Let's Step Back for A Minute: Racism's Losing

Taken in order, Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal would seem like a severe setback for social justice advocates. And by itself, it's certainly out there, isn't it?

But in the last few days, racism has suffered a deep blow, one that should resonate across Thanksgiving tables today and other venues tomorrow. For while Rittenhouse's verdict would seem to vindicate vigilantism, the reasons behind it--lack of respect for appropriately applied law and order and white supremacy--caught two whacks upside the head.

I'm talking about, of course, the verdict in the lawsuit brought by opponents to the "Unite the Right" demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, four years ago, and the guilty verdict in the murder case of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia.

The perpetrators in Virginia stand to lose a lot of money, even if every single part of the suit was not ruled to apply. They will appeal, naturally, so the actual, final delivery of the money might take additional years to transact--kind of like the four years it took to get these monsters in front of a jury. And it will not shut them up; they will do the same blame act they always have.

But the publicity surrounding the civil trial cannot be diminished. The First Amendment, thank goodness, has its limits. I am a strong advocate for that sacred document, but when it is used as a weapon to torture in the name of hate, it is a form of abuse that cannot be tolerated.

The three white murderers of a black man, just for jogging in a neighborhood they did not prefer, was, as Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post said the other day, a lynching. They tried to hide behind the law, stipulating that they were making a "citizen's arrest" of a potential burglar, one who had entered an abandoned house--isn't that what calling 9-1-1's supposed to be about? And the police had been called by someone else--but that found no traction. Like many of their type, they were trying to dial the clock back to 1960, even accusing black preachers of intimidating the jury with their presence,  but lots of litigation has gone under the bridge by now. 

But the case had parallels in Kenosha. A gun was involved. The gun toter in Georgia also believed that the deceased was trying to take the gun away and potentially use it on him, so he shot first, claiming self-defense. So is this about guns, or race? Both contain poison in their usage.

We'll never completely know. All the people involved in Kenosha were white, though the deceased were demonstrators protesting the shootings of black men. The deceased in Georgia was black. Eleven of the 12 jurors were white. The district attorney in Brunswick County, Georgia had shown deference toward one of the accused, said the New York Times (and a grand jury), but she was defeated for re-election. The prosecution was made by the district attorney's office of Cobb County, where Atlanta lies.

Again, the verdict will be appealed. A lawyer for one of the guilty in Georgia plans to file for a new trial. Well, anyone can file for something. But again, it takes a serious breach of protocol and process for an appellate court to erase the verdict of 12 people and start over. And note, too, that the judge, Timothy Walmsey, went out of his way to avoid making a spectacle of himself, as opposed to the bizarre eccentrism and grandstanding of Judge Bruce Schroeder in Kenosha.

But the word is out now: Racism will have stronger legal ramifications. Atticus Finch's famous courtroom speech in To Kill A Mockingbird resonates with many of us, but the unfair guilty verdict was in the minds of the jury before that ever happened. Not today, not at least in some places. And badly inspired by ex-, many racists and white supremacists will continue to spew their hate. But sometimes, it seems as if the tide is turning.

It's a big country, and it's easy to get discouraged when things don't turn out well. But racism seems to be losing now, and while it will take a long, long time to right the ship of justice, it still seems to be sailing along despite the choppy seas. Let us hope it continues.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster shot. Happy Thanksgiving. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

These People Are Relentless: Even Trying to Fool You About Ornaments

When I was spending significant time in Washington, DC, with both the NEA Board of Directors and the NEA Executive Committee, I found a shop belonging to the White House Historical Association. It sells lots of commemorative historical items, which are well made and meant to increase pride in being an American.

When my days ended, I decided that probably the best way to extend nice memories was to purchase the White House Commemorative Christmas Ornament, the development of which began in 1989, upon the 200th anniversary of George Washington's inaugural presidential year. Each year, the 'next' president is honored with some kind of designation on the ornament reminding us of his presidency. All of them are classy, ornate, complex and quite beautiful. They look great on anyone's tree.

My Christmas tree has filled up with them--I really don't need any other kinds--as well as others commemorating the first meetings of Congress or the building of the White House itself. You can also go back to the beginning and get all of them at once. They are also sold in groups of five. We haven't always had terrific presidents, as you well know, but their commemorative Christmas ornaments are worth having.

By this year, the succession has come to Lyndon Johnson. The ornaments are terrific. I make sure to get one for special people in my life as well as myself. They aren't cheap, but the value remains great.

Being too far away now, I don't go to the shop in DC to get them, as I used to and just put them into the luggage. You can order them online, of course. Any self-respecting business has a means of access.

So do businesses that aren't quite so respectful. If you aren't careful, you could wind up contributing to ex-'s campaign, or so it appears. These people are relentless. They even try to pry your money out of you unwittingly under the auspices of patriotism at Christmas--which, I would guess, lots of people have already fallen for, as I nearly did myself.

When you type "White House Historical Association" into your browser, it isn't the first thing that comes up on the selection page. Actually, the real website is at least two titles down, if not more. The top title says "2021 White House Holidays Ornt--Purchase Your Ornament Today." Looks genuine, right? Sounds like the same. It isn't. You have to be sure that the listing of the website address is the one you want. This one wasn't, but it sounded like it could be.

If you open it, it has that same genuine feel. You can click right on an icon of the ornament itself and, of course, the website takes you right there--for $34.95. The real White House Historical Association, though, doesn't charge $34.95 for its ornaments. Instead, it charges ten dollars less, $24.95.

So where do those extra ten dollars go? That would be a good question. If you continue down the first site, though, you begin to get a sinking feeling that this doesn't have much to do with history--it has everything to do with fund-raising.

A few pages into the site, there are items promoting ex-'s supposedly upcoming 2024 campaign. Now, in no place at any time have I ever seen the actual White House Historical Association promote anyone's political efforts. But here's a classic bait-and-switch: As long as you're here, why not buy that stuff, too? And where does that money go?

If it should happen to find the coffers of ex-'s re-election campaign, I wouldn't be surprised in the least. I can't know for sure, of course, and I don't have the resources of a great media organization. But I'd certainly like one of them to check it out.

Is this illegal? I would bet not. I would bet that someone's lawyers have done the appropriate research and know the fine line between copying someone's site and getting close. But if it nearly fooled me, and I'm not that gullible, it certainly fooled others who want nothing to do with politics at Christmas. And who's going to take them to court?

Thing is, it's sneaky. There are other historical items in the selections, some of which are also on the White House Historical Association's site. I was also looking for a particular book, though, which this phony site didn't have. That got my attention, because I was sent a catalog in which it was displayed. 

Again, the phony site is listed on the web page first. You have to scroll down to get the actual White House Historical Association site. The genuine site has a copyright emblem attached to it, but people aren't always paying attention to that.

If you are just looking for ornaments, you could be easily tricked, especially if you hadn't bought anything on the real site before. You could also be, by paying inflated prices, giving a donation to ex-. You might like that. You also might not.

If this is all going to his coffers, or any part of it, it is folly to assume that he doesn't know about this. He is the ultimate control freak. He thinks all of us are chumps, even his friends for believing in him when all he's about is himself. He is insidious and conniving. He'll get the last dime out of anybody and everybody he can. Ethics ceased to matter long ago.

They really are nice ornaments. Just don't go for the first website listed. Scroll down just a little. You'll stay non-partisan, and contribute to a piece of history that ought to remain so. Don't be fooled when you get presents for those you care about, so the source isn't someone who doesn't care at all about you or anyone.

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

Mister Mark

The Brown Shirts: Will They Return?

When I heard of Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal on all counts against him, I thought of the rallies and protests surrounding ex-'s inauguration in January, 2017. You remember--the one with the pink knit hats pushing back against his claims that he could grab women by the, uh, you know.

Hundreds of thousands of 'woke' folks hit the streets back then. I was an active participant in Madison as a staffer with AFSCME.

Of course we did it. We exercised our sacred First Amendment rights against an awful decision the country had made--to elect a completely amoral person as president. He was as bad as we imagined he would be, and he nearly got another four years to boot.

Expect much less of that from now on. We now know that the automatic weapon was not brought in from a neighboring state. I'm not sure, outside of filing more charges, what difference that made in the end. It was still utilized under the auspices of 'protecting the realm' and used it after others responded, one with a weapon of his own.

Next time, what's to prevent the guy with the pistol, who paid with his life, from firing it first? Would you wait? What's to prevent a showdown and a shootout in the street right then and there?

Next time, what's to prevent a whole bunch of other people--whether police arrive on time or not may not matter--with automatic weapons from gathering together, rushing protestors and scattering them like ants, even though they otherwise would have a perfect right to be there? What's to prevent the people with weapons from dressing similarly, identifying them as supporters of someone, each other, or both--even getting uniforms?

That's what the Nazis did in the early 1930s. They created a 'people's army'--the S.A., or the Brown Shirts--and rode around in open-backed trucks, yelling at anyone they didn't like. Yell back, and they stop the truck, pile out, and pile on the protestor. The police, similarly politicized under the facade of 'law and order,' would look the other way. They practiced active racism and those in the way paid the price. The result would be general, enforced silence--just the way they like it.

I don't see the effects of Kyle Rittenhouse's verdict being much different. As I have written, the Supreme Court is soon to rule upon a law in New York which clarifies the right of anyone to carry a weapon outdoors anywhere, anytime. With that in effect, either protestors will have to be sure to form their own militias or at least make sure there are a representative number of people there who are similarly armed and have firepower to match those who object to them.

Tell me, if you would, that nothing will happen. Tell me, if you would, that the perpetrators of real trouble and real violence would be easily sorted out, arrested and dealt with appropriately. The American Revolution began at Lexington, where the colonists first faced the British with weapons. Someone fired a shot. We still don't know who, or what side he was on. The 250th anniversary of that event takes place four years from now.

Again, let me repeat: the police would, and now probably will, have to make choices about whose weapons they would assist. Otherwise, there would have to be enough of them to disarm everyone at the scene. It says here that from now on, that task may prove to be impossible. The National Guard would have to be called out more often, not less, and that is how you become a police state.

The total effects of this will be to suppress progressives from exercising their perfect right to protest. By their very nature, they would not be the ones to bring guns to their events. The other side would, and would bring plenty of outsized weapons to get people to go home. One or two kinds of these confrontations would make progressives back way, way off. And the right-wing monsters, those begging for support from ex-, would take complete control, would need to be in control to show ex- how great they were. Bragging rights, in other words.

If you doubt this, read Max Boot's opinion essay in The Washington Post today. Perhaps that will be evidence enough. The Republican Party has sold out on authoritarianism wherever it may lead, and it almost always leads to violence.

Yes, this sounds scary. You can explain away the verdict all you want, but it's the core message that it sends to those who crave power that matters most. The next time some kind of social justice demonstration happens, we will see how well that message has resonated.

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

Mister Mark

The Rittenhouse Trial: Can Cooler Heads Prevail, Now and in the Future?

The buzz surrounding the Kyle Rittenhouse trial centers around his emotional breakdown on the stand. So many see that as crocodile tears--that, in effect, he was faking it. They compare his reaction to that of Brett Kavanaugh, who shed comparable tears while under attack at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate.

I disagree. The two are not the same, although the effects of the two might be: to make both look like unwitting victims, overwhelmed with false accusations.

Go back and consider the order in which the tears flowed. Kavanaugh's so-called emotional outburst took place after the first break in the questioning. The conjured crying happened after he'd been briefed and, apparently, told to go back in there with obnoxious, ferocious intent to show his supporters he was tough enough to withstand the attacks (ironically, but one can be so angry as to cry, which is a rather feminine response to an attack reflecting feminism, so there's that).

Rittenhouse's tears came up on him before his lawyers had a chance to roust him off the stand and let him catch his breath. Consider, also, the ages of the accused: Kavanaugh in his early 50s, Rittenhouse only 18.

Both were understandably scared, but Rittenhouse had, and has, a right to be far more scared than Kavanaugh. Should the latter have not survived muster, at least he still had a job, and rather prestigious one at that--an appellate judge. Life would have gone on pretty much as before.

Not Rittenhouse. He has years in jail ahead of him if convicted. He has his freedom for most of his adult life at stake. He has no basketball coaching of daughters to fall back on. After refusal, Kavanaugh still could have gone to the local 7-11 to get milk for his kids; Rittenhouse won't be able to think about that until, possibly, 2060 or so. Big, big difference.

We caught Rittenhouse at the moment when it all came crashing down upon him--the killings, the possibility of prison and the end of life as he knew it, the possible futility of maintaining his story about it since it had been captured on film. You don't fight your way out of trouble at age 18 very easily; you just don't have the savvy. It's not quite the same as hanging around in bars, bragging your fanny off about what you did.

So Rittenhouse's tears seem more genuine. Do I feel sorry for him? Not in the least. He did what he did. Two people are dead at his hand on an evening that he should have been home in Illinois with his video games, and he has to live with that. The problem is that the laws of Wisconsin might allow him to get away with it. That his lawyers let him expose his pathetic self on the stand may be deft or it may be a major mistake; 12 people have the unenviable duty to decide that.

As of this writing, the gun possession charge has been dropped, but that was the most minor of the offenses. That might mean that Kenosha County's prosecutors have a weakened case; it might mean that in the big picture, that charge is universally accepted as rather pointless, not worth the court's time.

That doesn't mitigate the nonsense he and his mother are trying to foment, though--namely, that he was trying to defend himself. That ignores, and willfully so, the fundamental question I haven't heard anybody utter from the very beginning of his sordid business: What in blue blazes was he even doing in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with a loaded automatic rifle that he'd gotten from someone else? 

He didn't live there. He wasn't responsible for the defense of the city. He wasn't a police officer. He wasn't a member of the National, or even someone else's, Guard. It wasn't even in his state. If things were that serious, why didn't dozens, even hundreds, of other minors from Illinois have their moms drive them north and comprise a citizen's army of protection of businesses they never patronized?

The results of all this could be very frightening indeed. They could encourage vigilantism if Rittenhouse is  freed from any remaining charges. They could result in people of color bringing also weapons with them to future protests in anticipation of that same vigilantism. Nothing good can come of that.

Consider, also, that the subject of the Kenosha protests, Jacob Blake, actually was committing criminal behavior when shot by a police officer last June--childnapping. "He's got my kid. He's got the keys." said a woman when a police officer approached, wrote the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel back in September, three months after the incident. A George Floyd-type myth of relative innocence had been created, more victimization of people of color by police established, and it skewed all reactions to this point. 

The reports about the children in the car were accurate. Police attempted to taser him before opening fire. We were left with the belief that the police officer overreacted when he shot Blake seven times and paralyzed him, with inherent racism hanging over it all. Now, we are left wondering whether it was ever the issue, and if not, why we didn't know those vital details months ago, and concluding that though something looked the same as an earlier transgression, it was merely someone doing his regrettable duty.

Now, I may not be sufficiently 'woke' about this, but I can't imagine a more compelling job by police than to protect kids from harm. That's what was happening. It may have looked the same as George Floyd, but in actuality, it wasn't at all. George Floyd was helplessly lying on his stomach on the street, handcuffed securely; there's no reason that officer needed to kneel on his neck for a single second. Jacob Blake was foolishly reaching for a knife. 

It also means that the ability to remain relatively cool-headed and wait for details has nearly been eclipsed with finger-pointing and jumping to conclusions in a racially tense atmosphere. It still, though, doesn't sufficiently explain why Kyle Rittenhouse found it necessary to bring a loaded automatic weapon to a town he was not familiar with, in a state in which he did not reside, to illicitly create order when it was clearly impossible to do so by attaching himself, however loosely, to some extralegal, racist, vigilante group that talks big but couldn't do it, either. Either way, he's just a kid who made rash decisions to enter a world far too big for him.

A desire to fulfill 'law and order' has come full circle for Rittenhouse. The jury will now discuss whether the law can be utilized to protect him or condemn him. The judge has given the jury room to convict Rittenhouse on lesser charges than first-degree murder; it increases the chance that he will serve prison time. 

The combination of this decision with a Supreme Court ruling, now pending, as to whether people should be allowed to walk around with weapons regardless of the situation--Wisconsin allows open carry--may accelerate a gun-toting culture beyond anyone's ability to subdue it. Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has called out 500 members of the National Guard to stand by to support local law enforcement. Once again, cooler heads need to prevail. Once again, it's becoming more doubtful that they will.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster, as I did last week. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

In 39 Pages, A Significant Rebuke

I read Judge Tanya Chutkan's 39-page opinion on ex-'s attempt to get papers and records regarding the insurrection of January 6 from being released. It comes down to one, simple thing: It doesn't matter if he's been president, even recently. Congress wants information, and Chutkan believes it deserves it.

Ex-'s claim of executive privilege is not ridiculous, at least not on its face. Such claims by former presidents can last for 12 years. But there has to be compelling reasons that overcome the public's (that is, Congress') need to get information. Which is to say: a former president's reasons for keeping things secret must be more important that Congress' desire to potentially make new laws based on them.

But that assumes that the former president's wishes take precedence over the one presently in office. That is never automatically true. The present president must consider a former president's request of executive privilege and becomes the balancing factor. If the former thinks the national interest is better served, he can acquiesce and keep the latter's papers and effects under wrap for up to those 12 years.

But if not, well, tough beans. Which is what Joe Biden basically said. He think we're better served by knowing things that got or might have gotten planned by ex- and associates regarding January 6. And he gets to say so first.

There are a number of presuppositions that ex- predictably made in even filing the suit:

1. Being a former president is equivalent to being the actual president. Nope, said Chutkan, that's never been true. Joe Biden is the director of the Executive Branch now, and has control over all presidential records, past and present. He gets first dibs on them. If he says they should be released, they will be.
2. A president should have perpetual control over his presidential records. Coming from him, a predictable hyperbole. That's not what the law says, though I'm guessing that's what he'll claim if and when this gets to the Supreme Court. (Once again, throwing whatever he can at a court to see if something sticks.)
3. The revelation of information of past presidents unnecessarily compromises the country. Well, that's for the present president to decide, said Chutkan. Besides, Ronald Reagan provided records on Iran-Contra, George W. Bush on 9/11, and Richard Nixon was, of course, forced to reveal his Watergate tapes--the foundation of Chutkan's decision. Ex- doesn't get to say anything about that anymore because he's no longer the president. Besides, it's what he did, in total and in parts, that has compromised the country.
4. Congress has to prove that what it seeks will lead to passable laws, and be specific about them. No, it doesn't. What it has to prove is that there's a compelling interest in discovery, and laws are possible. How can they tell the content of laws they might pass if they don't have information leading to them? Besides, if new laws regarding the counting of electoral votes and security surrounding the Capitol, aren't "necessary and proper (quoting the Constitution's Section 1)" in this instance, they never will be.
5. Congress can get the information it seeks elsewhere. But ex-'s lawyers don't say where. That's because those sources exist only theoretically, not actually. If they knew where, they would say so and point it out so that Congress could be about its business. The only source for the president's planning and plotting come from the president himself. He wants to keep those a secret. Chutkan says he can't. (I think this is something they just threw in there, knowing it's nonsense.)
6. Congress is harassing him. No, it isn't. It would if personal issues were the ones requested, perhaps. But his "activities, deliberations, and decision making in his capacity as President," is what's being sought. That's just whining, and we are sooooooo used to that.
7. The requests are overly broad. No, ex- doesn't get to decide that. Joe Biden does. And Joe Biden's approval of the requests mean that executive privilege need not be invoked. Done.
8. There is a 4-part test for invoking documents. One part, or any combination of parts, can supersede the others. Well, okay, but inapplicable here, because--see above--Joe Biden wants these documents turned over to Congress and revealed to the public. "The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself," said the present White House counsel.

The Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed, for now, release of the documents, scheduled for today. The delay is frustrating and plays into ex-'s strategy to manipulate the courts to stall until something else can be planned. Of course, if he loses in appeal, it will go to the Supreme Court, which will decide whether to expedite its hearing--or not, making us wait that much longer, reducing the impact either way. 

It's just another way of saying it's too terribly bad that this awful person has ever been president--because he has control of some levers that he shouldn't have, including papers and effects that will be eventually be studied and analyzed. Those are privileges for someone who deserves them. He never should have gotten them in the first place. 

But his latest extralegal machinations, like those designed to overturn an election he fairly lost, will also run out. He will be left designing some kind of messaging making him the victim, not the additional loser in an additional battle he never should have had. We cannot simply cast him aside, try though we might. We must reckon, here too, with what we have wrought. 39 pages later, we're still left with that, despite the significant judicial rebuke.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster like I have. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Brian Williams: Sneaky Slot, Large Impact

I'm going to miss Brian Williams. Far often than he knows, he ended my day on a note of hope or an energetic defiance of policy based on nonsense.

Tuesday night, he announced that he was leaving NBC, most specifically his late night show "The 11th Hour" on MSNBC, at the end of this month. He's apparently going to explore different venues, and his talents, stuck in a way at the end of each evening, will have a chance to return to their previous status.

That's because of an act of hubris committed some years ago, when he for some reason felt he had to exaggerate the danger under which he traveled to get stories from Iraq. One wonders why that was, but he was removed from his flagship assignment, anchoring NBC's network evening news, and placed in a purgatory of afternoon (mostly) cable TV journalism, where his contract could be fulfilled but few would complain that he was having much impact.

His ego had to have been deflated. Yet, he set about re-creating his career from the bottom up. Once broken, trust takes far longer to be restored than to shatter. Note that he did not resign. He bit the bullet, accepted the consequences of his error and soldiered on. 

Gradually, he re-earned some credibility. In 2016, MSNBC game him a chance to redeem himself, if only late at night, where he could be jettisoned permanently if he messed up again. But the show seemed made for his puckish humor; dependable, informative guests who leaned left; and the use of facts to illustrate things that were decent or those that were awry that took more than cleverness. They were ways to demonstrate, without his actual commentary, that the world was changing and not always in good ways.

That his show was the day's last live broadcast and provided MSNBC with ballast to end each weekday's coverage. The stories Williams provided were very often repeats of things that others--Nicolle Wallace, Ari Melber, Joy Reid, Chris Hedges, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell--had already handled. There are, after all, only so many 'lead' stories per day. But with the guests he asked on and commentary that only he could provide, he seemed to wrap up the day in a way few others could. He had regained an enormous podium, but normally used exampling by action, and not with mere words. Far more often than not, it's as much how he pointed things out as what he said about them that made sufficient points, and provided his unique stamp. Here's one viewer that appreciated that and far more often than not, stayed up to absorb it.

He also anchored election coverages, for instance, being magnanimous to introduce and feature new voices, especially those of women, into the explanations of why things were happening. Mansplaining is something I never heard him do, not even subconsciously. He got out of the way of female talent and let it take over. But then, he was happy to be there, happy to be still working. That humility shown through, too, and seemed to maintain his perspective so he never again got out in front of himself.

But it's that voice, that demonstrative but calming voice, that I will miss the most. His tone was illustrative. When things were important, it could tell you so. When someone else tried to make them important but they really weren't, his jabs at such pomposity (especially by ex-, whose pathetic presidency was made for Williams) brought my grins and chuckles. But humor was never the major point: He is, has been, and will remain worried about the discourse of viewpoints in America.

Meanwhile, his Nightly News anchor position had been filled with an equally authoritative Lester Holt, who has nailed down that spot and become another dependable daily source. Williams knew he couldn't return to what he had had removed. He needed not only to be forgiven, but a venue with which to demonstrate that he deserved it. 

"The 11th Hour" became a settled-in part of MSNBC's daily bulwark of information for progressives to absorb, knowing that the incessant pounding of that kind of reportage had to be there to resist Fox News and its efforts to provoke resentment and anger at every turn. It became kind of a sneaky slot, ripe for development, and Williams took maximum advantage of it.

Within that show, he could once again demonstrate what being a thought leader could and should be: Based on fact, sufficiently assertive at any moment, but always reserving something for a follow-up that might not be necessary, but might then again be. Some control must govern all commentary. You know plenty and you've seen plenty, but you never know what's coming next. Crazy can never win out.

Williams knows that the cause goes on and he can and will be replaced. "The 11th Hour" was built around him, but he can let it go now. It has become bigger than him, as he noted in his comments last night. He has rebuilt his integrity, but there's nowhere else to rise. Even this late in his career, inertia won't deepen its grasp. 

He's 62 now, and could just fade away. But I doubt that he will. He has, reportedly, nothing lined up right now, but he's in a spot where he can watch for his next opportunity.

For the moment, he will now go it alone in a career that has seen its rises and falls. I'm guessing money isn't the issue; it's more the need to make one's own voice matter more than filling an 11 (or 10, in the Central Time Zone) p.m. slot so NBC Universal didn't totally waste his considerable talent. Were I to be fortunate enough to meet him, my message would be: Don't be a stranger.

It will be strange, though, to tune into MSNBC at 10 p.m. and know that the page has turned. But the relentlessness of time engulfs us all. Whoever takes over his time slot will have big shoes to fill.

Progressives like me will miss his viewpoint, blended into the stories he wished to expose and garnished with sometimes edgy analysis. But late night's often about that. He turned the tables on it, as he did to rescue himself from a career than threatened to run into the ditch.

So long, Brian. Godspeed you on your way. Thanks for great journalism and the nightly knowledge that I could go to sleep confident that the world hadn't quite (as of yet) turned itself inside out.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster shot, like I am today. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Adam Schiff: He Can Write, Too. And Warns Us.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall any Republican legislator writing about the existential crisis our democracy is presently going through. I don't recall any of them being on record as saying that this, in part and/or whole, is somehow a good thing.

That's because in demonstrable areas, they're winning: the voter restrictions they've managed to introduce in states like Georgia and Texas have yet to be tested, though they look pretty formidable. And there's the fact that Republicans, still cowed by the monster they've created, don't want to say much, do much, or certainly write much that can be quoted by an exquisite liar and name-caller. California Congressman Adam Schiff has pulled off the road by writing Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could, and reminds us how tenuous it all was and still is.

We dangle near the cliff of autocracy. Its shadow engulfs us. We will not leave it soon or easily. Too many Republicans have lost their compasses and prefer what they believe to be lasting power to the shifting winds of the people's preferences, the insecurity and fickleness of which have, ironically, borne us forward these past 234 years. They do not see that they have been invited to someone's table not to share the feast, but to be feasted upon. Their disposability is the same as that of the Democrats'. Once they are not needed anymore--looking at you, Kevin McCarthy, the ultimate cat's paw--they will be jettisoned. The difference is that they are blinded by hopes of perpetual control and somehow believe they will share in the glory.

Schiff's book may eventually be hailed as the definitive text of how this gained sufficient momentum to disrupt democracy and make it largely irrelevant. He has written his account of the lead-up to, and implementation of, the first impeachment of ex-. He again walks you through the stages of discovery, the mistakes he himself made--minor glitches in the big picture--and the irrational Republican resistance by such paragons as Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, John Radcliffe, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, the dissembling Mitch McConnell and of course, ex- himself. I still wonder how they can sleep at night.

The Republicans, of course, want us to forget all about this, want us to think of it as tourism gone briefly wild, want us to think of it as a blip on the radar screen. But Schiff sees this clearly, sees it for what it is: an existential threat to our way of life, whether a working majority of the country sees it likewise or not.

He allows the idealism, his and that of others, to be played out, but is no gee-whiz, aw-shucks purveyor of reality: He understands full well the danger under which we now live. The title itself tells you how he feels about it. Of course, he's absolutely correct. We may indeed be watching a slow-motion coup here, the sudden attempted one having barely failed.

Schiff brings back the awfulness by which ex- intimidated, or tried to intimidate, brave witnesses who did not give up on America: Alexander Vindman, the tragically compromised Marie Jovanovich, Fiona Hill, William Taylor. To read it again is particularly painful, but important to revisit and remember. Schiff makes sure that Vindman's words, once uttered, follow you through the remainder of the text: Here, right matters.

Schiff hammers us with that phrase again and again, reminding us of where we've been while fully clear-eyed about the simple fact that for an alarming percentage of Americans, actual facts matter little now. The sources of information or mis-information matter more. When that happens, nothing is true and everything is true. We become frozen in place, unable to act and most vulnerable to a siren who shouts easily absorbable but lying nonsense, stirring up anger uselessly.

Does right matter now? Or do simple numbers determine that? If it is the latter, we are surely in peril. If everything is political, the day will soon come when nothing needs to be political anymore. There will be one lie, one pseudo-truth, and someone's alternative reality will be the only thing that matters at all. It isn't mere speech, protected by law: When it is accepted by the body politic, it is a form of extortion, and Republicans are caving into it at enormous speed.

Schiff writes well and begins the book by taking you to the House chamber as the hoards descend upon it on January 6. It's revisiting a chilling scene, but the record of it is vital. I still believe that because the rogue House members who met with ex- on December 19 to extend their undying fealty to him and arrange, as much as they could, the compromise of the chamber itself, did not themselves know the place to which they would be taken for safety because of the unprecedented nature of the event. Had they known that and revealed it to the organizers of the riot through ex-, who clearly orchestrated it (or so says The Washington Post in an important three-part expose' written the week before last), there would have been a blood-letting of immense proportions, and the coup might indeed have succeeded. 

But the insurrectionists got to both chambers, found them empty by mere minutes, and had no other guidepost, so the attempt died right then and there. It was that close, because the mechanism by which the National Guard could have, and should have, responded by then had been stonewalled by those controlling the levers, anointed and supported by ex-, and sufficient help had not yet arrived. Had they found those rooms, many more people would have died, and ex- could have claimed far more martyrs to his 'cause' than just Ashli Babbit, whose fanaticism cost her her life. Many of them should be glad that all it has come to is a few brief prison terms.

Schiff, of course, survived and became the lead House manager of ex-'s first impeachment trial. That he litigated and spoke brilliantly is part of the point of this work, make no mistake: He's still a politician, and the smiling picture he displays on the inside of the jacket is almost a ruse. There's little here to smile about, and he knows it. But pol that he is, he won't frown unless he has to.

Because any well-known politician, especially on the national level, writes a book for a well-known reason: He's planning to move on up. His name resonates in too many households now, and the House of Representatives now seems a little crowded for him. His dislike of ex- is deservedly well-documented, but in terms of criticism, that's low-hanging fruit. It feels like he's holding back on people such as Nunes and the ever-notorious Rudy Giuliani. Some powder stays dry.

Katie Couric he's not. Tawdriness is left for others. In the popular vernacular of the day, he stays in his lane. The only "reveal" is that, with all the long days and nights of preparation, with the country and world staring at him and hanging on his every word at the trial and knowing his side would lose the vote pretty much ahead of time, he did all that with a horrible toothache, one that rejected a first fix and needed a root canal when all was finished. I've had three of those, and the only rational thing I could do while waiting for treatment was breathe. He got by on Advil and determination. That's a toughness few have.

Schiff has three choices of advancement, electorally: governor of California, U.S. Senator, or president. I hope, for his sake, that it isn't the latter. As unquestionably brilliant as he is, Schiff gives off a patrician air, and comes by it naturally: B.A. from Stanford, law degree from Harvard (a particular devotee of Laurence Tribe), and likes to relax by staring out into the sea and riding horses. His diet is disciplined. 

His manner. borrowing from both coasts, comes off as slightly unctuous. He reminds me a bit of John Kerry, another good man easily smeared, stereotyped and cornered by his background. Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator from his state, is now 87, so that could be Schiff's direction. But what Schiff has been through has forged him, too. We shall see. I wish him luck.

In the meantime, he has documented a time that, regardless of ultimate result, has been one of the most tumultuous in our history, and done so in a way that is digestible and thought-provoking. This is a valuable work that will last through whatever fate we have in store. I'll leave you with a few of his thoughts from the Epilogue, with which I can't help but agree and I bet you do, too:

That we are in trouble is undeniable. That this trouble is of our own making--even as it is being stoked by our adversaries overseas--is also undeniable. Democracy is hard. Civilization is not inevitable. Progress is not a straight line. Freedom is not assured. It is, as ever, something we have to fight for every day. So let us fight....And even as we fight, especially in this fight, we must never lose hold of our basic decency.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster shot, like I am on Wednesday. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Sorry, But the Anti-CRT Ship of Parental Control Sailed Long Ago

Probably the most salient argument against the current railing against the inclusion of critical race theory in our schools is the idea that parents have little control over their children's education, but should. And, well, they usually don't, at least not on a daily basis. They don't know enough, and under nearly every circumstance, they really don't care that much.

But the fear-mongering that emerged about it--and has caused, now, at least one Democratic gubernatorial candidate who otherwise would probably have won his election (Virginia) to lose it, managed to very effectively gin-up parental control over their children's education--as if they ever really had it at all.

As in many other political rows, reality has been shunted aside. One day, everyone will wonder just how it got the attention it did, including the idea of watching so carefully what's taught on a daily basis. But the illusion of control was established long ago.

It was established with the voucher movement. Republicans managed to convince enough voters and parents, mostly parents with money to burn, that the Burger King concept of educational programming--have it your way--was not only possible but highly justifiable, to break the 'monopoly' that teachers' unions apparently had over the educational system.

Under the canopy of school 'choice,' they could take their monies and invest it somewhere else, thus 'controlling' their children's education without bothering to understand the advantages of the public system, of which there are many that they assume the private sector could also handle. They were wrong, they always have been wrong, but they feel better because they took the money and ran, and feeling better is the whole point, apparently, not actual results. That is called getting hoodwinked, and no doubt thousands still feel fully justified in actually robbing their kids of better educational possibilities.

None of that had anything to do with curricula, since the school districts had almost exclusive control over them, relying on faculties to consult and design within broad parameters. Except when the doors closed inside the hallways and teachers went to work, they sometimes found it necessary to adjust if not re-design lessons on their own, so I suppose the reactionaries have a point. Though they scream as loudly as they ever have, they want someone else to handle the review of curricula, never mind the extra time and bother and expense it may take, not needing to do any of that themselves. They'd rather just complain because blind anger is far easier and genuine caring isn't, which echoes ex- and his minions, most of which they of course are. No doubt someone will find something else for them to complain about, decrying the end of civilization as we know it.

I didn't know this, but critical race theory is a significant part of the Virginia Department of Education's website. You can click on it there. I wasn't making up what I wrote earlier, namely that I had never heard of CRT in all the 30 years I taught, and it had never been mentioned in any of my department's meetings that I attended (which were most of them). No wonder all the screaming; Terry McAuliffe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate, trying for his second, non-consecutive term (Virginia prohibits consecutive terms), downplayed the concept and tried to make it go away. Hindsight is 20-20, but a more direct dealing with the matter might have suppressed the anxiety.

Now that I know how widespread its usage has been, maybe leaning into it and trying to extrapolate its meaning in the total picture might be a better move. But I wonder if it's too late. Again, as in most controversial education issues, it's not supposed to be political, but education is the most political of all our public issues, partly because it's so local and thus so personal.

The memories we tend to have of our own schooling tend to lean toward the pristine and tender, not filled with the conflict and insecurity most of it actually was. That's partly because the older we get, the better we were. It's also because, well, that was then and we have to get on with things, and we'd rather not dwell on the bad stuff that life confronted us with, nearly right from the start.

So it is with parents who took on vouchers in the belief that they 'controlled' their children's education. They only controlled the educational site, not the stuff of education itself. Realization of that has either taken place far too late, or is still drifting in their dreamy clouds that they did the most to take care of their kids in that realm, too.

But the illusion of control is enough. What the Democrats should do is sit down and dream up possible other crazy ideas that Republicans could extend upon us in order to come up with decent responses ahead of time--kind of an idea vault. That way, they can't be ambushed with something like critical race theory and paralyzed about which way to go with it.

Since being defensive and/or dismissive didn't work, they should lean into it now. Continue the conversation or try to, kind of like a guy who MSNBC asked if he knew about it, and he responded not much but what he did know he didn't like. That's ripe for drilling down and getting people to honestly think about it. Granted, they may not, but at least it's a proactive approach.

But that means wanting to establish decent talking points about it and making them in understandable tidbits so they can be absorbed easily. As usual, the reactionary, simplistic, pseudo-grounded words used to object to CRT sound stronger and more salient than the real truth. Have it your way, like vouchers, is an easily digestible but totally misleading description to objecting to CRT. But it works, because it becomes yet another dog whistle. Or at least it did in Virginia, and might have lasting effects elsewhere.

When she was first elected to be Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jill Underly was at a post-election fund-raiser in Madison last summer. I decided to stop by. I managed to pull her aside for a moment and ask her whether she had any strategy to deal with complaints about CRT, because, as I said, "You can see it on the horizon." She admitted that her office hadn't done so yet.

I sure hope that's changed, but I haven't seen anything about it. Many Wisconsin school boards have been assailed about it (including Mequon-Thiensville, a well-educated district, which recalled a controlling majority of the entire school board over the topic--but, thank goodness, failed). No doubt the assailants want the momentum of it, like the false "steal," to last through the next gubernatorial race, when they're unquestionably planning to eliminate Tony Evers from purview and get the state to once again descend into the Dark Ages.

In the meantime, I'll be trying to come up with those talking points. But in doing so, it assumes that CRT has enough legitimacy to be discussed. The damage that its misunderstanding has already done practically demands it. More on that later.

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

Mister Mark