here--some of these things must be taken into consideration: Who can come off as competent and resistant to the insults, innuendoes and outright lies coming on the debate stage, staying calm and deliberate yet responsive to the nonsense that we know will spew from 45's piehole? Who has a reasonable plan for the future? Who can find and direct the political center (It may not be as large as before, but it's still there and will still be decisive) back to stability, and not frighten it with proposals that sound great but can't possibly pass any Congress of any makeup? Who can combine a vision that promises more for more people with a reasonably precise warning of the unraveling of our democracy that will follow upon four more years of this lout? Who can deflect 45's powerful personality, exposing it as only that and not the competence and decisiveness that the mere sound of his voice seem to imply to too many?
Beyond that, the same attitudes that eased their way into Britain's body politic seem to be taking place here: The weariness of it all. That's the idea. That's what they want. They want us to give up. They want us to admit that it isn't worth it. All the protesting and demonstrating and resistance that accompanied 45's election--Remember the pink hats the day after the inauguration?--have led to exhaustion. Understandable? Certainly. Therein lies the decisive edge, or not, depending upon whether those who believe that we still, potentially, have a better country here than we've been giving off for three years, can turn this around and become a balanced, reasonably conversant polity again.
To do that, ironically, we must stay angry and committed and determined and energized to not only resist--which got us a Democratic House, after all--but to prevail. It really is possible, after all, to keep a Democratic majority in the House. It really is possible to retake the Senate. It really is possible to turn 45 away.
There has to be effective, precise, simple messaging, too. It has to come to this: Do you really think we'll be in a better place in four more years after he's done with us? Look at all that's happened. You want more of this? Whoever you are: Are you better off? You know the answer. We can turn this around. We can still talk to each other reasonably. But he has to go first. He has to go.
Should we fail at that, we'll get what Britain's getting right this very minute: withdrawal and isolation for no particular reason other than irresponsibility, certainly not greatness; domination by the minority; and a president who will run wild, knowing that all organized efforts to rid ourselves of him have, and probably will, fail. And remember, too: Scotland is discussing secession from Britain. There will be some of that talk, too, should we fail next November. Somebody will not want to have anything to do with such a society any longer.
The parallels are striking. They are very scary. We already know it can happen here. We still have chances to stop it. We brought it well enough two years ago; we can bring it again.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Thursday, December 12, 2019
The Gettysburg Address Revisited
Growing up, one of the things many of us did was to recite the Gettysburg Address. It had pretty much the same effect that memorizing, for us Catholics (many of us ex-Catholics by now), as we were required to glean from the Baltimore Catechism--fulfilling what some adults demanded we do to "know" certain words put together into what were supposed to be indelibly infused phraseologies upon our countenances, remaining there forever so we could recite them again and again to people who would never ask about such things anyhow.
(Horrible example #1: Who made you? God made me. Not a tough one. #2: Why did God make you? For the life of me, I can't remember that answer, as profound as it can be if one stops to consider it. My memories end then and there; I just remember that that was the second question. There were, I think, more than 200 of these Q-and-A pronouncements which have floated into the universe and have gone past the solar system by now, headed toward the same eternity that we were supposed to have deeply pondered with the assistance from answers to questions we never remembered.)
So it was with the same attitude as Simon and Garfunkel sang about while doing another token, patriotic, non-analyzed, daily act in grade school in the song "My Little Town"--while I pledged allegiance to the wall--that so many of us memorized the Gettysburg Address. We did it one line at a time, flipping back and forth between sides of a page in a book, so that we could either pass a test or stand in front of everyone else and recite one of the great speeches of all time, anywhere, not to mention for this country at that crucial moment. As an educational practice, it was dumb, dumb, dumb, right up there with "I before e, except after c, unless rhyming with a as in neighbor and weigh," not bothering to say which "weigh" it was, because "way" sounded exactly the same without needing to deal with the rest.
The great thing about Lincoln's beloved speech was that it took about 280 words, which by itself is a marvel to study; i.e. his economy with the language with which to encapsulate great ideas. The lousy thing about it was that we never discussed what it meant, never took the time to break it down. (Did you?)
Some phrases remain in our forefront: "Of the people, by the people, for the people," and the opening phrase, "Fourscore and seven years ago," which still makes people scramble to figure out how long that would be, then doing the math and coming back out with 1776; works every time as long as you remember the year of the speech itself (which, in context, matters a great deal). Both those phrases have been abused and mangled so often that, of course, we've forgotten to what larger concepts Lincoln attached them.
I challenge you, right here and now, to recall any other significant phrases from that speech. Don't look below.
Yeah, I know. Ain't easy. Made you look. But the speech is filled with memorable phrases.
Yesterday, a group of interested latter-day students, including Yours Truly, were invited to discuss the meaning of the Gettysburg Address as kind of a potential lead-in to larger discussions as sponsored by the University of Chicago. This conversation was free; others, dealing with for instance Greek philosophy, would take several weeks and would cost more than a couple of bucks. But the idea was, and is, that if you put a bunch of genuinely interested people in a chatroom or a real one (you can do it either way), then immersed them into something they thought they knew a little about, they'd probably come away knowing a great deal more.
So we did. And I did, too. Once I got going--I didn't sit on the sidelines--I made my contributions drawing from my teachings and readings, which, if I do say so myself, aren't inconsequential. But the discussion leader pivoted upon both my and others' commentaries and blended them to create kind of a cornucopia of concepts, with Lincoln's brilliance never far from the center.
To look at it from one direction, Lincoln's speech is in fact an eloquent summary:
(Horrible example #1: Who made you? God made me. Not a tough one. #2: Why did God make you? For the life of me, I can't remember that answer, as profound as it can be if one stops to consider it. My memories end then and there; I just remember that that was the second question. There were, I think, more than 200 of these Q-and-A pronouncements which have floated into the universe and have gone past the solar system by now, headed toward the same eternity that we were supposed to have deeply pondered with the assistance from answers to questions we never remembered.)
So it was with the same attitude as Simon and Garfunkel sang about while doing another token, patriotic, non-analyzed, daily act in grade school in the song "My Little Town"--while I pledged allegiance to the wall--that so many of us memorized the Gettysburg Address. We did it one line at a time, flipping back and forth between sides of a page in a book, so that we could either pass a test or stand in front of everyone else and recite one of the great speeches of all time, anywhere, not to mention for this country at that crucial moment. As an educational practice, it was dumb, dumb, dumb, right up there with "I before e, except after c, unless rhyming with a as in neighbor and weigh," not bothering to say which "weigh" it was, because "way" sounded exactly the same without needing to deal with the rest.
The great thing about Lincoln's beloved speech was that it took about 280 words, which by itself is a marvel to study; i.e. his economy with the language with which to encapsulate great ideas. The lousy thing about it was that we never discussed what it meant, never took the time to break it down. (Did you?)
Some phrases remain in our forefront: "Of the people, by the people, for the people," and the opening phrase, "Fourscore and seven years ago," which still makes people scramble to figure out how long that would be, then doing the math and coming back out with 1776; works every time as long as you remember the year of the speech itself (which, in context, matters a great deal). Both those phrases have been abused and mangled so often that, of course, we've forgotten to what larger concepts Lincoln attached them.
I challenge you, right here and now, to recall any other significant phrases from that speech. Don't look below.
Yeah, I know. Ain't easy. Made you look. But the speech is filled with memorable phrases.
Yesterday, a group of interested latter-day students, including Yours Truly, were invited to discuss the meaning of the Gettysburg Address as kind of a potential lead-in to larger discussions as sponsored by the University of Chicago. This conversation was free; others, dealing with for instance Greek philosophy, would take several weeks and would cost more than a couple of bucks. But the idea was, and is, that if you put a bunch of genuinely interested people in a chatroom or a real one (you can do it either way), then immersed them into something they thought they knew a little about, they'd probably come away knowing a great deal more.
So we did. And I did, too. Once I got going--I didn't sit on the sidelines--I made my contributions drawing from my teachings and readings, which, if I do say so myself, aren't inconsequential. But the discussion leader pivoted upon both my and others' commentaries and blended them to create kind of a cornucopia of concepts, with Lincoln's brilliance never far from the center.
To look at it from one direction, Lincoln's speech is in fact an eloquent summary:
- Here's how we started as a country ("conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition [not necessarily one we've completely lived by] that all men are created equal");
- Here's where we are (in the middle of a civil war and commemorating one of its great battlefields, trying to figure out whether this kind of nation will go on for much longer); and
- Here's where we need to go (to "highly resolve" that the dead won't have died in vain; that we can and must engage in a renewal so our kind of government [see above] won't "perish from the earth").
I commented that it was a statement of humility and ultimate irony. After all, he also said, "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here...." This, of course, refers to words that transcend centuries. His purpose was to compare it to the ultimate sacrifice the soldiers had made. That was what needed to be remembered first and foremost.
The facilitator also made it a point to remark that Lincoln never differentiated which side lost soldiers and how many so as to refrain from a comparison of value. Each side's men died fighting for things they believed in. He was certainly savvy enough to understand that, had he even hinted at some qualitative comparison, that might inspire even more anger and hatred on the part of the Confederacy and/or border states that had been directed to give up their slaves by his order on the first of that year, 1863.
But he also pivoted to note that no one there, on that day, could possibly do or say anything that favorably compared to the way those soldiers had already consecrated and hallowed that ground. Relative to "our poor power to add or subtract," it was already inadequate.
It was one of those statements that, taken as a whole or in parts, should have been obvious. But it was the president making those remarks, after all, and as presidents do, they can bring far more meaning and/or seriousness to occasions just by saying what they say. And, in fact, newspapers pretty much pooh-poohed the brief talk--especially compared to the glory-ridden, two-hour oration that Edward Everett made prior to it.
When the facilitator asked for concluding comments, I offered that a review of this speech only underscored the tragedy of Lincoln's assassination. "I'm sure he had a plan," I said, "But they were not to be realized." The more I've looked at the situation, too, the more I'm convinced that, next to Washington, Lincoln was the only other Indispensable Man that the nation has produced. Only a Lincoln might have been able to put the broken country back together in a kind of rehabilitating way that could have blended what had been with what must now be. Instead, we were left with one of the worst possible replacements for him, Andrew Johnson, who spurred such ferociousness of division that it caused an impeachment and bitterness that rides with us still.
Lincoln knew that we needed to "highly resolve" that a new national meaning had to be gleaned from the horrors of war, so that all that death could give us a way onward. With deep irony, it took ninety years to show that he hadn't died in vain, either. We needed to go through the Black Codes, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Klan, Jim Crow and the Great Migration to get to Brown v. the Board and the civil rights movement--then to return to this point in which a president is an avowed racist and sets off reactions that harken back to those decrepit days. Things get better if we attend to them, but never quickly nor with the kind of definitiveness that displays clear answers. The world never works like that.
Odd that it closely compares to the predicament we're in right this very minute, when 45 will likely be impeached next week, bringing with it much the same depth of anger and bitterness. It may not seem on the surface that we are risking the possibility that this nation, such as it is, might dissolve but remember: We are not on the other side of this mess yet. We do not know how people in and out of Congress will react to the reality of trial and probable acquittal. We don't know if we'll even feel like speaking to each other again, after the issue is laid raw and bleeding on the Senate floor, seemingly to no real resolution. With that still at stake, we do not know what kinds of passions will be unleashed during the upcoming set of campaigns.
Lincoln knew that had to be addressed when the war ended, too. Someone robbed him of that chance. In a sense, we miss him still. We have no Lincoln to help us through this conflicted time. We could sure use one. My thanks to the University of Chicago for the reminder.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Friday, December 6, 2019
What She Really Wanted to Tell Him
Nancy Pelosi didn't let the opportunity go. She certainly could have. She had displayed her usual savoir faire in announcing that yes, indeed, United States of America, the evidence is in, the experts are finished, and there will soon be a vote on impeaching the president.
Then she took questions and headed off the stage. But someone wanted to ask her one more thing just before she disappeared behind the curtain: Do you hate him?
He didn't say exactly that, of course. But he brought the 'haters' into the comment. That allowed him plausible deniability, the leaker's way out.
Of course, he was from a right-wing communications syndicate, Sinclair, which controls the informational output of dozens of stations. Of course, he or it was trying to control and expand the snark factor. He said he meant no disrespect. You can believe that if you want.
She wouldn't have it, though. She made a few things quite clear. We know what she said. Here's my filter:
Thank you for trying to get that last little shot in there just as I'm leaving. You think you're being clever. I ate people like you for lunch thirty years ago. I'll bet that, just because you're a guy, you think that somehow, women don't get that and will overlook it. Uh-uh. That train left the station way before you felt like hating Hillary.
So you aren't getting away with that. And I'm not only going to answer you, but I'm going back to the podium because I want everyone to hear this, because the only thing that the other side's really saying is that we're going to all this trouble because we don't like him. Isn't that what the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee said? Isn't that what their echo chamber's insisting?
I don't and can't control what others are feeling and saying, but I don't hate him. In fact, I pray for him and his family a great deal. With this guy, what else can you possibly do? He won't listen to anybody. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. And he sure as heck doesn't care about the country. If he did, we'd simply be discussing how much of a coward he is about climate change and how cruel he is to immigrants.
But those are policy matters, subject to politics. As wicked and pathetic as he is, we've been talking about that stuff for some years now. They remain sticky wickets with no clear path. But he offers no path, nothing. And that way is self-destructive.
No matter. We aren't here because of his disgusting manner, his endless insults, his bullying and his ridiculous behavior overseas, as awful as all of that is. We'll be running against that, too, for the next eleven months.
Nope. This is about the Constitution. He promised to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And not only has he not done that, he has collaborated with the Russians to grease the skids for them to control Ukraine--a country which has counted on us to help them defend itself, a country that has struggled with its own corruption but which now has someone running it who wants to clean it up.
Except he ran into Mr. Corruption himself, who's pretending to play with their money as if it's his own. No: it's our money, and he got caught holding it back to try to smear, with a pretend investigation the announcement of which would be sufficient to do the job, the person who has a decent chance of gaining the nomination of my party to unseat him. (In fact, on MSNBC yesterday, Ari Melber announced that that money still hasn't been completely turned over to Ukraine: there's about $15M of the projected, voted upon $391M that hasn't. So what's that about?) Never mind that he got caught and was were forced to turn over the money anyhow. The point is that he was going to do it and now we know.
He has no Constitutional authority to play with our foreign policy like that. That's supposed to be his responsibility, and he has completely undermined it, and this country, by these hijinks. He put an ally in danger with his scheme, to please an enemy the reasons for which will, I'm quite sure, emerge eventually. (The real quid pro quo, perhaps--election interference in exchange for control of Ukraine? But I digress.) But we will all be in shock if it doesn't have something to do with his bottomless, endless gluttony for money.
To hide this, or to try to hide it, he has ordered significantly revelatory information and witnesses to remain closed to testimony, acts which, in and of themselves, constitute obstruction of justice. That alone is a high misdemeanor within the scope of the Constitution. That alone would get him kicked out by Senate Republicans who wouldn't be scared to death of him for some reason.
Never mind that. We here in the House, despite the cultish obsession of the other side, have done our Constitutional duty. We have done what we could, what we must. Because he has broken the law. Period.
Got that now, buddy?
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Then she took questions and headed off the stage. But someone wanted to ask her one more thing just before she disappeared behind the curtain: Do you hate him?
He didn't say exactly that, of course. But he brought the 'haters' into the comment. That allowed him plausible deniability, the leaker's way out.
Of course, he was from a right-wing communications syndicate, Sinclair, which controls the informational output of dozens of stations. Of course, he or it was trying to control and expand the snark factor. He said he meant no disrespect. You can believe that if you want.
She wouldn't have it, though. She made a few things quite clear. We know what she said. Here's my filter:
Thank you for trying to get that last little shot in there just as I'm leaving. You think you're being clever. I ate people like you for lunch thirty years ago. I'll bet that, just because you're a guy, you think that somehow, women don't get that and will overlook it. Uh-uh. That train left the station way before you felt like hating Hillary.
So you aren't getting away with that. And I'm not only going to answer you, but I'm going back to the podium because I want everyone to hear this, because the only thing that the other side's really saying is that we're going to all this trouble because we don't like him. Isn't that what the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee said? Isn't that what their echo chamber's insisting?
I don't and can't control what others are feeling and saying, but I don't hate him. In fact, I pray for him and his family a great deal. With this guy, what else can you possibly do? He won't listen to anybody. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. And he sure as heck doesn't care about the country. If he did, we'd simply be discussing how much of a coward he is about climate change and how cruel he is to immigrants.
But those are policy matters, subject to politics. As wicked and pathetic as he is, we've been talking about that stuff for some years now. They remain sticky wickets with no clear path. But he offers no path, nothing. And that way is self-destructive.
No matter. We aren't here because of his disgusting manner, his endless insults, his bullying and his ridiculous behavior overseas, as awful as all of that is. We'll be running against that, too, for the next eleven months.
Nope. This is about the Constitution. He promised to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And not only has he not done that, he has collaborated with the Russians to grease the skids for them to control Ukraine--a country which has counted on us to help them defend itself, a country that has struggled with its own corruption but which now has someone running it who wants to clean it up.
Except he ran into Mr. Corruption himself, who's pretending to play with their money as if it's his own. No: it's our money, and he got caught holding it back to try to smear, with a pretend investigation the announcement of which would be sufficient to do the job, the person who has a decent chance of gaining the nomination of my party to unseat him. (In fact, on MSNBC yesterday, Ari Melber announced that that money still hasn't been completely turned over to Ukraine: there's about $15M of the projected, voted upon $391M that hasn't. So what's that about?) Never mind that he got caught and was were forced to turn over the money anyhow. The point is that he was going to do it and now we know.
He has no Constitutional authority to play with our foreign policy like that. That's supposed to be his responsibility, and he has completely undermined it, and this country, by these hijinks. He put an ally in danger with his scheme, to please an enemy the reasons for which will, I'm quite sure, emerge eventually. (The real quid pro quo, perhaps--election interference in exchange for control of Ukraine? But I digress.) But we will all be in shock if it doesn't have something to do with his bottomless, endless gluttony for money.
To hide this, or to try to hide it, he has ordered significantly revelatory information and witnesses to remain closed to testimony, acts which, in and of themselves, constitute obstruction of justice. That alone is a high misdemeanor within the scope of the Constitution. That alone would get him kicked out by Senate Republicans who wouldn't be scared to death of him for some reason.
Never mind that. We here in the House, despite the cultish obsession of the other side, have done our Constitutional duty. We have done what we could, what we must. Because he has broken the law. Period.
Got that now, buddy?
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
No Logic, No Sense of History, Just Emotion--And That's the Greatest Danger of All
Think about this: 53% of Republicans said, in a survey conducted by CNN (not exactly a Republican-leaning news organization), that they'd rather have 45 as president than Abraham Lincoln.
Abraham Lincoln. That means that, unless I read this wrong, they consider 45 to be the greatest president ever.
I want to see someone, anyone, ask a Republican member of Congress if they agree and watch them squirm. Because they will. Because it's an embarrassment. Too. Just like he is.
Well, you know, they're just angry. They're angry that 45's going to be impeached. Never mind that he should. Never mind that he took the foreign policy of this country and completely strangled it to submit to his will. Never mind that the Russians are grinning about it every single day.
Because if he has apologists within the Congress who will excuse everything he's doing and won't bring him to account, that's implicit permission--not only for 45 to keep doing it, but for Republicans nationwide to not only excuse it, but to actually inflate what he does and, in a comparison that boggles the mind, conflate it to equivalency with our greatest president, bar none, hands down.
And they don't know, nor have they ever considered, that the reason why Lincoln's greatness has only expanded through the years is that he was the direct opposite of what 45 seems to represent to those who claim his wonderfulness. Which is to say: restraint.
Lincoln didn't bait the Confederacy into war. He waited until it had committed itself beyond political salvation. Plenty of last-minute solutions had been attempted by those wishing only to preserve the Union for its own sake; nothing would please the South. It had lost its temper and once lost, could not be stuffed back inside the bottle.
And the last thing he wanted to do was use incendiary rhetoric. His inaugural address was an excellent example. He said:
Abraham Lincoln. That means that, unless I read this wrong, they consider 45 to be the greatest president ever.
I want to see someone, anyone, ask a Republican member of Congress if they agree and watch them squirm. Because they will. Because it's an embarrassment. Too. Just like he is.
Well, you know, they're just angry. They're angry that 45's going to be impeached. Never mind that he should. Never mind that he took the foreign policy of this country and completely strangled it to submit to his will. Never mind that the Russians are grinning about it every single day.
Because if he has apologists within the Congress who will excuse everything he's doing and won't bring him to account, that's implicit permission--not only for 45 to keep doing it, but for Republicans nationwide to not only excuse it, but to actually inflate what he does and, in a comparison that boggles the mind, conflate it to equivalency with our greatest president, bar none, hands down.
And they don't know, nor have they ever considered, that the reason why Lincoln's greatness has only expanded through the years is that he was the direct opposite of what 45 seems to represent to those who claim his wonderfulness. Which is to say: restraint.
Lincoln didn't bait the Confederacy into war. He waited until it had committed itself beyond political salvation. Plenty of last-minute solutions had been attempted by those wishing only to preserve the Union for its own sake; nothing would please the South. It had lost its temper and once lost, could not be stuffed back inside the bottle.
And the last thing he wanted to do was use incendiary rhetoric. His inaugural address was an excellent example. He said:
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretched from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
Consider that soaring rhetoric against everything, anything, 45 has ever said publicly (including his comments at Charlottesville, VA, after the neo-Nazi demonstrations there two years ago). He has never possessed those better angels of human nature, not for one minute of his life. And why would he? He doesn't believe in them. He believes that life is a fierce struggle that belongs only to those who can, and should, dominate it. That, of course, especially includes him. He wants to rule everything and sees no reason why he can't. He possesses everything, strangles everything, pummels everyone until submission. And this is admirable?
Lincoln didn't shout those words, in a time when there were no methods of expanding sound. He merely spoke them and perhaps raised them to those nearby, but only as speakers always did. But he couldn't possibly have said them in anger. What good would it have done to have done so?
All 45 does is shout. He shouts to the press, he shouts over the phone, he shouts with foreign leaders sitting right next to him, he shouts to his Cabinet members, he shouts at anyone who says he shouldn't do something, regardless of what sense it makes.
And 53% of Republicans like that? They like to be angry? They like it when someone shouts for them? They want to pick fights? Wait for the hearings to report the Intelligence Committee findings to the House Judiciary Committee to begin this week. There will be shouting that will be very inappropriate. Guess which side will start it, as if to lure the other into joining them?
Lincoln didn't free the slaves willy-nilly. The Emancipation Proclamation was a politically-charged document that made sure that, even during war, some states didn't get too angry and secede, even at that late date, a year and a half after the conflict had begun. It was measured, precise, and balanced interests. It was issued with timely portent.
45 has no time for that. He says what he feels like saying whenever he feels like saying it. Apologists actually give him credit for saying outlandish things to the press because they are the press and he feels like poking at them--never mind the message he's sending to the rest of the world, either friends or enemies. Never mind the reactions that may be waiting for us upon his snarky blurtings.
Lincoln chose Cabinet members who were competent. They disagreed with him, sometimes strongly. He needed to outmaneuver a few of them who, convinced of his incompetence, actually thought they could take over the administration. But he did so cleverly, letting them overcommit themselves. What he didn't do was fire them at the first indication of disagreement. They became, instead, some of his greatest supporters. They united behind him and formed a strong federal effort to win the Civil War. It might easily not have happened without it.
45 has no time for that. You either agree completely, go all-in on saying how wonderful he is (as Gordon Sondland tried to tell Marie Yovanovitch), or hit the road. You become a lapdog or else. Never mind that, as even Paul Ryan used to say, 45 didn't know anything (his emphasis) about governance--and still doesn't. 45 really is incompetent, and bathes himself in it.
And his slavish, mindless followers, dismissive of all history, think that this is all about being an outsider and showing people how things should be done. They have adapted, in spite of their own lives, a sense of closed-off thinking that only the present day, the present moment, is all that matters. The government is him, only him. Everyone else is the Deep State, even the military brass, now that their objections to his lawlessness during war have been registered.
This is the real problem. This is when emotion overrides any sense of propriety, any measurement of anything that is said to anyone else. The challenge belongs to the Democrats now; the Republicans, or at least a majority of them, have lost the measured sense of what government can and must do. They no longer care. They will spin things (they already have, with 123 pages of escapist nonsense) to make it look like the Democrats own the problem, but they do and they know it. What's more, they'll point to the CNN poll with glee (Wait and see 45 himself do so, too, at the next rally; I'm already cringing), completely without regard to what it really means. They'll try to qualify it with deflection--you know, it's a different time now--but they know they can't. That, too, is complete nonsense. If all they can do is make excuses, that's a pretty poor excuse to keep someone around who causes this much distress and unhappiness amongst us all, violating the Constitution notwithstanding.
And that's the greatest danger of all. Because they will do exactly what 45 wants them to do now. If impeachment won't move them, nothing else will. I have no idea how long the Democrats will keep their calm and poise, like Pelosi and Schiff, believing that within our system, solutions can be found. But all must come to the conclusion that there are certain ways of acting and settling things beyond which only fighting can happen--real fighting, with real weapons. We are inching into that position.
If you aren't sure about that, just wait until the impeachment hearings are finished, and wait to see what happens if 45 loses the 2020 election, as counted by the individual states, regardless of what else the Russians have in mind. If Republicans don't have to agree that breaking laws matter and need accounting, then other laws will be broken haphazardly, by sheer choice, by others who should know better (a.k.a. the rule of law will be shattered) at every level of governance, not just in Washington. Pretty soon, not nearly enough of those otherwise assigned with their enforcement will feel themselves connected to a greater good to do so, unless it would be on their terms, done their way.
We have to keep thinking. The time to end that can never be over. The alternative is too awful to embrace. But it's time we consider it. Lincoln managed to save the Union, but at a horrible cost. 45 is his evil opposite, whose very presence threatens that very Union. That 53% of Republicans can't or won't grasp this any longer defines the very challenge, the very danger, with which we are now confronted.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
