On Razor's Edge: 30 Cities and Counting

Here we are, on a razor's edge. You feel it, don't you?

Well, maybe not. Maybe you're in the middle of Montana or something. But I do.

I'm on Milwaukee's east side, where stuff like we're watching isn't supposed to happen. Some folks demonstrated yesterday, blocking the freeway for a while. Good protest. Got someone's attention, but wasn't violent.

Maybe that'll be it. But don't count on it.

Among the other cities that have had demonstrations so far are Denver, Louisville, Atlanta, Los Angeles. There's been some violence, too. I thought it was just a few, but then I saw today's New York Times. There have been protests in thirty cities, at least, in the last two days.

All this is a few text messages and/or phone calls from being coordinated. It might make what happened in the '60s look like child's play. And the baby boomers remember how ugly that was.

The violence in Minneapolis has left the governor with no choice: He's called out the National Guard. I have family in it. It's tense. But what else can he do? They haven't stopped setting fires.

45, in his infinite wisdom and a nice bit of rhyming, said that with looting comes shooting. There. That fixed that. And then he's mustered the military police, to support the National Guard. Nothing like preaching calm to the troubled masses. Meanwhile, a disproportionate number of people of color list amongst the more than 100,000 to die of the virus.

All this is, of course, a band-aid and tearing it off to expose the horrible scars beneath. Inequality and racism have always been with us. The unjustifiable (though no doubt lawyers will try to prove otherwise) death of George Floyd has happened at the worst possible time--when a very contagious disease seems to be hitting the black community at a horrifying rate, and one which will probably accentuate the distance whites will be inclined to keep from them, anyway.

People (read: whites) will now look at blacks (read: people) twice, wondering whether they're both diseased or trouble-makers. How could it be otherwise? But how long can someone keep the resentment bottled up?

We are paying, yet again, for what we have never successfully addressed: the inequality of our
society. Education, jobs, housing: Here we go again. Lights will be shined upon them. Hands will be
wrung.

How much do you think will happen? How deep is this imbedded? How exceptional do you think we really are?

Milwaukee is supposed to be the most segregated city in America. And maybe it is. Minneapolis, no
doubt, is close. If there's a good thing coming out of this, it's that Minneapolis is so far north that no
one can claim that somehow, Southern influence has been brought to bear.

But then, in the '60s, Martin Luther King said that he never saw mobs as hateful as those in Chicago. And those remembering the open housing marches led by Father Groppi in Milwaukee also remember the pushback against them. All that went away, and newspaper stories ran and columnists wrote and we all said we cared so much.

Then I went to a college for mostly rich kids (I certainly wasn't, but they gave me non-scholarship
financial support to play football) that went out of its way to introduce black students. Except they lived with each other, and we didn't see them all that much. They rebelled, too. And some of us wrung our hands and some of us objected. I wonder what was done. At the time, some concessions were made. But attitudes remained.

I remember going up there once, to second floor Plantz Hall, just to visit. I knew a couple well enough. And I said to myself: What's the big deal here? Why aren't black students living with white students? It had to be just as big an adjustment for them as for us. Wasn't that the point? What attitude won out, really?

Then, more than 40 years ago, bussed desegregation of schools was tried in places like Boston and Milwaukee. In Boston, it was resisted strongly; in Milwaukee, it was undermined with 'white flight.' Hence the condition noted above. Hence the re-hardening of stances with no one there to push back.

Now this, and piled upon other police murders in other places. It's a big country, and stuff like this doesn't happen everywhere, so it looks isolated. But we all know it isn't. Because it could happen anywhere.

The problems are systemic. The only way they will be overcome is if a majority of the country becomes people of color. And, in fact, that's due to happen. But few of my age will see it.

Hang on tight, everybody. This ride could get rougher. Promises have been broken for too long.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

Frederick Douglass: Indefatigible, Brilliant, Intimidating

When I read a biography, I intend to learn things about that person and the time in which they lived that I didn't know. There are always things to learn and nobody knows everything about everything, and that, and the fact that I once taught history, is why I read stuff like that.

So here's what I've learned about Frederick Douglass, the famed speaker, writer, and abolitionist, from David Blight's book about him, Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, in the first half alone. You might find it interesting:

• As already noted elsewhere, he was a pal of John Brown, the violent, murderous abolitionist. For a moment, Douglass considered getting in with him at Harpers' Ferry, where of course Brown was wounded, captured, tried and executed for treason. He passed on that opportunity, but still had to flee to England for a while (actually, a second time since he'd had to go there because he had earlier published his autobiography, admitting his slave status, including his owner's name, and the fugitive slave laws made it much easier for him to be recaptured and returned to his owner; friends bought him off so he could return) when he learned that the state of Virginia was looking for him. He returned via Canada, still before the Civil War, but the issue of secession in Virginia was too far down the road for the state to legitimize bringing him to justice;
• A month after Lincoln had written the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation, he invited black leaders to the White House and asked them to consider recolonizing in South America. They said they'd get back to him, meaning that they didn't want to refuse to his face. Douglass was understandably outraged by such a suggestion. But go figure, since Lincoln was one Union victory away from issuing the proclamation, which he got in September--a month after he made the above suggestion--at Antietam;
• Two years later, Lincoln, very afraid of losing the next election, asked Douglass to come up with a plan to do basically what Brown had tried to do--rally the slaves to come north to emancipation. Before he could do so, though, the war had again intervened with Sherman's taking of Atlanta and his embarking on the March to the Sea and Admiral Farragut's ('Damn the torpedoes--full speed ahead!') victory at Mobile Bay, which convinced enough voters that the war had broken out of stalemate and would be won;
• Two of Douglass' sons joined the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, the one depicted in the movie Glory. One of them was held back by illness, but one of them fought in the famous battle of Fort Wagner, South Carolina, in which the 54th was thrown against impregnable barricades in an almost suicidal charge, and broke through before finally being thrown back with horrendous losses. Douglass' son survived the battle, amazingly, though badly wounded; and
• Douglass met a German woman, Ottilie Assing, during his time in England and probably (though no notes exist that specify it) had an affair with her, sometimes staying for up to a week at her place in Hoboken, New Jersey. She became obsessed with him and had followed him back to the States, even staying at his home with his wife there. She clearly had designs on getting him to divorce and marry her, but he did not follow up. Yet, she was received at their home in Rochester, New York, every time she visited and stayed. She provided Douglass with the intellectual mate that his simple wife could not provide. Amazingly, the marriage stayed together. No writings between the two lovers survive; Assing had his letters to her destroyed upon her death.

It's an exhaustive book, a masterpiece of research and written in dramatic style. It's harder to keep up with after emancipation, since that's Douglass' focus and goal, but he did a lot of living after that, too. Blight must have gotten access to letters and papers that no one else has. There are other works on Douglass, and good ones, but this one is a tour de force. I doubt that anyone can write a more definitive study of this indefatigable, brilliant, intimidating person.

His voice was a deep baritone, which gave even deeper meaning to his stunning rhetoric. He challenged people's beliefs and sometimes upset them to the point of being run out of town. But in a time in which even free blacks were a distinctly lower class and often lived obscure lives out of the mainstream, Douglass never flinched from testifying to his experience as a slave. He began his speaking career in the shadow of William Lloyd Garrison, but separated from him when he became too independent, going it alone. It had to take incredible courage to do that.

But he never backed off. Whites needed to accept blacks as true equals or freedom from slavery would mean little. That was rough stuff in those days, and Northern whites didn't always like it, either. Douglass liked to poke the eyes of Northeners, exposing their hypocrisy. He wasn't an Uncle Tom. He didn't go along to get along, though he sometimes had to play politics with his preferences.

He didn't shy away from controversy, either. When his black first wife died, he got the white mistress to go away and married another white woman more than twenty years his junior. That got people's attention: Congress even stopped to glance at him when he and the new missus came to sit in the gallery.

Ironically, one of his main life goals was to be appointed to a government position. That happened twice; he was made a marshal of the District of Columbia, and minister to Haiti. He also assisted in a mission to try to make part of the Dominican Republic subservient to U.S. interests, which failed. He also found himself taking the Haitian government's position in its conflicts with the U.S., which had designs on the coal in the region to fuel its growing navy. That led to his resignation just a year and a half after taking over.

That didn't stop two continuous themes from playing themselves out after the war: That he was honored as a wise sage and solicited to speak anywhere and everywhere; and Jim-Crowed, at times, when he went south to do so. Nonetheless, he honored numerous requests to speak throughout the country, gaining a sobriquet, Old Man Eloquent. Having paved the way for Lincoln to free the slaves, he launched an attack upon the South, which had caved to the Redeemers; and what logically followed in their path, white supremacy with the disenfranchisement of the blacks. Worse, it brought on the horrible practice of lynching, quite evident well into the 20th Century.

He was considered a godfather of sorts of future adherents such as Ida B. Wells and James Weldon Johnson, appearing with them to give them initial ballast for their passions. He published two newspapers, wrote letters and comments and made personal appearances right up to his death, at age 78, in 1895. W. E. B. DuBois heard him speak in Boston in 1892; Blight believes he was inspired by Douglass.

That Douglass couldn't conquer white supremacy cannot be laid on his doorstep. We are still fighting those vestiges today, witness the recent death of a black man at the hands of white cops in Minneapolis. The year after his death, in fact, the Supreme Court caved to those attitudes with its ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, in which "separate but equal" was ruled to be legally acceptable in public facilities. It took more than half a century for that to be reasonably reversed in Brown v. Board, except school boards, city councils, and state legislatures searched for and often found ways to get around that ruling almost from its outset.

But Douglass' achievements cannot be overstressed. Son of a raped woman (he never found out who his real father was), having escaped slavery and taking the incredible risk of writing his autobiography and putting himself into danger of being re-sold back into bondage, fleeing to England twice to escape predators, he strove on to become one of the nation's greatest orators. This enormous work (764 pages) is as complete an account of his life as has been published, and the author does his best to keep placing you into context. It'll take you some time, but this is stirring history, and well worth it.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

Dear Joe: Going Forward, If You Really Want To

To Joe Biden:

Dear Joe: Congratulations, at least so far, on being the Democratic standard-bearer. It looks as though it's your election to lose. Of course, that's what happened last time, and nobody sat Hillary down and really talked to her. Might not have done any good, but we saw what happened.

In any event, here you are and leading our terrible president by some eleven points right now, if that poll means anything, which the last ones really didn't until it was too late. But let's assume it does mean something.

It means that there's a lot of unhappiness out there now, and if there wasn't, it would be amazing. 45 has 39% support. That's just one percent above the 38% that I keep insisting will be his base, like it or not. In other words, he's hit pretty near the bottom and won't go much farther down, incredible though it may seem. Remember, those 38% are the people who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, which means they're fairly close if not completely adherent to the Book of Genesis--which, as geological research, is just plain baloney.

They've bought into 45 utterly because their clergy has, too. So they're unrecoverable. Write them off silently, not like Mitt Romney did in 2012, when he got caught saying that 47% of the electorate will vote Democratic, anyhow. Oh, you need to be reminded of that. You've already put your foot in your mouth. More below.

But that means you have a lot to work with, and a lot to blow. And you're doing a decent job of that right now, dude. Once again, you've said something dumb about black people, and if there's a solid phalanx of support in these crazy days, it's always been that. Yes, you've apologized, and yes, you appeared humble. Good for you. 

Now, stop it. Say only positive things about someone regardless of the question. Our president can't, unless he says it with his 100-word vocabulary of exaggerations and sales pitches that many of us are very tired of. You have a tremendous advantage there, or unless someone writes it out for him. Pivot and work with it.

Besides, there's so much negative news about the virus. There's no plan, even four months since this thing hit us. Come up with a plan. You'll get so far out in front of 45 that he'll wonder where everybody went. Some semblance of a plan, some semblance of hope to get us out of this ditch, will be incredibly welcome.

You made a nice show on Memorial Day, going to the memorial for Delaware vets. That alone was a great photo op. So were the masks that you and Jill wore. When you appear, don't fall for the macho crap that 45 puts out there, and wear the mask. Tell everyone that it isn't safe without it, because it isn't. If people don't believe you, they either soon will because they'll get sick, or they're in that 38% which denies science and are irreparable.

Have you noted that you've gained your lead while mostly staying at home? Yup. 45 just keeps digging deeper. He appears when people are tired of him. The only thing he has going is that he's big and appears presidential. Otherwise, he's completely useless. Yes, useless. He would be much better off staying home, but he can't help himself.

Until the convention, at least, copy that. Don't go out there unless there's a specific celebration or reason, something to specifically address. Some of the pundits think you're unnecessarily tied up by the pandemic; I think it's just the opposite. This is the opportunity for the public to see just how useless 45 is, just how pathetic he looks. 

July 4 will be the next chance for you to appear. Wait until then. You can't change much until then anyhow. If things get better, you can't help that. If things get worse--and wait for food shortages; they're coming due to sickness on the production line that hasn't been adequately addressed--you'll be able to discuss it once or twice. That's all you'll need. Otherwise, lay low in June. We will see what opening up brings. I don't think it'll be pretty.

Basically, in this campaign, less is more until the convention. No more fighting to be done. No more inside campaigning--except for oh, yeah, your vice-presidential pick:

You still have time to vet. Your professed need for a woman won't backfire on you: The Democrats have a great bench. That's the good part. Do you need a black woman? James Clyborn is right: You don't. You need the best woman. But a black woman might be best after all.

Has your foolish comment about blacks forced your hand? Good question. Don't know how to answer that one without internal polling, which, if you're smart, you're busy doing. All I can tell you are my impressions:

• If black--Harris, Rice, Demings: All good choices. Harris is articulate, attractive, and gained much chops in the Kavanaugh hearing. She has to be a top candidate and is already warmed up nationally. Rice has her national security background, but is an unknown on the trail. Demings is a great sleeper. She's smart, she's attractive, her background is in law enforcement, she's part of the impeachment team, she's from Florida, a swing state, she's low on baggage. I would not be unhappy with her. She's underrated, but wouldn't stay that way.
• If not black--Warren, I believe, though tough and qualified, is too old. Save her for the Senate, the Supreme Court (not the first time I've said that; she truly belongs there, as a former law professor), or the Cabinet. Klobuchar is a better campaigner than she's been given credit for and is from Minnesota, which the ticket needs. Baldwin is a superb campaigner, calm and sturdy, and won by a near-landslide in that most purple of states, Wisconsin. She has transcended her lesbianism, though there will be predictable smears. Whitmer really does sound like she doesn't want the job, though if she said or hinted so, I think you'd be crazy not to take her in a heartbeat.

There are others who might be good, too. I don't know where your head is on this, and you've been appropriately quiet about it. So good luck with that. 

You know 45 will try to tweet-smear anyone you take, so there's always that, but he's got enough problems right now. Your goal is to tamp down anything he's saying about you and China by making him the incompetent boob who's not acting in the country's best interests. You have his hesitancy to deal with the virus all during February, which if you don't take advantage of it, you deserve what you get. But do we?

You have this one chance to save our country from what's clearly its demise. It is sliding downhill faster by the day. You've got to get it right, Joe. Everything's banking on it. Here's hoping you do.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

So What's the Deal With Book Banning in Alaska?

It makes you wonder just where people's minds are. It really does.

In the Matanuska-Susitna (referred to as Mat-Su) School District of Palmer, Alaska, the school board created an unnecessary firestorm recently by voting to prohibit classic works from being taught in the district's classrooms. The books could stay in the school libraries, they said, but not part of the curriculum.

The books were: The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald; Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison; The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien; Catch-22 by Joseph Heller; and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou. You may recognize these. They are classics.

But classics usually have controversial parts. That's why they're classic. They navigate them in ways that are ripe for discussion.

Discussion is the idea. Why include books in which everyone agrees with everything that's written? And come to think of it, what books would those be? And how would you get much discussion out of them if they were?

The district provided a one-page (this from CNN) flier from the Office of Instruction, telling why the books were too controversial: they included sexual references, rape, racial slurs, violence and profanity. Angelou's book includes, says the flier, "sexually explicit material such as the sexual abuse the author suffered as a child," as well as " 'anti-white' messaging."

Oh. So a black author's anti-white attitudes aren't normal? They should be hidden? The kids in the district won't run up against them when they get out of high school? And sexual abuse won't take place anywhere they wind up?

Nobody's saying these books aren't delicate. They are. And you can cherry-pick and find naughty words and naughty bits all around. But if you just let them in the library without
discussion, the danger of those ideas running rampant without perspective become worse, not better. A decent teacher--remember, one that the district has hired--would be well-situated to deal with the actions and attitudes contained within. You might defeat the very purpose you originally had.

But the school board also made a significant strategic mistake: They made the decision during the pandemic, when no one from the community decided to take the risk and make statements to the board during their meetings. Maybe it was sloppy. But it looked sneaky.

In a democracy, sneaky processes are nearly always exposed. And once exposed, nearly always condemned.

It felt like a parent sneaking into the bedrooms of their kids, pulling magazines and books they don't prefer. Once discovered, that will usually prompt a confrontation that leaves no one satisfied.

The public was not solicited, at least not in any formalized way. There was a discussion and vote taken afterwards, but not one in which the public participated. The vote was 5-2. Then it hit the fan.

In the reports on the topic, I didn't see the board suggest substitutes. If you're going to control the curriculum, then control it with positive acts as well as negative. Don't just remove things and leave everyone gasping. Wrecking things is easy to do; it takes no skill. 45 and his band of hoodlums have demonstrated that.

My dad said several times that he never wanted Mad magazine in the house; he thought it was "trash." Which we respected (though we looked at friends' copies in school or snuck a look at the drugstore), until I saw one of my English teachers laughing his head off at it in study hall. Then I didn't care. Mad, which ended not too long ago, had excellent, if cheeky, satire. Yes, it was edgy, but not all humor reflected the corniness of Red Skelton.

I'm a big believer in the power of free speech, but it has to be responsible free speech, or the advantage is lost. Good teaching can guide and even demonstrate the meaning of responsible free speech, and lead with civility instead of insults. We have enough trouble with people saying stupid things without having kids mimic them.

That's the sad part to all this: That it betrays the teachers doing the discussion. This is saying that nobody can teach this well enough to explain and separate the good values from the bad. And that's a shame. If I were a teacher there, I'd be embarrassed and unhappy.

You can be concerned with some books arriving at students' desks; in fact, I praise school board members for caring. But to simply ban them without a vetting, without a review, without asking about it, smacks of a juvenile approach. If a teacher can't give a good explanation, that's one thing, but to deny a chance to defend the decision is quite another.

You know the real test? If nobody laughs at Catch-22. It's filled with irony and trashing of the wartime mentality. And if you can't shake your head at the actual Catch-22, then the book's over your head and it should wait until kids can better understand it. But if it isn't, it's one of the best antiwar books still going.

If you can't react to Invisible Man with sufficient outrage, then you don't have a decent grasp of the meaning of discrimination. Then maybe a good teacher needs to take you aside and enlighten you. If you're a junior or senior, you'd better hurry up, though, since you've got the right to vote coming up and some of the decisions you may have to make are based on the kinds of values that are stated, and sometimes overlooked.

There is much to learn in these works. The Mat-Su school board has apparently backed away from its former position, now that civil rights' groups got hold of the issue and shook it hard. Too bad, because now any discussion about these books are tainted. The right to free speech got waylaid by someone denying it, and that, not the books themselves, became the point of the matter.

One fear was replaced with another. Too bad. A great deal of trust was jettisoned on both sides. Let that be a lesson to someone else contemplating this.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

The Cardinal Has Some Questions

Ooooweeeeeee-weet-weet-weet!

I am a cardinal. I sing my song of life.

I am bright red. They say that's what the Badgers wear: cardinal red. I am proud. I sing loud.

I have been here a while now. It was colder when I came, but I stayed. I'm tougher than you think.

What's going on here? Things are different now. Somebody tell me what's up.

Ooooweeeeeee-weet-weet-weet!

Where has everyone been? I watch as they come out, one at a time now. This street used to be crowded, full of life. They don't smile as often.

There are still some signs. Hopscotch is still played. Kids still draw pictures of fish, of birds like me, of boats, on the concrete. But every time I look, I don't see many.

Something must be wrong. Life is hiding somewhere.

We are not. I am joined by robins and wrens and ravens. Things need cutting now--hair and lawns. Some have done so. Many have not. It looks ragged and unkempt.

People were slow to fill their bird feeders. Hey, that didn't help. We're hungry all the time, you know.

Tulips are up and are lovely. So are the violets. But dandelions are, too, some already white and ready to spread more seeds.

I do not understand. They should be mowed. They get longer by the day, as if no one's left. Part of the neighborhood looks the way it should, part looks like a jungle. Where are the caretakers? Where did they go?

People used to care about it. Now they don't seem to.

I don't, either. I will sing, though. Ooooweeeeee-weet-weet! I sing in trees that now have leaves. Some still do not, but will soon. Do humans come out then? Is that what does it?

I will live. I see some trying.

Some drive by on their bikes now. Some wear masks. I cannot see their faces. But some do not wear them. What does that mean? Are some ashamed? Should some be ashamed?

They walk past book depositories, built like little houses, for those who wish to leave and take some. They are full now, fuller than they have been for some time. It seems as if they have cleaned out supplies they are no longer using. So it is. We will see whether anyone is interested.

I see younger people out and doing what they do. But not so many. It's as if some are careful, some are not. I do not see older folks much. They must be afraid of something.

Does it matter, young or old? Will I see fewer of one and not of another, next spring?

I am confused. Will someone please tell me what's going on?

Oooooweeee-weet-weet-weet!

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Why Has This Country Gone Bonkers? Part 2: Dropping the Fairness Doctrine

We are more divided than ever because we have the outlets to stay divided. Cable TV has provided that.

It's no longer new. Both MSNBC and Fox were created in 1996, and have been at loggerheads ever since. It has created a new kind of journalism, one not that great for the country.

They were given permission in 1987, again at the behest of the Reagan Administration, which, I keep
emphasizing, ruined the country. The Fairness Doctrine, guidelines from the Federal Communications Commission which demanded that both sides of an issue be represented when it's presented, was declared null and void. News delivery would now be a matter of market share.

It brought on the present situation, especially Fox News, the leader in national disingenuousness. It's daytime news division, actually, isn't that twisted: it does, for the most part, report the news directly and without much bias. But it's in its news choice that it differs significantly from its counterparts. And, of course, with its nightly commentators, who are about as detached from the truth as people can be, just to give its viewers something they can rant about.

"We report. You decide" is its motto, which shifts the focus upon the viewer, not the deliverer of news. Whatever Fox reports, therefore, is the truth, and its up to you to do something about it. This populist approach strikes well in the hearts of those who don't question, just accept what's being handed to them.

It's perfect for the lazy thinkers, those quick to draw conclusions and not consider possibilities. It's perfect, too for the 45 supporters who he has targeted and has in his pocket. That's why his support has never gone higher than 50 percent, nor much lower than 40; that's the kind of country we now have.

It was not always so. There were three major networks once: ABC, CBS, and NBC. They all pretty much reported the news the same: the viewership switched to whomever appeared more attractive, trustworthy, or reliable, but the differences between, for instance, Howard K. Smith, Walter Cronkite, and Huntley and Brinkley weren't all that sharply drawn. The lead stories were often the same and the formats were usually very similar as they are today: 22 minutes of reporting, mostly in the field, with the anchor reaching out to those giving the details, with the last three or four minutes devoted to "soft" news, something cultural or quirky to lessen the blow of what the viewer's seen in the bulk of the broadcast. In those terms, the network news isn't much departed from what it was 50 years ago. Deeper analysis usually came from the MacNeil-Lehrer report on public television, which tried hard to be even-handed.

Both cable and network news suffered from sexism to varying degrees. A whole movie, Bombshell, has been made about Roger Ailes' harassment of beautiful blondes working for him. MSNBC has not been afflicted with this problem, to the best of our knowledge, though Matt Lauer had issues when he was at the flagship station.

But can we trust what's being delivered? The half-hour network shows are trustworthy to the extent that they can develop stories; in this age of expanding, 24-7 news cycles, though, they always come up a bit short. 30 years ago, you could be fairly well satisfied that you knew something at the end of the broadcast; now, you're not sure if you really know anything--or, because of the thoroughness of the coverage, whether you want to know anything else about it.

But that can't be laid at the feet of network news anymore. The country has leaned on cable news hard, and has bifurcated because of it. The political spectrum used to look like the python that had swallowed the deer; now it's well flattened and getting fat at both ends. The center isn't nearly as powerful as it used to be because we can't find it anymore.

That's largely because of the internet and the noise that emanates from it. It's time to consider at least a partial public ownership of that entity, to ensure that factual rigor and integrity are given the greatest priority. The sheer volume of nonsense messes with our heads.

Now, you can watch cable news deliver basically the same information in different forms for an hour at at time, starting at 5 a.m. Morning Joe to The Eleventh Hour, you get pretty much the same thing again and again. It's quite the same at Fox starting just before the dinner hour. You can settle in for a whole evening of outrage.

Make no mistake: I prefer MSNBC. They really do stick to the facts. They really do explain how the right-wing news media, Fox among them but not exclusively, tend to obfuscate and exaggerate for effect. I see Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, to give two examples, do the latter, but I don't hear them intentionally mislead. You can count on the same rotating group of talking heads as guests, though, if you tune in to any expanse of three days' worth of reporting. That tends to give it a sameness that's fun to absorb in the short run, but less than satisfying in the long run.

With the Fairness Doctrine, that might not have happened. But its absence is well established now. CNN used to be something of a balancing act between poles, but its well-established feud with 45 has given it a liberal reputation that it didn't formerly deserve. To its credit, it hasn't backed off reporting the news as it sees fit. It still has its integrity, as do the New York Times and Washington Post.

45 lost his temper with Fox again the other day, which indicates that news coverage can only hide so much bias before it has to admit that he's making things up or he's hiding things--which, of course, we know he is and does. That he's getting attention he doesn't deserve is a problem that networks have tried to deal with, most recently the incessantly boring, deflecting and obfuscating press conferences that are said to clarify the government's position on the virus, but are actually designed merely to give 45 a podium where he would normally have none.

More later on this, but the best attention paid to him is none. He only creates damage. He isn't helping anything, not even himself. So I suppose it does serve a purpose, but none that assists the public good. Fact-checking, now inevitable, (try P olitiFact, for instance) serves the purpose that the Fairness Doctrine once did. When you deal with more than 18,000 lies, something must create a new balance.

For what we have here is a forum only to shout at each other. Nothing gets accomplished in that mode, as we all know personally, whether with friends or relatives. It's yet another example of the 'free market' being less than sacred--in fact, being harmful. If the Democrats get back in control--granted, not anywhere near a sure thing--they would do well to return to something like the Fairness Doctrine, to calm people down if nothing else.

This problem will remain, too, after 45 departs--hopefully, this coming January. But when he leaves, he leaves us ruptured and horribly divided. The responsibility is only partly his. He merely exploited the real problem--that structurally, we can do little else but turn toward each other in conflict, not in unity.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

"These Truths": Trying to Lasso a Hurricane

Jill Lepore admittedly didn't know what she was originally taking on when she did the exhaustive research for her discursive, if not necessarily thorough, history of the United States, These Truths: A History of the United States. "I undertook the incredibly delightful and joyful work of learning and writing about many people, events, ideas, and institutions I'd never studied before," she wrote in her acknowledgements. To write a history of this country is always trying to lasso a hurricane. It's too big with too many narratives at once.

And it shows: She goes out of her way to ignore the assassination of one president, James Garfield, without a mention, even though it rubs up against one of the great concepts now being dismantled by 45, civil service reform--and the creation of the Deep State, the embodiment of what, until he took over, kept the necessarily enormous government of our enormous democracy functioning and relatively competent--and covers that of another, William McKinley, with a single phrase of one sentence. She does the Kennedy assassination with a particular emphasis upon the NRA's reaction: to try to prevent the proliferation of automatic weapons, at least in 1963. Only Lincoln's murder, with its thunderous impact upon Reconstruction, is given the kind of attention it deserves.

But she does, in kind of an ongoing, gee-whiz way, also enlighten us with the origins of such things as the idea behind the Secret Service protection of the president, a 'wire service,' the Associated Press, the real name of the Freedman's Bureau, the creation of IBM, the founding of the PTA, the establishment of the League of Women Voters, the idea behind Time magazine, the origin of the word "broadcasting," and, in a detailed telling, the origins of political consulting and polling, both of which, she says, have driven our politics right into the ground.

These things are not vital to the story, but quirkiness that keeps the narrative going. Oddly, though decidedly a liberal but not an uncritical one--she's rather scathing to liberals for their smug abandonment of activism at the end--she pays little attention to the Indian Wars of the post-Civil War era, focusing more on their result, the cultural destruction of indigenous peoples. She would rather focus upon the Trail of Tears, and Andrew Jackson's defiance of the Supreme Court. She certainly discusses the formation of the Constitution, but does not include it in the text or an appendix. Though she does mention that John Brown befriended Frederick Douglass and tried to enlist his active support for his famous but disastrous raid at Harpers' Ferry in 1859 (Douglass took in Brown as a friend and guest but refused active participation, as noted in David Blight's exhaustive biography of Douglass), she does not add that Douglass had to flee for his life for a while before Virginia broke away from the Union in 1861; not satisfied with active sedition, Virginia wanted Douglass' hide as well. And though John Quincy Adams was thoroughly defeated in his attempt at a second term by Andrew Jackson, who never forgave Adams for his "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay to win the presidential runoff vote in the House of Representatives in 1824 (note: don't count 45 out even if he gets beat in November; he can win one more term and you know he's ornery enough if he survives his own poisoning with hydroxycloroquine, if indeed he did so, which I personally doubt), he was greatly respected as an abolitionist, and his funeral in 1848 was very well-attended.

These Truths is far more about the sweeping ideas and the institutions that gave them life. To her credit, she writes simply, in a way that anyone who paid attention in high school and isn't intimidated by the 789-page length. I recall looking up just one word, "capacious," and, if I had paused for a moment, I would have figured out the definition in context anyhow, having capacity. Other histories aren't so kind: The Glory and the Dream, William Manchester's brilliant, enormous opus about America from 1932-72, requires a dictionary close by when he jumps out at you with a word nobody's heard of, except perhaps on the SATs.

Yet, These Truths borrows from one of the Founding Fathers, Hamilton, to develop and maintain a focus through a single question that he posed as the basis for The Federalist Papers: can a people govern themselves through reason? She does not exactly answer that, but she does hint that at this point, a changing of course is necessary, and our generation blew its opportunity to do so. If we have brought on such a ghastly phenomenon as 45, we have some work to do. I'm glad that she noted that the best Obama could do, beyond health care, is prevent the republic from going bankrupt. Besides that, his presidency will be known for being largely symbolic and like a gerbil in a cage, since the Republicans were so good at blocking everything else.

She seems to agree with something I've concluded long ago: That our generation, the baby boomers, blew the country we were handed. Our parents wanted us not to suffer from the same problems that they did: a depression and world war. We dodged both and were handed affluence and opportunities galore. And what did we do with it? Founder in gluttonous self-absorption. Conservatives, with their enormous wealth and now law and courts to protect it, are just as guilty as liberals, who rested on their laurels after Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade, both attacked and diminished almost as they were declared.

We forgot where we came from and that it isn't automatic. The ultimate example of that is now president. We got what we deserved. And now depression's right around the corner, brought to you by neglect at the highest levels.

So she leaves us with 45's election and what it means: That our information-twisted-and-challenged culture, filled with "truthiness," is now fighting itself in ways that seem stuck and immutable. Two narratives have emerged, one less able to be sifted and blended in with the other as we go. We have two nations now, as John Edwards said: but wherever he is, he didn't mean what's happened. One rich, one poor, is what he meant, even more because of Republican meddling in the tax structure, and that's still true. But that's been disguised and smoothed over for now. We are going backwards, as Lepore says, with a narrative that seems to be satisfactory for disturbingly many.

In less than six months, we will decide what to do with that. I wonder whether a new history of the country will have to be written then, or if anybody's proud enough of the result to go to the trouble. As it is, this book is filled with thoughtful reflections and ruminations. As history, it is oddly superficial in terms of facts, but thorough in terms of meaning, another balancing act between facts and truth. It's easy to read yet dense. But it's worth your while.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

Why Has This Country Gone Bonkers? Part 1: Originalism

It's a question that keeps coming back to me, almost by default, as I watch what goes on around me: Why has this country gone bonkers, with so many people so emotional, so irrational, so acting without logic or reason?

It has to explain why we can't arrest this virus. It has to explain why we elected, even by default by the back door, such a horrible president (indeed, why he even got close) and why a considerable percentage of us still cling to his every word. Saying that the facts don't tell you the truth is the easy way out: It means you just get the gist and nothing means exactly what is uttered. We're living, now, in that kind of world. It floats along, waiting the next pronouncement that means nothing.

I think it's three things: anti-intellectualism, phony American exceptionalism, and our geographic position in the world, which used to be a strength but is now a real drawback (all of which will be discussed). We sit here alone, with disrespected connections north and south, neither learning about them nor from them. And the rest of the world is, well, over there, someplace else, where we can't reach them regardless of their relevance or competence.

Instead, we cherry-pick the most authoritarian of them--Hungary and Turkey and Brazil, for instance--and have little or nothing to do with the rest, who used to rely upon us for genuine leadership but now, bitterly, prove that they will get along without us. It didn't take nearly as much as we thought it would to sever their friendship and loyalty. Our badly elected leader never gave them the credit they deserved. Now we drift along, alone, sharing little, learning nothing.

We certainly don't copy anybody near us. Remember not long ago, some twisted guy dressed up like a cop and even made his car up to look like a police car so he could, with an automatic weapon, slaughter more than twenty of his fellow Canadian citizens? Well, Prime Minister Trudeau solved that problem quickly: He issued an edict making automatic weapons illegal. The next person who brandishes one in public, if they're not a member of the military or police, can expect to have to immediately seized. Can anybody imagine doing that here? How many mass shootings can take place without an automatic weapon?

But our obsession with the Second Amendment--the core of the problem--is relatively new. Jill Lepore, author of These Truths: A History of the United States, believes it really began in the late 1980s, when a philosophy called "originalism" emerged. While not being sure who started it--but the Reagan Justice Department cultivated it--it has taken hold and become a discussion topic on nearly all federal court cases since. It's the supposition that there's a way to determine, or at least to come to a ruling because of, the way the Founding Fathers believed a certain kind of case could be decided when the Constitution was first written.

That's absurd. First of all, the meaning of the Constitution has never been carved in stone. If it had been, at least three states--New York, Massachusetts and Virginia--would never have had ratification votes as close as they were; there would have been a greater consensus. The role of the states, the balance of powers among the three branches, were all topics on the table and difficult to ascertain at the time of ratification. To base a current court decision on a concept determined in 1787 or thereabouts is a way to extend a conservative conclusion to a matter that couldn't have been ascertained back then--to take a modern situation and reduce it to a common denominator. It's impossible to do that, but the originalist narrative has taken hold and settled itself inside our jurisprudence.

For instance, because the days of the latter part of the 18th Century involved the frontier, and people really did carry guns with them partly to protect themselves, it's been assumed that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to preserve the right of individual protection. Yet, there's almost nothing written on the subject back then.

Was it destroyed? No, it didn't happen. The conversation back then almost never went there. The original intent of the Second Amendment (read it) was, and still ought to be, the preservation of state militias, or the National Guard, as it is now called. But the Supreme Court has ruled that cities don't have the right to ban handguns within its borders, due to the originalist concept. So guns proliferate, and so do needless deaths and injuries.

But the Republicans got the people on the Supreme Court that they wanted, and that philosophy held. Now the NRA has what it wants--it didn't always want that, by the way--and can feed the gun manufacturers all the support they want. It has run out of money for now, but if 45 is re-elected, trust me, it will make a comeback.

Holding a gun, I can say anything I want, whether I'm in fact someone who wants to back it up or not. Holding a gun, I can make a ridiculous claim about the Constitution and someone will be nearby to listen and support. Holding a gun, I can be as racist as I want to be. Holding guns has changed our culture, and not for the better.

One of these days, there will be a showdown between races, since anyone can own a gun. We don't think of black people wielding weapons, but I don't see why they wouldn't, do you? Then the police will be caught in the middle, and won't be able to side with anybody.

What will happen then? I don't know, but I don't want to be anywhere near it. Thing is, it might be by default. We already know that such a showdown could happen anywhere at any time. If such murders as took place in Georgia the other day keep happening, it will take place sooner rather than later. Anger can only be contained for so long, and this isn't Canada. People like their guns here and they have legal backing.

Because of originalism, a fake concept perpetuated by expert messaging. It is pretentious and absurd. It was created to justify a conservative position that never was.

That's Part 1. Did you expect this to be simple?

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

What If He Gets Sick?

We have to entertain the notion now; it's creeping up all around the creep. What happens if the president gets sick?

It would seem that the 25th Amendment might have to be invoked. It's common knowledge, now, that Covid-19 is, or can be, a debilitating disease, if not a fatal one. It can attack the whole body and put someone in bed for weeks. It can also kill, slowly or quickly. In the meantime, there will be a point at which the victim of a bad dose will be very racked up.

And the disease is particularly unkind to older people (which is why I got tested the other day, and await results, though I don't think I have it. Better to know than not to know.). 45 is in his 70s. He's a prime target.

In his twisted mind, I understand why he wants to appear in front of the press and cameras on a daily basis: He wants to appear indestructible, as poorly as he handles the press. But he doesn't wear a mask because he thinks that implies weakness. He has to mingle with people daily. He gets tested daily. But that doesn't mean (as it doesn't mean the same with me) that he won't get it or can't get it. All it means is that he doesn't have it at that particular moment.

Secret Service agents are getting sick. Aides to the veep are getting sick. The White House is a place of very narrow hallways and cramped offices; the breeding ground is obvious.

We have to be prepared for it. The 25th Amendment is the only constitutional safe haven we have, and looking at it carefully, it really isn't. Again, what is usually implied by the Constitution doesn't have to apply to this president. He will invoke an end run when and where he can.

The staff will be hard-pressed to create excuses for him, but they'll try to do it. It's been done before. I have it on good knowledge, from a late member of Ronald Reagan's Situation Room staff during his second term--and his is a second-hand account--that Reagan spent roughly the last year and a half with clear signs of senility. The public was kept away for the most part. They stood him up when they had to, Sam Donaldson's reports notwithstanding, and got him to the finish line.

But 45 has to campaign this year. What he gets sick and has to campaign? That will be impossible. The lack of public appearances will be obvious now. There's no middle ground with this guy. He's all-in, everywhere, regardless of whether he's wearing people out or not.

Not only that, but this White House has been very leaky. Secrets are never kept. The staffers can't help themselves.

It may be possible for some decision-making to the transferred to Pence without letting 45 know it's being done. His grasp of governmental reach is questionable to begin with, so he not know it's happening. But there will also be a distinct lack of activity; tweets will be reduced and so will routine trips. He's been hankering to get back out on the road to begin with; he sudden withdrawal will be all too obvious.

Somebody will have to take the first step if 45's bed-ridden. As with other amendments, a shorthand version is always at work. Generally speaking, the public believes that if there's any significant evidence that the president is too incapacitated to do his job, the week and the Cabinet can tell Congress that and the veep takes over. But it isn't quite that simple.

The amendment says that the "principal officers of the executive departments or (my emphasis) of such other body as Congress may be law provide" make the decision that the president can't do his job very well and have to turn power over to the veep. There's quite the devil in those details.

Do you think that the Cabinet, appointed as 45's loyal toadies without independent judgment that they can get caught making, will for one minute consider rendering judgment to take their boss' job away from him? Undoubtedly, they'll defer to Congress.

And, there's the notion that 45 has made several members of the Cabinet "appointed", but not official; he hasn't run them past Congress. He can claim that they are, in fact, not Cabinet members, and can be fired or not included at any time--not counted as the principal officers and, therefore, not allowed to participate in the decision. He can simply leave it up to the Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows (from whom we have heard practically nothing), to choose the group, which would likely tilt the decision in his favor.

There will be confusion, which is 45's ballpark. There will be delay, which plays right into his hands. There may be chaos, on which he thrives. Meanwhile, the clock ticks and he might get sicker and sicker, with his already horrible judgment becoming more bizarre by the day.

The Republicans, especially in the Senate where Mitch McConnell can tell his members what to have for lunch, will insist upon an investigation. That will waste more time. Who will conduct it to anyone's satisfaction, especially in light of the shambling pseudo-investigation of Brett Kavanaugh's abuse of Christine Blasey Ford, with vague conclusions by design? It might move forward, but at a snail's pace.

You might as well write off the 25th Amendment as irrelevant, then, except if McConnell sees this as an opportunity to bring at least some government competence into place wth Pence's previous experience, never mind his twisted religiosity. Or, if more federal judgeships are dangling in the mist and he wants someone to sign off on them. Then he'll move.

So no, the 25th Amendment won't do the trick, even if 45 gets sick. The greater fear should be if he gets beat--no sure thing--and refuses to leave office, sick or not. That will be the greater challenge for American democracy, and something that should be discussed ahead of time. Only Bill Maher has dared to bring it up to prospective Democratic candidates, and nobody has directly answered the question. It needs to get answered, and with enough panache to reassure people that this election won't foment an attempted coup d'etat.

More on that later. In the meantime, our sick society will probably get sicker as we wait to hold another sick election. But it's all we have.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

Woke, Fifty Years On

Up to a certain point, I spent most of my college freshman year believing that I'd gone to the wrong place. Last week, fifty years ago (I would have written this last week, but my laptop was in for repairs), that changed abruptly.

I remember it well. My roommate, Scott Langer, came in and said that, just across the way at the Lawrence University Chapel, a politically-charged atmosphere was raging. Speeches were taking place on the chapel steps. Political awareness was reaching a fever pitch.

That was true all over the country as well. It was May 5th, 1970. The day before, four students had been gunned down by National Guardsmen at Kent State, in Ohio. It was a typically cool spring day, partly cloudy.

They, and hundreds of other students, had been protesting President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, which threatened to expand the Vietnam War even though he had promised to wind it down. He said that Cambodia was a place for "sanctuaries" for Communist North Vietnamese troops, and the invasion had to take place to clean them out. The results were predictable: Cambodia, too, eventually fell to Communist forces.

Little did we know, though we discovered it not much later, that bombing of Cambodia had been happening since the year before. Nixon's deception was deep and abiding.

I remember saying to Scott that at a certain point, citizens had to do what was right and speak out against this rotten war, which had now entered its sixth year and was going nowhere. I had supported President Johnson's gradual escalation from my vantage point of Grafton, Wisconsin, because my world was narrow and nowhere near as informed as others had been. But I had been to college for nearly a full year now, and my perspective had changed with more interaction, more information and more chances to absorb them.

It was time to act, or at least tune into those who were acting. I didn't know what would transpire when I grabbed my jacket and headed to the chapel, next door to my dorm of Plantz Hall. I must say I rather surprised myself that day.

I met my girlfriend, her best friend and her boyfriend, a fellow frat brother (they got married eventually), at the demonstration. Political activists were voicing their objections to Nixon's expansion of the war. Suddenly, they proposed that we march right on down the main street of Appleton, Wisconsin, College Avenue, and let people know how we were feeling.

I never hesitated. It was about two in the afternoon, as I recall. Yes, yes, it was time to act, time to get involved, time to be all-in. Nobody flinched. Off we went.

College Avenue widened into four lanes, and we took up the inside two of them. Traffic slowed down, but could pass us in either direction; we weren't going to halt traffic for our concerns, which I think, looking back, could have gotten us thrown in jail. As it was, I thought we'd be in one for sure eventually.

We plunked ourselves down at the intersection of College and Oneida, as central an intersection as there could be. We changed slogans and sang songs. I don't recall exactly how long we were there, but it had to be half an hour at least. We allowed traffic to turn right and detour itself; again, probably why we weren't immediately thrown in jail.

There was some violence. Some of the students, a small number, decided to break some windows. The vast majority of us had nothing to do with them; that wasn't our goal. We needed to make a statement, though, and that we did.

That began a week of intense activism. Eventually, the faculty voted that classes were optional that week so that students who became politically charged could engage in campus-wide activities to raise awareness about the war and the need to stop it. That took place after a candlelight procession that evening, and a student convocation in the chapel the next day.

Of my three classes (we had trimesters with three classes required for each), only one met that week. It was in English, and I attended; no need to make that professor upset. Besides, I liked him, and I liked the subject: It was an English literature course that I had no trouble getting into. The philosophy professor who taught Logic was a radical, and there was no way we would have his classes. The third course was with a sociology professor who had come in from St. Norbert to teach a mass media-connected course. He was really funny and a great lecturer. He wasn't coming in, though, to this very charged atmosphere.

That freed me up to be politically active and a bit daring. I participated in an effort to hold up the draft office by coming in and asking them questions: I always thought that somewhere in the FBI files, my name is still there.

But probably the part of the week that had the biggest impression upon me was something I would continue to do for decades: Canvass the Appleton community to get people to sign a telegram to send to Nixon to stop the invasion. Of course, it had little effect on anything, in the end; the war would slog on with three more years of active American participation. But that wasn't the point back then. We thought that if we could make any difference, at least we ought to try.

We had heard stories about how conservative Appleton was, so even though we were dressed well--I actually had a sport coat on--I wondered how much of a risk I was taking. I remember being pretty nervous at first. But as I got into the day, I found that people were willingly conversant--my approach was respectful, so that may have had something to do with it--and many signed the telegram. Just one visit was unfriendly; a woman who said she had two sons in Vietnam. She didn't keep the door open long enough for me to tell her that I was trying to get them home so she could see them again. I hope she did.

But it was successful, in that I collected a lot of signatures and involved myself in surprisingly deep conversations. People really were bothered by the invasion, and wanted to know more. I felt proud at the end of the day.

I walked away from that experience owning a new attitude: one in which I was, and would be, politicized permanently. I left nothing on the table that week; I did what I could. So did many others.

It informed my eventual declaration of political science as a major, with American politics as an emphasis. It made me look for later opportunities to get involved. It gave me momentum to be a social studies teacher. And it drove my activism within my teachers' union, all the way to Washington, DC itself for six years.

I was no longer just a jock. I was an activist. I wasn't just a college student anymore; I was a citizen.
This blog is a way of extending it.

Fifty years on, we are now in the grip of another awful president who leverages his power cruelly and with little care for others. I'm going to stay woke and stay involved. I'm not sure what kind of a country we actually have left, but I'm going to help to save it for my nieces and nephews. Onward.

Be well. Be careful. With a little luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark

Republicans in Wisconsin? Sucking A Little Wind

I don't know if anybody's noticed, but Wisconsin Republicans don't look so good anymore. Suddenly, things have gone downhill.

Their chickenshit stance on the election, disguise as macho--making people stand out in the rain, with virus all around, and so the number of urban polling place are reduced so to play toe percentages and give themselves the beset possible chance of victory for a bad incumbent in the state Supreme Court race--backfired horribly, losing by eight percentage points. The memory of Robin Pos dressed like Spaceman Spiff resonates.

Then there effort to involve that same court in twisting Governor Tony Evers' arm behind his back and make him open up the state completely, despite the pandemic, has hit an interesting kind of wall. The case was heard last Tuesday, now eight days ago. The conservatives still hold, however briefly, a 5-2 edge. Funny that a decision's taken this long. Could it be that they don't know what to do when confronted by--as incumbent candidate Daniel Kelly tried to keep insisting he relied upon--the plain language of the statutes?

What's taking them so long? Cat got their tongues? Do Rebecca Bradley and ImPatience Roggensack suddenly have a problem, once they actually looked at the law and realized that freedom, in this case, means death to hundreds of stupid people?

The governor has stuck to his guns. Despite tragedies at food-packing plants in Green Bay and Janesville-Beloit, the numbers of ill and dead, though awful, remain low for a state of this size. His metaphor of 'turning the tail instead of flicking a switch (perhaps borrowed from Minnesota, whose governor uses the same terminology, or vice versa) is proving to be one of the few calming gestures amidst a culture constantly on the edge.

Plus, simply, it's smart and defuses Republicans angst, genuine or otherwise. A consensus is developing here and elsewhere that, however we may reopen the economy, we have to do it smartly to give everyone the chance to enjoy life again. Allowing retail to open with no more than five customers in a store cuts close to honoring that consensus. (And it says here that those businesses should adapt the Costco Concept and prevent anyone from entering without a mask. Whining will ensue, briefly. Then people will get on with it.)

The calendar also work in Evers' favor. We know have less than two weeks left in the extension of the Safe At Home restrictions that Republicans have railed against. Each day that the state supreme court delay its decision makes that decision more moot, and makes Evers appear genuinely statesmanlike. Vos can scream bloody murder about regional openings and the need to open up the whole state, but with each hour that moves toward Memorial Day, it rings more hollow.

Without Mr. F. Gow--most recent former governor of Wisconsin, in initials--at their back, to clean up and legitimize their radicalism, Wisconsin Republicans appear rudderless and out on a limb. They look worse by the day. Tony Evers has taken their legislative advantage and shunted it aside with deft, measured moved designed to exude calm as well as deal with this terrible disaster, fomented on us by a clueless, horrible president who, day-by-day, fits the walking definition of "useless."

More on that later. In the meantime, it's been fun to see meanness turned into mush, into empty grumbling. Gerrymandering will be with us a while, so we must celebrate small victories when we can get them.

And they will never be one-sided in this, perhaps the ultimately purple state. The northernmost, most rural Congressional District, the 7th, has just elected a climate change objector by 15 points. But the margin for 45 in 2016 was 20. That five percent may be the difference this time around. Their second thoughts may yet save Wisconsin--and, perhaps, the republic. But it looks nowhere near as dismal as it did four years ago.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark