I Can See Them Coming: Repeats of 1850 and 1957

The trouble on the horizon is awful. I don't see it diminishing anytime soon.

Talk has already started. The governors of some blue states are already putting out gestures of resistance:

• Pritzker, Illinois: "You come for my people, you come through me."
• Newsom, California:  Has called for a special session to bring more resources to combat attacks on immigration, abortion, and LGBTQ rights.
• Hochul, New York: Has promised to combine forces with Attorney General Letitia James to "protect New Yorkers' fundamental freedoms."
• Walz, Minnesota: Has promised to make Minnesota a 'safe haven' for people to practice their rights.
• Healey, Massachusetts: Has refused to participate in deportation plans;
• Polis, Colorado: Has joined with other Democratic governors and ex-governors to form Governors Safeguarding Democracy. He and Pritzker are co-chairs.

So what if you were 47, with control of both houses of Congress--as it appears is going to happen? What would you do?

I'll tell you what I'd do: promote and get a law passed much like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The territory of California, which had declared itself to be a separate republic (much like Texas), had had its population swell up by more than 100,000 because of the Gold Rush in 1849. It quickly applied for statehood, but as a free state. The South pushed back because that would upset the free-slave state balance, which had roughly been maintained by one slave state being admitted to the Union shortly after, or shortly before, a free state also had, for about a quarter century. If California's admission were to upset that apple cart, there would be secession and a civil war if no offer could be made that the South could accept.

Henry Clay to the rescue. In the last major bill that he promoted before his death, he proposed the Fugitive Slave Act, to pave the way for California's admission.  That law demanded and made it legally binding for authorities from slave states to coerce law enforcers from free states to try to help them find fugitive slaves and transport them back into captivity. It did not allow for state authorities to opt whether or not to do so.

The Fugitive Slave Act caused intense outrage in the states where slavery had either died out or had been legislatively forbidden. It resulted in some free states passing "personal liberty laws," giving state enforcers the right to refuse assistance to federal authorities, or authorities from slave states, assigned to take fugitives back into slavery.

In other words, the Fugitive Slave Act warded off war, but could not guarantee peace. The actual Civil War, it has at times been disingenuously said, was caused by a reaction to a threat upon states' rights. Another situation, with geography largely flipped on its head, may in fact be happening and very soon.

Laws in states mentioned above (and others), passed in objection to taking immigrants and putting them into concentration camps, separating children from their families, and shipping them out of the country--never mind if the country of their origins will accept them back--would set up very definitive new states' rights situations, the enforcements of which may create a deep and abiding constitutional crisis. What if the governors of such states activate their National Guard units to protect immigrants? And what if 47 activated the U.S. Army to challenge that?

Then the National Guard folks would have an unalterable choice to make: Justice, or the law? There would be no choice, if their oath to the Constitution would be genuine. If that should come to pass, all the big talk by blue state governors might come to naught, or at the very most, a paper tiger.

Flipped on its ear, too, would be the purpose of the Supremacy Clause: to guarantee that laws would be enforced properly and fairly, regardless of what state governors would think of them. In 1957, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas brought out the state's National Guard to 'protect' Little Rock Central High School from having to admit nine black students, in violation of the earlier Supreme Court ruling that demanded it. President Dwight Eisenhower, in a much celebrated decision by liberals, called out the 82nd Airborne to parachute near Little Rock and march to the school to override the governor's decision (even though Ike didn't much like doing it). The National Guard had to stand aside and watch. It did not resist.

Faubus, in other words, dared Eisenhower to take action, and Eisenhower called him on it. Perhaps the same thing will happen to 47. I think we know how he'll respond, and this time with all the justification that the Constitution, which he otherwise might dispense with at his leisure now that the Supreme Court gives him all the license he needs, guarantees, and with joyous enthusiasm. Eisenhower said little in performing his presidential duties, though. I don't think 47 would remain quiet in the least. He would be pompous, hypocritically self-righteous, and endlessly obnoxious.

So did Faubus press the Guard into service to gain political points with his constituents? Cynics might agree. In the list above, I see at least three potential candidates to make presidential runs in 2028. Democrats are hardly possessed with political purity. The same thing's possible.

So what goes around, comes around, though it might take more than six decades in one case, 175 years in another. Would the same thing happen if a Republican Congress should pass a national abortion ban, one that might even prohibit interstate travel to have one? What kind of constitutional showdown might that cause? And what kind of resistance?

I do not see acquiescence ahead. Talk of resistance lasted about four years, but much of it was talk. This, I think, will be the real thing. That will cause crackdowns, overenforcement, and the sting of authoritarianism. It will open wounds that will remain raw. 

I do not see settlement ahead, either. Secession? We seem a long way from that. But the emotionalism brought by a repeat and reports of immigrant abuses would reach new heights. Coercion would inflame that emotional cauldron even more. From there, it is difficult to know what the future will bring.

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

Mister Mark

The Country's Really at Stake Tomorrow

I hope so much that I'm preaching to the choir here. But just in case--

For the love of God, vote.

And vote with your brain. Vote the way you actually see things with your very eyes.

If you're in the 3rd Congressional District, or know somebody who does: Tell them to vote for Rebecca Cooke, over incumbent Derrick Van Orden, the latest impostor who wants to keep his job as a Republican bobblehead. It's the only Congressional race in the state that's anything near competitive, due to Republican gerrymandering that spans more than a decade. This used to be Ron Kind's seat, but he stepped down. Rebecca represents a real choice, a new beginning, for the 3rd. Please vote for her.

For the U.S. Senate, please avoid electing a Ron Johnson clone by turning back Eric Hovde and staying with someone who's done a tremendous amount for this state, especially in the realm of health care: Tammy Baldwin. Hovde has thrown millions of dollars that, as a billionaire, he doesn't need, in addition to PAC money poured into the race by Mitch McConnell. McConnell sees the photocopy of Johnson's eccentric stupidity, his caving to moneyed interests, his enthusiastic inclusion of lies and innuendoes, his horrible pandering, and his terrible policy positions. Baldwin has fought back against Hovde's blithering, amateurish approach of sheer volume of smears. Don't let him succeed. 

Wisconsin needs Tammy Baldwin. Please vote for her.

And, of course: this is the moment to turn back a lying, disgusting, two-bit phony who's trying to return to the White House. That this election is going to be decided by a whisper thin margin tells you a lot about how White Christian Nationalism has nearly overwhelmed the rhetoric of this campaign, the exaggerations, the threats, the monstrous lies that ex- has included.

I have written much about ex-'s incompetence, his stupidity, his cruelty, and his meanness. It is the height of naivete for anyone to suppose that his words have been nothing but stunted, awful political rhetoric. He will make mincemeat out of the Constitution and abuse the military to deal with domestic issues. In short, he will turn America into a police state. He will also completely abandon Ukraine, pleasing Vladimir Putin because (remember?) he wants to build a hotel in Moscow.

Expect, too, wars with either Mexico or Iran. He wants to invade Mexico to stop immigration from that territory, as if he would with all the coastlines we have. He wants to show his mega-religious political allies that God will be pleased if he devastates Israel's number one enemy. With no accountability now to hold him back--the Supreme Court has set the table for him very nicely--and with his second term providing him with no political consequences, count on him to:

• Try to stifle all media opponents by legal or quasi-legal means;
• Try to expand book banning to include anything written about gays or trans-people;
• Take away any effort to contribute to battling climate change;
• Get us out of NATO and leave Europe at the mercy of Russia;
• If he gets both houses of Congress on his side, take away Social Security and Medicare;
• Ditto for control of Congress--before the above mentioned, he will end abortion in the U.S.;
• Cripple the economy with a misguided, repeatedly stupid attempt to foist China with tariffs; and 
• Put immigrants into concentration camps, where they will suffer and die by the thousands.

I'm sure that list, a highlight reel, is far too short. It can all be avoided by elected Kamala Harris President.

She doesn't have the elixir of magical policy alternatives; indeed, she would be far better off trying to mimic what Joe Biden has tried to do. But her campaign has undersold (at least in ads) the good that Biden has done for the economy and for relaxing the devastating anxiety caused by Covid. She has basically tried to sell herself by continuing to say that she isn't ex-, and trying to bring in Republicans who see things clearly. We will see, after tomorrow, whether that will work.

That she managed to recover much of the support lost by Biden after that disastrous debate in June is all to the good. But her momentum slowed down when ex- played it cagey by avoiding a second debate. He knew he would once again be made to look like the fool he is. So instead he relied on ridiculous, shouting, fear-mongering ads on TV, to which Harris could not respond with any kind of effective timing. He threw every kind of nonsense at us, including fears about support of trans-people, as if she had caved their every whim. (Note that Hovde copied those ads to the letter in Wisconsin.) If he wins, that change in strategy will be remembered as the turning point.

If. MSNBC's Steve Kornacki believes that Pennsylvania will be the deciding vote. I still believe that too many battleground states are too much up for grabs; it will be an absolute photo finish. Either way, we will still be left with a nation comprised at least halfway of people who, apparently with blind religious connection, have been fooled into thinking that the Almighty has willed this result. The movement it has engendered will not go away, either way it goes. But that will be a discussion for another day.

In the meantime: In the name of God, vote. Vote like the country's at stake. Because it really is this time.

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

Mister Mark

No, Jeff. I Don't Believe You. You Gypped Me.

Jeff Bezos has gypped the subscribers to the Washington Post--I am one of them, electronically--by walking away from his major public responsibility: Taking a position on this incredibly contested presidential race.

Not only did his cancellation of presidential election endorsement come at the last second and was timed maybe as poorly as it could have ever been, his explanation, made days later, riffs at ex post facto darts being pulled out of his back.

Bezos is trying to take the high road after torpedoing his own editorial staff at the Washington Post and removing a recommendation for Kamala Harris, the only move that makes any sense this fall.  He says it's the "right thing to do" because the newspaper should not appear biased.

That is colossal nonsense. Newspapers, as a rule, try as hard as they can not to be unnecessarily biased by the way they report facts. They seek balance, sometimes disappointingly because the underlying cause of big stories are often well-known before they reach the print stage. But the point is that they usually bend over backwards to avoid accusations, true or not, of misrepresentation.

So newspapers are, by their nature, normally as unbiased as entities could possibly be. Bezos' entreaty in the name of objectivity is pretentious and defensive. That has nothing to do with whether or not they should take positions on vital issues of the day. That's what the op-ed page is supposed to be about. But Bezos has nixed what I believe to be the Post's sacred obligation: to serve as the public's positional system on choosing the most important person in the nation and the world. Dozens of papers still do this and don't think twice about it. Bezos has not only thought twice, but thought wrong.

The timing of the decision, so close to the election itself, reveals this. If Bezos was that devoted to his high-minded principles, why didn't he come out and take this position, say, last spring? It has been more than obvious that siding with one or the other has reached an all-time high. If he was to do the public a lasting service by toning down the temperature of debates and disagreements, that would have been the time to do so.

It's kind of like a baseball hitter with a swing flaw. He should fix it in the spring, when the season's still young and the race is still blurry and largely undecided. He shouldn't wait to work on it when it's two out in the ninth, the bases are loaded, and he stands at the plate.

It all smacks of something else, too. Bezos is a multibillionaire. He has been roundly attacked, probably unjustly, by ex- during his woebegotten presidential term for his involvement in post office issues.The attack is a hazing, though, for not supporting ex- politically. It really means nothing else.

But that's enough. Bezos wants ex- off his back, just because it's too much of a hassle otherwise. Does that matter to the rest of us?

That's a good question. For the Post to avoid a presidential endorsement at this late hour cannot be anything but abdication of political and citizenship responsibilities. It is the direct ignoring of the simple fact that that paper represents a significant degree of the electorate, one that depends upon it for representing their views.

Yes, the Post tries to be balanced in its approach, and anyone who follows it can't help but agree. It has conservative columnists with whom I disagree strongly--but it has them. It has run plenty of stories about those who support ex-, even though I dislike them deeply. For it to be designated as responsible, it has to do so.

But the chief columnists, those who are read most consecutively and most often, remain those who lean left. The paper's readership has demanded it. It has relied upon it for opinion leadership. Their combined attitudes can't help but steer the paper's conclusion that ex- cannot possibly return as president.

Which is why a quarter of a million subscribers have cancelled at this point. If Bezos is so worried about losing money--I'm guessing he's really not--he shouldn't have waited until the ultimately decisive point to worry about this.

So, no: I don't believe his effort to smooth this over with high-minded principles. It feels empty and pointless.

The Los Angeles Times has also very recently declined to take a position in the race, too, infuriating much of its staff as well. Run by another billionaire, it all looks to be a cabal by rich people to save their toys so they aren't unnecessarily scratched.

Will it matter to the average voter? No way to tell. But for two major newspapers to abrogate their responsibilities now, at the last minute, tells me that it's capitulation to a tinpot phony who might in fact fool enough people in battleground states to walk away with this thing. When the heat came on, two newspaper moguls up and walked away. When it came to have some guts, they had none.

We have three days to know whether that mattered.

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

Mister Mark

"That Librarian" and Our New Reality

Amanda Jones worked like other school librarians worked: largely undetected. But she stood up for the right to read in Livingston, Louisiana, and there she called down opprobrium upon herself.

You know who they are now: the people who, for all the wrong reasons, think certain books should be removed from libraries, many of which they've merely heard of and haven't read. They make up all kinds of fear-mongering scenarios that never happen and never will. They connect what they do to a higher calling, believing that they are in concert with God and that justifies personal attacks and outright lies.

They call those who resist them, as they should be resisted, all kinds of damning names such as "groomer," pretending and assuming that librarians, somehow, are leading children into horrible lives.

And they have weaponized social media to do so. It can open opportunities to having and keeping friends, yes, but also wield devastating slander and libel on someone with no other motivation other than to set things straight. It can demonstrate the devastation of standing in the way of ignorance and hatred. "There really is no arguing with these people," she wrote. "They will believe what they want to believe, even when shown the truth, and when shown the truth they will often lash out with hate."

She kept a journal of her awful experiences of, in essence, trying to stand up for the rest of ourselves, and turned it into a book, That Librarian, out just recently. The saga is not pleasant. The criticism of groups such as the self-appointed Citizens for A New Louisiana lurched into genuine libel, and Jones, with funding help from a Go Fund Me site, tried to take them on in court. But the local judge, perhaps affected by members of the above mentioned group who turned up at the session, didn't allow herself to separate the quasi-religious issue from that of the personal damage it had caused Jones. She denied the request to sue. Jones fiercely defended her rights and appealed. Her account documents what happened in-between.

It was a personal hell, not of her own making. It's a story not that unfamiliar: When people begin to understand what the Bill of Rights is really all supposed to be about--letting minorities do what they think is right and living and let living as long as no one gets hurt--gets in conflict with righteousness many claim but can't live by, then you can get people fired up for foggy but somehow palpable reasons.

What book banning seems to be all about, when all else is swept away, is people who rail against the public displays of homosexuality and transgenderism and cherry-pick the Bible to justify their attitudes that if God would never permit it, why should they? Thus, why should they pay their hard earned tax money to someplace that tolerates it? And if it tolerates it, doesn't that mean it promotes it? It has more to do with discomfort in viewing and experiencing it than notions of righteousness, anyhow. But the religious angle stands as a firewall, a leakproof organizing strategy.

It doesn't seem like the book banners, the alt-right, and the white Christian nationalists are interested in being educated. Education is about knowledge, facts, truth, and what they're pushing isn't about these things. What they stand behind is really a belief system, which happens to be profoundly undemocratic and exclusionary. In truth, it's a believe system based in nostalgia, a longing to turn back the clock to a time when Christianity was more universal, when whites ruled society, when women were subservient to men, and when gay people stayed closeted. It cdhrainly doesn't appeal to be, but for those feeling enominically or socially "eft behind," or perhaps, simply out of step, it may be. a kind of a lifeline. It bestowers meaning, belonging, identity. It creates an us-versus-them world, at the heard of which is fear of difference and fear of change. Hate is its by-product. It's powerful stuff and what makes it so miserable to be targeted by them, and so frustrating to go up against. Do they believe the lies about that book or this book being inappropriate? I'm not sure, but I'm sure that they need to believe what they believe to maintain good standing with others in their communities.

There really is no arguing with these people. They will believe what they want to believe, even when shown the truth, and when shown the truth they will often lash out with hate.

It's time we admit that the United States has had an ominous history that hasn't aways been fireworks and "Yankee Doodle." Our country has some awesome ideals but has history of not living cup tot hem--of mistreating women, children, people of color, and the LGBTQIA+ community. Admitting the dark side of our country's history doesn't mean we hate our country.  It is the opposite.

I want to live in a country that earns its title of being the best until it is no longer a delusion or lofty idea but a fact. Instead, I live in a country whose current politicians are too busy dragging us through the mud with manufactured outrage over teaching real history and including books in our libraries that speak the truth and feature all members of society. I would love to stand in from of people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz and ask them what in God's name they think the are going besides causing us to backslide as a country.

The world can be pretty confusing these days. What I see is a society growing more open-minded to people who are different from them, and a backlash from a segment of people who are uncomfortable with this. These folks see it as a zero-sum game. Any movement toward openness and acceptance somehow takes something away from them. This is where and the victim talk comes from, and the steading raising of volume and distortion in their claims as the truth fails them and they reach for fear mongering.  American was founded not as a Christian nation, as they like to believe, but as a pluralistic democracy guaranteeing freedom of worship and the promise of equality. We still have a long way to go in the equality department, but the progress we have made should be celebrated, not feared. What Christian nationalists want nothing to do with this celebration. They want to turn back the clock to a time and a place that never was. It's sad and too bad. All it would take is a bit of courage, positivity, and generosity. True Christian values. But fear, hate and intolerance are easier and maybe more emotional satisfying in the short term. Indeed, they're playing the short game, and it won't end well.

Every day I wake up wondering who or where the next hate campaign will be launched. All across the country ate speech is running rampant, funding is being threatened, and our libraries are under attack. People are no longer hiding their racism. I don't know if I'm relived, because at least they are showing their true colors so that we can identify them, or if I'm just sad and wish they'd go back to hiding it.

She filed suit against Citizens for A New Louisiana and its spokespeople, Ryan Thames and Michael Lunsford, but got it thrown back in her face when the parish judge went along with the whole business not as a legal tort, but as a morality play of which she was apparently the guilty person. It set off a social media war. She was accused of things she couldn't have done.

The good part about this is that Jones set up a Go Fund Me account, and got herself enough money for appellate pursuits because there are plenty of people out there who love their libraries and don't want them to become right wing echo chambers. In the meantime, she became something of a media darling and was asked to speak in various places about the horrors of this obsession. And, as you can see, she took time off from what had suddenly become her incredibly stressful job to write her book.

So she's doing fine, sadder but wiser, of course. But I wonder about other librarians who, like her, want nothing more than to do their jobs helping people with the wonders and joys of reading. What happens to them when they are attacked? Who rushes to their aid?

I have done some reading connected to my advocacy position with the Friends of the Shorewood Public Library. Some librarians do "weeding" of some books that might bring public scrutiny. Such a practice can be deemed "normal," since some books really do need to be gleaned from the stacks due to lack of borrowing or simple wear and tear. But some librarians use this practice to do sneaky removals of potentially controversial works. People, young and adult, who might need to read them go wanting. Thus the undermining process works all by itself, without anyone raising their voices.

This is the ex- aspect of our lives now, that people have grasped onto something they can brag about without realizing how others are being hurt and how the culture is reduced. Not that they care. Self-righteousness begets compassion and, worse, critical thinking.

This upcoming election will not end this. Part of it is obviously, and ridiculously, to curry favor with ex-, or to be connected to him in some palpable way. But his defeat would not make this disappear, and his victory will accelerate it. If you like your local library, get ready. They're coming for it. It's just a matter of time.

If your local bookstore has a copy of Jones' book, just sit with it for a minute and read the final two dozen pages. It contains her advice about how communities can gird themselves against these unwarranted, pathetic attacks. In a word: Organize. In another: Inform. In a third: Warn.

This is part of our new reality, that others are trying as hard as they can to avoid facing reality and demand that we do, too. They have no right to do so, but they will seize power if they can get it--just like their hero is trying to do again.

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

Mister Mark

This Is Why Pete Rose Isn't in the Hall of Fame

Pete Rose has just passed away at 83. That will no doubt bring forward yet again one of the diciest of ethical issues in sports: Should he be selected to Baseball's Hall of Fame?

On paper, it's a no-brainer, and ridiculous to suggest otherwise. He's still, and because of big money contracts and the inclination to retire early now, probably will always be, the all-time leader in base hits with 4256. Beyond that, his on-field actions, his aggressiveness (sometimes pretentious, as when he would sprint to first base upon walking) and nickname of Charlie Hustle made him an icon to many.

But Rose smudged the game itself. Addicted to gambling--and upon his own admission, though much later--he bet on baseball games while managing one of its major league teams. Implicitly, he's been blamed for the sudden death of Bart Giamatti, then commissioner of baseball and a raging idealist of the game's contributions to our world ("Baseball breaks your heart," he once wrote, in a hauntingly prescient phrase), who died very soon after making the ruling that banned Rose from baseball from that day forward.

He has also been linked to fooling around with underage girls--not a good image for someone trying to be in someone else's Hall of Fame. His baseball accomplishments are terrific. How he conducted himself beyond his sports career is not. 

The betting alone is shaky, but if he had bet on horses or football games, he might even be forgiven. But he didn't. He bet on the game he said he loved so much, despite how bad he made it look.

For many of the Baseball Writers of America, the institution in charge of nominating and selecting the members of the Hall of Fame (with the exception of a players' committee which might override a rejection here and there), what Rose did is unforgivable. I happen to know something about some of the members of that group, or at least those who used to be.

During the 1980s, I earned myself a master's degree in journalism from Marquette University. To do that, one must write a thesis. I figured to combine two things I loved, journalism and baseball (I was in the middle of my experience of writing a local sports column), after reading a book that suggested that baseball writers--which I once dreamed of becoming, but life got in the way--didn't especially like what they did but you know, like other things, it's a living.

So I thought, pre-internet: They must stay in Milwaukee while the teams they cover play at (then) County Stadium. They would most likely work out of their rooms and they might eat breakfast or lunch at those hotels. I also did some digging as to who wrote for what newspaper (still in that heyday, soon to sunset). I also learned the hotels at which the visiting teams stayed and wondered, Could they be the same? Would make sense to try to get 'insider' stories.

I put that guessing together and called front desks. Sure enough: not only were the writers there, they were dispatched to me straightaway and suddenly I would be talking to them (our world now being much different, I highly doubt that you'd be able to do this now). I invited them to lunch. Most said yes; this to someone they'd never met.

I brought my tape recorder. We'd have the most fascinating talks. Going around the league, contributing to their newspapers in an important way--what fan didn't turn to the sports page every morning?--but operating mostly facelessly, they were eager to talk to anyone interested in what they did and how they did it, to get a glance under the hood, so to speak.

I was having the fun of my life. There's nothing like the enthusiasm that original research gives you. And I learned quite the opposite of what I had postulated: Baseball writers loved what they did, but like most of the rest of us, would take a moment to whine about its challenges and its daily grind of deadlines and need to say about games in a fresh way, even though what would take place on the field would have ringing similarities to the last game and the one before that.

But they also considered (and still do, I'm sure) themselves guardians of the game's lore and history, a significant contribution to our culture. They knew that what they wrote on a daily basis, while not necessarily anything a Pulitzer Prize committee might consider, would be ensconced in someone's library and archives forever. That status, they took very seriously.

I talked to just a few of them at later dates. They were crabbier, which meant I'd interrupted them in the middle of something, which could be any time of the day or night for baseball writers, who write about baseball generally besides the teams to which they are assigned. In no indirect way, then, they have to be 'on' 24-7, because staying in, maybe, Seattle, they might get a call about something in New York. They do not take fools gladly.

Considering all that, their stance against Rose being in the Hall of Fame makes sense. If they're the ones who measure the greatest of the sport they knew more about than just about anyone else, if it still means something very important to a vast bunch of us, then determining who gets that honor must still contain the essence of honor--being a cut above people who, even though a different kind of elite in that they, too, were major leaguers, didn't quite measure up. That means setting standards, standards they're allowed to set for the Hall, and thus for the sport.

But some of the BBWA's hallowed practices have bordered on the silly. After an obvious first installment, for a particularly long time, nobody got a placement on the first opportunity, after the five years that the BBWA required to wait for it. Willie Mays didn't. Hank Aaron didn't. (Go ahead. Look it up.) That was preposterous, a 'tradition' that made absolutely no sense and diminished the Hall of Fame's seriousness rather than extol it. It made the process look much like a conjured star chamber.

Rose, for his side, said he didn't bet against his team (though he would bet on them to win), and didn't throw any games to win bets. I believe that. I don't think he stooped as low as Joe Jackson, a member of the infamous Black Sox scandal of 1919, who did throw two games of the World Series, then changed his mind, except it was too late and too little to prevent his team's defeat.

But that didn't mean Rose's actions weren't highly questionable or beyond the realm of decent ethics. They were akin to insider trading. Betting on major league baseball games, when one has been a player and manager, means you're taking advantage of information and a sense of learning few others have about those who play the game, either genuinely because you've done it yourself, you know and have watched the people themselves, or implicitly because the game itself has to be played at a certain level and you can tell who can get it done and who can't. I've played the game at a Division III collegiate level, for instance, but I can't extend that experience to knowing how to hit, say, Corbin Byrnes of Baltimore, if I could at all. 

Pete Rose knew enough, or thought he did (though he ended up losing a lot of money, because the game is still full of inexactitudes, full of statistics compiled only after the fact), to think he could fool the system and make plenty of money on the side. He took advantage of a privilege that he had earned, but one that few can have, and to the hardworking members of the BBWA, that's being something of a sneak and a bully.

Rose never apologized, either. The road back to forgiveness belongs to the perpetrator, at least at first. Rose thought that not betting against his team was enough for him to secure a pathway to the Hall. But he played fast and loose with the rules. 4,256 hits should have been more than enough, and no one lives a perfect life. He also slapped the deciders in the face, though, again and again, and that tells you something about him. The writers hold the keys to the door. His key never fit. (Shoeless Joe Jackson apologized, but with more than 3000 hits, he's still been denied entrance, too. So there's that.)

I don't like attaching Rose's denial of entrance to Giamatti's untimely death at age 51, though. To say that speaks to a sense of the Salem witchcraft trials, where bad events were blamed on people who had nothing to do with them. My own heart attack can't be tied to anything going on in my life at the time, though I had just moved from a very nice apartment under duress because my rent had been jacked up and I felt a sense of betrayal about that (though business is business in that racket, too). My cholesterol count was way-way up there, though.

If Giamatti passed away that soon, something else would probably have gotten him, and not too far later. It's not like being commissioner of baseball is a cakewalk. Did Giamatti's good karma get drained by Rose's bad? Come on now. That means the bad guy won. You want to go with that?

No, let's not go there. Let's stay with the core issue: Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame because the Baseball Writers of America say he shouldn't be. Their reasons are fair enough. But the grudge match can be called off, too, now that Rose has passed. He can't enjoy it now, not even for a day. That might change the equation.

I leave that to you. It's still not an easy call. Much will be made of it on the sports talk shows. If it happens, it will probably have to be some time later, after the greyhairs of the BBWA (and many of us) are gone. 

Can certain values remain? Which ones? We'll be making a different evaluation of that, too, after November 5. That determination is still far more imporant.

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

Mister Mark

The V-P Debate: Could Be the Biggest Deal

The campaign, by all accounts, has settled into a photo finish catfight. Nobody knows how the swing states will split.

The country, in other words, has a chance of making the same terrible mistake it made eight years ago. Ex- has turned down the possibility of another debate, having been horribly thrashed earlier this month, but nobody believes he has made that a binding decision.

What will determine it could easily be what his running mate does in his upcoming debate on October 1.

With a race this close, people who aren't tied to policy matters want to see somebody come out ahead in something. They don't want to be wracked with indecision. Here may be their last chance, short of some revelations that may or may not be true.

Vice-presidential debates aren't supposed to matter much. This one may be different.

The polls are all over the place. MSNBC thinks Harris is pulling away. The New York Times believes ex- is tightening his hold on the Sun Belt toss-up states. It points to a public that is skittish and waffling, as difficult as that may be to understand. It needs something concrete. It may get it, regardless of its genuineness, next Tuesday.

J.D. Vance is the perfect clone of ex-. He has changed his mind more often than his clothes. He has no principles other than what's been declared before the American Revolution. I hesitated to say that he's out of his mind, because I'm not sure his mind has much left in it that's genuine. Yes, he wrote a best-selling book that doubles down on the victimization of Appalachia, but he has come around to even double down on that. Now, not only is abortion wrong across the board, but childless women have diminished value, regardless of whatever their minds and efforts can develop. Now, he can make up, a.k.a. lie, about things that advance what he believes to be a winning agenda, including that Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio.

The latter sentiment has thoroughly pissed off Springfield's mayor, a declared Republican. That apparently doesn't bother Vance or ex- at all, so I wonder, now, if that mayor would like to reconsider his vote in 

November. Those declarations have set off threats in Springfield's public schools such that state troopers have to be called out to reassure parents that their kids won't get blown up or shot up or otherwise harmed just for attending school.

I hope, indeed I pray, for Tim Walz to casually ease that into whatever conversation the two of them have, having been a high school teacher himself. I think Walz would be well advised to treat Vance as he would have in class a bragging student who has little if any accuracy attached to his statements. In all likelihood, Vance will try to pin Walz into a corner, probably about immigration. Walz can use facts, quietly and calmly, to refute Vance just like social studies teachers like me did when annoyed with some student who liked to sound off but had nothing behind it except what he wished were true, what's being slogan-ized on the street, and/or whatever someone else told him to say, cheap shots notwithstanding, which might be considerable.

Walz's ability to handle what will surely be Vance's outrageous comments might create a bulwark against nonsense that might just take whatever hesitation that's left of some voters and turn them blue. Ex- is doing a fine job of stepping on rakes; posing Vance as ex-'s mini-me might just drag them into the ditch together. 

But maybe not. Without ex-'s acquiescence to a second debate with Harris, this would be the final public, national showdown between the two campaigns. Both can point to a need to gain ground--one to overcome what's analyzed as a deficit, one to create space between the two and confidently drive to the end.

Either way, the two men must know the stakes. Walz can't necessarily win if he has a good debate, but he can lose if he has a bad one. Vance could lead a rally that creates a successful photo finish. Barely a month to go now. Tough for someone to recover from a lousy performance.

Vice-presidential debates are often the stuff of 48 hours of jabbering, followed by a return to electioneering as usual. This one may take that form, too. But maybe not. Tim Walz has a lot to prove Tuesday. If he walks away the winner, he'll make it tougher to deny him and his running mate the prize. New problems will emerge if that happens, but nothing like the devastation that will accompany the other side's triumph. Good luck, Tim.

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

Mister Mark

Remember: He's Terminator 2. Do Not Forget This.

Well, she did it. Fabulously. It couldn't have gone better had she scripted it herself.

Now what? How do we look at things now?

It is over? Some would say that. I say no. The numbers have moved here in Wisconsin, and that looks promising. But the very fact that they haven't clinched the deal means that the cult of attachment to ex- holds tight and can be defeated only at the edges.

This monster is like Terminator 2. Remember that film? He was destroyed and blown to bits more than once. Turns out you couldn't rely on doing that, ever. He re-formulated himself, literally pulled himself back together, and went on attacking, meaning to kill.

This is that sci-fi come to life. Ex- has gone right on lying (Did you really expect him to stop?). Turns out the mayor of Springfield, Ohio is getting pretty sick of portraying Haitian immigrants as pet-eating barbarians. They're not. They're contributing members of that community. That awful, disgusting rumor is partly the brainchild of his running mate, J.D. Vance, something Ohioans should remember when going to the polls, and again when Vance, should he lose, runs for another Senate term.

Meanwhile, we're coming in on 50 days left. What will ex- do now, besides lie about everything?

I predict he will come up with video lies utilizing artificial intelligence. He has plenty of money to hire the most deceptive people; I'm sure Elon Musk is fairly poised to pounce like a cougar. He will make Kamala Harris look sleazy, dishonest, herself a liar. I predict there will be a new set of ads coming out within three weeks. They will attempt to be devastating.

The Republicans will have to pull the ad claiming that "Bidenomics isn't working." Because it is. The rate of inflation is finally flattening out--just in time. The same ad also brags that gas prices are going up. They aren't. The price of gas in the Milwaukee area is beneath $3.00 in several places. Can't remember when that happened. It has to be happening elsewhere.

There will be plans to intimidate voting officials anew, to potentially smear them where a breakthrough to victory is most possible. Ex- won't have to do it; his enablers can and will try it without attribution. The closer we get to Election Day, the more this will emerge.

There will be new threats to Harris' campaign because her victory is no longer a distant idea. Recall that an assassination attempt nearly took ex-'s life, inches from succeeding. Someone will get it in their heads that Harris somehow deserves the same treatment. Expect this, regardless of source. The Department of Homeland Security has wisely increased the security around the Capitol in anticipation of another January 6 uprising, regardless of result--but you know where it's aimed.

Meanwhile, ex- has said he won't debate Harris anymore. Don't believe this for a second. He wants to catch us off-guard, so he can somehow utilize the advantage of surprise: Look, I've changed my mind! But I highly doubt that Harris, with her savvy so nicely demonstrated last Tuesday, will bite on this ruse. In fact, she announced that she's ready for another one.

If the numbers turn and remain against him, he will call for debate so quickly it'll make your head spin. If he gains ground, he will hedge his bets. If a debate still happens, he will remember to look at her this time to make his insults look better. For him, it's nothing about substance; all about the image. It's worked so far. But he'll have to try it again if the numbers don't respond. Will his self-delusion finally finish him off? We'll have to see.

This kind of deception is old hat for him. Like obsessing with crowd size, we should just yawn. The shock factor is wearing off. He doesn't get that. Too bad for him. That's why he must try to change reality. See above.

Harris has him in a corner. He must either change his approach--he hasn't yet; no reason to assume he will--or she will just keep saying versions of "Had enough?"

But he has overcome what has appeared to be massive odds before. Like the Terminator, he finds a way to charge right back at his foe. And the attention of the voters never lasts all that long.

If anything, Harris has bought time for herself. There will be different challenges, those we haven't heard of yet. October is coming. New polls will be released. Keep breathing.

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

Mister Mark

"Joy" Is Running Out

I remember the last time "joy" was used as a campaign slogan. Or ploy, if you want to get cynical about it.

It was 1968. The purveyor was Hubert Humphrey. It might just have been the attitude he wanted from the start. Or it might have been something else.

Ex- isn't the only person running for office who's tried to get people to look over here instead of consider what might be aspects of his candidacy that might condemn him to defeat. Happens, in fact, quite often.

In 1968, the Democrats had lots of reasons to try to get people to look the other way. In August, they'd waded through an awful, chaotic, divisive national convention that included a riot in a nearby park that included tear gas and hundreds of arrests; a party hack at the front podium accusing the police of "Gestapo tactics" in the streets; and a 'no decision' on whether or not to support the withdrawal from a war that had already cost the nation more than 25,000 lives. In other words, a complete mess.

Humphrey, then the Vice-President, received a nomination more of less by default, since President Lyndon Johnson, who had supposedly withdrawn from running for another term that past March 31, had seriously considered changing his mind, swooping into the convention, and reclaiming the front-runner status. His control of the Democratic Party was that pervasive. He could still hover anywhere he wanted to.

Humphrey didn't even have the overall support of his own party back then. He began the campaign a full 16 points behind Richard Nixon, who was about to undermine Humphrey with secret negotiations with North Vietnam so he could take credit for getting the country out of the war--not Johnson, who tried a bombing halt just days before the election. North Vietnam didn't engage in progressing negotiations, choosing to wait until Nixon, hopefully, took office.

In the meantime, Humphrey's emphasis on the "joy" of politics and campaigning helped bring him closer and closer to Nixon, who sat on his lead the rest of the way. As we know, Humphrey just about caught him, coming within half a percentage point. He failed, though, partly because of George Wallace's independent candidacy, which freed six southern states from their traditional Democratic mooring.

All that looks to insert itself into this campaign, only two months from concluding now. Ex- will look to unravel that tonight at the debate--if that's what you want to call it.

Because he won't be debating. He'll be destroying, ruining, catastrophizing. His exaggerations and lies will stand on their own. Many on the other side can't wait to hear them--again. They've long ago succumbed to being misled. They've already disdained the possibility that America can find a better place in the world without him running it. Harris may try her best to discount his endless nonsense, but will only partly succeed.

The country that he wants you to conclude is genuine is false and wrong and hopeless. And yes, it can become that way--if he's allowed to be at the top of the decision chain for another four years. It would get there in a hurry now, because he can't wait to get back at those who have written and spoken against him, and he knows something about the mechanics of doing so. He would also hire sycophants who are slavishly loyal and pliant to his every wish.

If Harris' "joy" survives tonight in any form, she will win and perhaps even pull away. But he is frighteningly persuasive. His very presence overwhelms some people despite the phoniness. Force and power are all he knows--but they work.

We stand at that brink. I wish the country well.

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

Mister Mark

Debates Sound So Good Now. But.

I had this thought the other day, which was absolutely delicious. Then I had the next thought. Which wasn't. Wonder if you have, too.

Kamala Harris now has the Democratic presidential nomination sewed up, days after Joe Biden got out of the race pretty much the way he got us out of Afghanistan--Okay, we're done here. The Democrats also pulled off a refreshingly united, seamless convention in codifying the unification of their efforts. 

If you're like me, you're looking forward to having her take on ex- in a debate, which is happening on Sept. 10. Kind of licking our chops, actually.

I can think of a bunch of reasons, too: Because Harris chooses to use the brain her parents gave her; because she's not nearly as likely to freeze up when ex- says something incredibly untrue or incredibly stupid; and because she'll put the best foot forward when explaining the successes of the Biden Administration, which the president so strangely failed to do in the last, disastrous debate.

The mistake you might be making--and I can't blame you for doing so--would be to put a great deal of weight on the results: First, because regardless of the lies that ex- will be mouthing, people continue to believe them as well as reject any factual information that Harris will put forward; second, he's at his best when deeply, ridiculously insulting someone; and third, you have to admit that he's getting pretty good at upfront non-answers, avoiding any responsibility when he can possibly do so.

The momentum has shifted, though. A surge seems on. The Democratic deep dive in the polls has stopped, and Harris has regained some of the losses Biden absorbed. All that does is assure that the election will be a photo finish at best, and once again, a few thousand votes in a few states will decide whether we go on in some degree of gridlock, forcing compromise, or descend to mindless, devastating, undemocratic authoritarianism.

Ex- can read, so he knows that debates, which he figured to avoid, must be taken on. Harris might do well. She might stumble. Ex- will try to undo her, to frazzle her, to discombobulate her. I doubt that he will succeed, but the total effect he leaves has to be to diminish her in some way, to get the public to conclude that having the first woman president will make the country weaker. But the total effect will be unknown until they finish and wags like me prattle on. 

The election seems hers to lose now, though, and her demeanor seems very fit to face down this awful person. She must come through. One of the results of the debacle of the earlier debate was that Biden's performance was so disturbing that it distracted from how awful ex- actually was himself. He has feasted on withdrawal from reality, counting on enough of the country to bask in it so he needn't face any of it; recall how often he spoke facing the floor. It is he who is dangerous, not Harris. If Harris can show that, she may run away with the whole deal. At bottom, she must avoid appearances of intimidation.

I can't help but remember, though, during my first few days in Texas in 2014, the gubernatorial debate between Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis, which stands as a template to consider the effectiveness of any debate between any two people. Abbott was riding a huge lead, and Davis was hoping to cut into it. By any stretch of logical deduction, she buried him with facts and fresh approaches to problems that had been plaguing Texans for decades. Much of what he did was shrug and go aw-shucks, diverting and ducking any problems that Republicans had been responsible for.

Anyone with a brain walked away from that display with nothing but respect for Davis' strong delivery on things like women's rights and tax fairness: Not only what she did but the way she did it. I couldn't help but think that, with this show of competence against Abbott's show of wishy-washy blather and constant inclination toward avoidance, she had to start cutting into his lead.

Didn't work. Not even close. I looked it up again. She lost by 21 points. Didn't even get to 40 percent. Abbott, as we so sadly know, went on to do things like send thousands of undocumented immigrants to so-called "sanctuary cities," to show everyone what a challenge dealing with such people can be. He signed a bill, too, limiting Texas abortion rights to a minuscule, nearly impossible, token degree.

So there is no assurance that, when ex- takes on Harris, the results will make any sense at all. (Look at the last unexpected result.) But you never know. That was ten years ago, and Texas is Texas. You would like to think, though, that Harris will leave folks with a better impression than President Biden did.

Ex- also keeps giving Harris plenty of new ammunition, what with his ridiculous, strange, and totally false assumption that the Black part of Harris' race has somehow been kept in hiding until recently. That message, says more than one commentator, is for sharpening the support of his pliant MAGA backers, who believe and accept anything that comes out of his pathetic mouth.

The debate would, in the end, be significant for those last five percent who are still unsure of what to do. (I find that remarkable, but maybe they're smarter than the rest of us.) As usual, they will decide the election, either by throwing up their hands, holding their noses and choosing at the last minute, or by staying home and letting someone else do it for them--definitely the wrong move. That not nearly enough of us spend not nearly enough time reading and talking about this devastatingly big choice--which takes, in its essence, so little time but means so much for so long--is enough of an abrogation of political responsibilities for the maintenance of our republic. The tokenism of it all is sometimes awful to consider.

But here we are. Again. In about 73 days now, a good and worn down man will be replaced by either someone who wants to take democracy somewhere new, or a bad and worn down man who wants to take democracy, flush it down the toilet (along with some important government papers, but I digress) and replace it with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for illiberalism. Maybe debates will allow that to emerge as a realization. It could actually save us from ourselves for another four years.

Let us hope. Here we go.

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

Mister Mark

I Met Pete Buttigieg. Here Are My Impressions.

I was once in a position to meet important national politicians, so I wasn't at all nervous to step up and talk to Pete Buttigieg. Once I spotted him, I was looking forward to it.

Senator Tammy Baldwin held her 12th annual barbecue just outside of Stoughton, which is a little bit southeast of Madison, last Sunday. The crowd was nearly overflowing and charged with enthusiasm--not only, I would guess, from the sudden and inspiring emergence of Kamala Harris as a real threat to stop ex- from the White House, but also because Baldwin's campaign opponent, Eric Hovde, a superficial and phony impostor with vague notions that remind me of Ron Johnson (who has never stopped being a bloviating phony), has run a slick, attractive media campaign with $14M in self-funding (so far) because he's a bored billionaire. It has made the race tight as a tick, which shouldn't be--Baldwin has been a hard-working, genuine legislator focused on what she can do for the state and not at all anything connected with ego. 

Hovde is running on nothing but ego, with little demonstrable knowledge of Wisconsin's challenges, throwing whatever mud he can at Baldwin's connections with what was once a struggling Biden ticket. It remains to be seen whether Baldwin can refocus the state's attention to her genuine, lasting accomplishments for Wisconsin and the country in these last 75 days; I certainly hope so. If Harris keeps surging, she might grow coattails. Baldwin's reserved, humble manner should still fit well within Wisconsin, but plenty of money semi-legitimizes plenty of nonsense, sad to say. 

This race looks to be cliff-hanger. I had to show my support. A 90-minute drive didn't seem excessive to do that. I arrived fashionably late and walked into a cabin teeming with energetic Democrats.

The buffet serving line at The Fields Reserve wasn't moving very fast, which was annoying until I took a closer look. Moving successively down the long row and pressing the flesh, as he was brought out to Wisconsin to do, was our Secretary of Transportation and his husband, Chasten. Of course, everyone took a few moments to say hello and kibitz. It owes to Buttigieg's natural, very real friendliness and down-home kind of charisma that it all took so long.

So I had a moment to prepare what I was going to say. It came simply, because I meant it: "I'm glad you're here."

Buttigieg looked me right in the eye: "So am I." He seemed to mean it, too. And his grin wins you over instantly.

He is disarmingly small. He can't be 5-9 (Take a good look at the holy picture I finagled on my Facebook site.). I thought of him as taller. But that made some sense: Buttigieg's public stature, earned by countless appearances, especially the daring ones of earned media on Fox News, which have no doubt helped keep Democrats and the Biden Administration real and grounded in fact, have already given him something of a larger-than-life presence. 

But that disappeared instantly with me. I liked him immediately. He struck me as having few pretenses--an extremely valuable benefit for someone who might still be seeking more national attention.

I was also impressed that he brought Chasten. Pols don't normally do that unless they are also running for office. Then it struck me: Maybe he is, in 2028. He tried a presidential run in 2020 and came up short. But, as a well-spoken union pol was accustomed to pointing out, politics is the land of ten thousand tomorrows. Harris' election might result in his continuance as Transportation Secretary, but might also open more doors for juicier, more noticeable spots, like national security advisor, say. Right now, though, Buttigieg can utilize his Cabinet position to remain relevant to public conversations. Because his position is more publicly noticeable because he presents so well, he can have it both ways for another few months.

Regardless of how this presidential campaign turns out, four more years of seasoning will only help him. Perhaps it will put more grey hairs on him, which wouldn't hurt: His looks are still, dark beard notwithstanding, breathtakingly boyish. He's incredibly smart and quick on his feet--use You Tube and review the interview he did with Stephen Colbert Wednesday night--but he also looks like he might have just cut your lawn. It comes off as almost too modest. But his talents win out; he can't help it.

On the stump, Buttigieg doesn't bellow. He rarely raises his voice beyond a few decibels. He does that for emphasis, not intimidation and certainly not as a self-serving demagogue. He tries hard to be as matter-of-fact as possible. It is a clear, unwavering voice that is as reassuring as the facts he brings to you. That he stays in that lane, exaggerating almost nothing, establishes that one factor that people want and need in their politicians: trust. Say what you want about Mayor Pete, he won't fill your head with nonsense. He doesn't have to. He has his finger on enough simple truth to carry the day.

Will Buttigieg be president someday? It feels like he still wants to be and wants to try again. We know the hurdle he must climb, so he may never get there. A multi-racial woman overcoming a traditionally white male bastion, though--granted, an awful example of it--in November might edge that door open and leave accessibility available to those of other minorities. A Kamala Harris victory might do even more than save our democracy; it may also change the presidential paradigm.

I look forward to watching his progress through our often chaotic political system. That Buttigieg has gotten this far so soon indicates that others have noticed his obvious talents and are comfortable at the way he has handled the attention. Where all this goes from here is anyone's guess. But a disappearing act, at least not right now, is not in the cards.

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

Mister Mark

Only One of Them Sang

I wonder if anyone else noticed.

The Olympics is, somewhat sadly, about patriotism as much as about the world-class competition, which once again had breathtaking moments over 16 days. If that isn't true, then why do nearly all of the gold medal winners sing the words to their countries' anthems when they are being played in celebration of their victories?

Nearly. Not all. And I couldn't help but think about the U.S. men's basketball team, all NBA players, as they observed their own hard-earned gold medal last Saturday.

Twelve of them stood there, initially locking arms as they stepped up to their top podium. The Dream Team Avenged, they had struggled to put away the two other medal-winning teams, Serbia and France, in their last two games. Basketball, once an overwhelmingly American-dominated sport, has now become a world display of skill and talent. That world has caught up. This may be the last of America's latest streak of gold medals for some time.

Maybe it was that realization that evoked more relief than elation with them. Perhaps some journalism ex post facto will reveal that. But pure joy it could not have been.

The big names in U.S. basketball were there: LeBron James, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant. The whole was so much better than all the parts that players like Jayson Tatum, an NBA All-Star if there ever was one, barely got a chance to play. And all three of those above mentioned players stepped up when the pressure was greatest. They made great plays and timely baskets.

Thing is, they had to. France and Serbia did not go gladly into their nights. A rim-out here, a bad bounce there, might have led to a significant U.S. embarrassment. After all, these were the best players in the sport's best country. Right?

But the NBA has globalized, too. Some of its very great, or soon to become very great, players--Nikola Jokic, who has entered the conversation as the world's best player; and Victor Wembanyama, the upside to whom isn't even close yet, which makes him really, really scary and who will likely make Jokic's reign of greatness seem puny in comparison--are from elsewhere in the world. They play in the NBA, but are nowhere near as intimidated or humbled by what they face in the States. Rather the other way around.

James, Curry, and Durant are in all likelihood through with Olympic basketball (though with LeBron, you never know; at 39, he still defies age). At least, we will not see the combination of them ever again. It all felt like a page was turning. Maybe they felt it, too.

So when the Star-Spangled Banner played in Paris' basketball stadium to celebrate the 39th of America's 40 gold medals, I thought it odd that only Steph Curry sang the words.

That's it. Only him. The camera scanned the group. All the other players stood respectfully, but none of the others sang. In fact, they didn't even smile.

You can't help but think that the fact that all of them were black must have had something to do with it.

And this: LeBron went out of his way to say, in his post-game interview, that America had a lot wrong with it right now and at least it could forget about all that for a few days and unite behind this great team.

It was like, in its own way, a challenge: Okay, you wanted us to do this and we did it. What are you going to do now?

To which some of us might respond: Hey, every last one of you has more money than God, with your gushing NBA contracts, which don't even require that you play in all your scheduled games. Now you have gold medals, too. You are the pinnacle of black success in a country which has denied it to others who also have deserved it for centuries. And you want something else? Where do you get off?

What they want cannot happen, or won't for more decades: Acceptance of genuine equality. Blindness when it comes to noticing race. Respect for thinking that might not dovetail with whites. Maybe some of that washed up into standing (mostly) silent for the Star-Spangled Banner; maybe it was a statement of dominance in one of the few categories where it can be shown and demonstrated. Tough to say. I hope some of them reveal their thoughts.

Admit it, though: Had the men's basketball team not won the gold medal, the whole U.S. Olympic effort might easily have been written off as a partial failure. It took twelve talented black men to temporarily combine their efforts and emerge victorious against the rest of the world that's certainly gotten a lot better.

They did it again: They bailed us out again. Just like blacks showing up at the polls will be vital in battleground states to bail us out against a terrible threat to democracy that will turn our lives inside out should he still rally and win. They saved Joe Biden. Will they save us through Kamala Harris?

We don't make nearly enough of that. Either. Way-way overdue.

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

Mister Mark

A Wise Bow to the Teachers' Unions

Political choices are fraught with cross-cutting issues. It's often not what you get with them, but what you don't get that truly matters.

With Kamala Harris' choice of Tim Walz for her running mate, she gets some of both. But the cutting edge of that decision involves what will now happen, instead of what won't.

Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, would at first appear to be the best choice. He's a great speaker and carries with him a unique combination of being both slick and down-to-earth (and there's a strong connection with Barack Obama, too). People would look at him and say to themselves, "Now, he would be a great successor to Harris should something happen to her."

Which, on the surface, would certainly be true. Except for two things: He's Jewish, first of all. Normally, this would be an excellent twist to the ticket, but being associated with Israel in any palpable way right now carries with it considerable baggage because of its decidedly destructive, relentless war with Hamas. Anyone who's been following the news lately knows of the left wing of the Democratic Party, which seems far more in pity with how the Palestinians have been suffering (and they sure have), in lieu of the simple fact that Hamas started this conflict and should have plenty of fingers pointed at it.

The Harris campaign is vociferously denying this. But it can't be unseen. Harris would have to deal with far greater pro-Palestinian protests at her speeches with Shapiro in tow. Call it "we're better off without" rather than "can't do it at all," to divert the discussion from anti-Semitism (which it wouldn't be, but accusations of which couldn't be avoided) to an unnecessary political burden (which it would be, undoubtedly). Hopefully, all of that will diminish from a crisis to an annoyance.

This election, the support for which has plainly shifted toward Harris (and probably a photo finish), would be a shame to blow if the left wing failed to show up at the polls, which they certainly could if she didn't bow at least a little bit toward their concerns. She's already tried to do so by declaring that, while Israel has a clear right to defend itself, it's time to settle this matter and stop the fighting and destruction. She knew she had to do that because every vote will matter--just as it did in 2020. At least they won't have an excuse not to show up, which is about all Harris can hope for.

No, not that, though that might have been problematic. What would have been a disaster is taking on Shapiro's insistence on support for school vouchers. The major teachers' unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, has been on board for decades, now, as being dead set against vouchers, which drain public schools of money to satisfy ultra-moralistic religious school advocates who want everything both ways. These blind idealists claim that public schools remain godless and eschew morals, which is nonsense; if you don't teach the importance of religion in the history of the country--including how it has been manipulated to causes not associated with goodness, too--you've missed quite a bit. Tim Walz, former public school teacher of social studies, knows this very well.

Beyond that, anyone who backs vouchers runs afoul of the very ground troops placed within every state who can and will, with the backing of the right people, knock on doors and people-up polling areas in solid and undying consistency. And that also means anyone who has such a person on their ticket.

So who arranged for Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota and firm supporter of teachers' unions? Those very unions. I assure you--someone got to the Harris campaign and told it that they were playing with way-way too much fire if they did anything that would make the potential supply of volunteers and voters for that ticket in narrowly decided battleground states, look askance. But Harris is from California, the bastion of the leading state affiliate of the NEA, whose backing she's already needed in her races for state attorney general and U.S. Senate, so I doubt if she needed much of that.

Now, of course, these very unions have no excuse other than to turn out the maximum number of enthusiasts to drive this victory home. There's no assurance that that's going to happen, but the Harris campaign can now say that they touched all the bases and tried to please everyone they could, and so now let's get on with it.

There are other reasons to take Walz, too. He's a fine speaker from a state that tends to carry for Democrats. He's good on the stump and quick on his feet, too. That stands to reason, because he was a teacher, and those are some of the hidden skills that make for good teachers. He has a folksy way about him that people will consider--the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. He's also a hunter who has supported reasonable, logical gun control laws. He's a successful football coach--what can be more American than that?--whose team won the state title. And his state was the first to codify Roe v. Wade when the Supreme Court reversed form and ruled against it two years ago.

Teachers who understand their positions know they have to play politics sometimes, though they may hate it. Another one who knows this is Tony Evers, the governor of Wisconsin.

Of course the Republicans will attack him as being too liberal and conjure other lies. It's knee jerk and I don't think will stand the test of time. Instead, Walz will provide ballast to an assertive woman who might otherwise threaten people to give second thoughts about her. He, too, would make an excellent successor to Harris should something happen to her.

So Walz checks a lot of boxes for a running mate. That's great, because we are now within 90 days of making an incredibly important decision. Harris has made up for the deficit that Biden presented her with, says an average of polling recently taken. That momentum must continue. But taking Tim Walz as a running mate isn't likely to hurt it, either--unlike ex- taking J.D. Vance, which is proving not only unproductive to him, but damaging.

There's energy back in this campaign, and fresh attention paid to it. It's too easy to assume that this will go without unforeseen challenges. But so far, Kamala Harris has given herself as good of a chance as there is. Joe Biden, as good of a president as he has been, could no longer do that.

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

Mister Mark

Farewell and Thanks So Much, Joe

When someone runs for president, there are required preliminaries, one of which almost has to be some kind of autobiography, either written or ghostwritten, carefully outlining policy preferences without coming right out and announcing the candidacy. If the momentum follows, there's plenty of time to do that through an 'exploratory committee' and the like.

So when Joe Biden, ex-Vice President, appeared at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee back in 2017, ostensibly to hawk his book Promise Me, Dad, it didn't take an unimpeachable swami to figure out that he was on a fishing expedition in a battleground state, seeing if there would be enough takers upon which to base that candidacy.

I was there. I've always been a Joe Biden fan. I liked his style, his personable approach, what passed as genuineness (but with politicians, you never know), his inclination to laugh at himself, his readiness to see that rubbing elbows and working a room is how to get people comfortable enough to make deals--which is what democracy has always been about, when it has worked sufficiently.

But I was moved by what the host, former Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle, said about the Obama Administration: "Barack Obama saved the United States of America" when it looked like it was about to plunge into financial ruin back in 2009-12.

Looking back, that's hard to disagree with. For sure, Obama saved public education by guaranteeing its funding, even though his insistence in cleaning up flaws in the standardized testing system, instead of getting rid of it, would also be a focus. That's a trade-off made to go. The liaison for that thinking, at least between his folks and the NEA, the nation's top education union, was Vice-President Joe Biden.

Biden was also the point person in Obama's effort to get meaningful gun control legislation passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre of late 2012. But even that horror couldn't budge Republicans to stand down on profit-sharing (in a way) in lieu of saving kids from deadly ambush.

Certainly, Biden has his flaws. He has a propensity to forget when the camera's on. He's had to watch himself making 'friendly' gestures toward women (and survived an accusation of sexual touching from a woman who just as suddenly disappeared when she couldn't get much traction), So you can say that Biden's time for the White House may have had as much to do with the lower standards advanced by ex-, who has absolutely no standards except teetotalism, which is hidden behind the anarchy of amoralism.

That couldn't possibly be Joe Biden's watchword. The motivator for his book was the death of his son, Beau, from brain cancer in 2015. It also was a motivator behind not running for president in 2016, standing down from a battle with Hillary Clinton, though he had given it serious thought. "I was still grieving," he wrote about that withdrawal, and added,

I made sure to be upbeat, to keep my shoulders back, to smile. I had no prepared speech, just notes, but I knew I wanted to make it clear that I was still optimistic about the future of the country and that I was not going to stop speaking out. "I believe we have to end the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart, and I think we can. It's mean-spirited. It's petty. And it's gone on for too long. I don't believe, like some do, that it's naive to talk to Republicans. I don't think we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They are our opposition, not our enemies. And for the sake of the country, we have to work together. Four more years of this kind of pitched battle may be more than this country can take."

Eight years later, the words echo. The polarization has hardened. Biden couldn't intercept the process because it's been led by someone spurred on by personal ambition alone and a strange ability to make supporters tune out from the obvious peril into which they would also be thrust. It's much harder to find a Republican with whom to have a decent conversation.

I'm sorry, Joe. Ex- is the enemy of what the United States of America stands for: Good governance, consensus-building, getting along with those who disagree, moving the country forward, or at least trying to. You tried to leapfrog the opposition that's bound and determined to rocket us back 75 years, but you couldn't. I'm not sure anyone could.

Add to that the sharp reaction of what's left of the undecided public to Biden's awful, withered, frail appearance on the debate stage, and the writing quickly appeared on the wall. Joe Biden didn't lose his quest for a second term just because of a bad night; he lost it because the presidency wears a person down. At 81, he no longer has what has become obvious that a person needs to sustain themselves in the position: An unquenchable source of energy. That night was the manifestation of it, though there had been earlier signs that denial and staff protection had disguised. Four years of wondering about that was too much for too many to contemplate.

Biden railed against the trend he'd set into motion for three weeks or so, but numbers don't lie. His top two aides delivered the bad news Saturday night: There was no path to victory, which meant, ironically, that his stubbornness and selfishness, not that of he with nearly a monopoly on both, would take him, his party and the country down with them. Too.

He made the best decision, a self-sacrifice that will be recalled by historians forever, flying in the face of what nearly all politicians crave. Behind him is a legacy of a quiet return to governmental competence; something of a national recovery from a terrible bout with Covid; absolutely no Cabinet or Executive Branch scandals or any significant controversy (with the possible exception of the Secret Service's strange, recent inability to protect ex- from an assassination attempt, which should bother everyone); and dropping inflation to an acceptable level (Interest rates remain a problem, though they're one of the chief mechanisms.). He could have done better on the border, too, but a deal he tried to set into motion with Congress, one that would have been highly acceptable to Republicans, was denied for fealty to a monster.

Biden tried to point some of those things out in a speech from the Oval Office. He tried to frame the campaign in terms of saving democracy. He's right, but the way he got through his speech did little more than advertise that time and duties have reduced his presentation abilities that, now lacking, are inimical to sustain the vitality of the office and confidence in it. He has governmental competence and ex- has bluster; it would seem that one would have been squandered for the other.

Here's hoping Kamala Harris brings that up and helps people think about that, maybe posturing that with her, you just might get both. Too. I do not envy her. The opposition is already trying to deflect her talents with smearing and lies and innuendoes and exaggerations, and it will get far worse. But her mind is quickly responsive and razor sharp, and I'm already looking forward to whatever debate the two can have. 

There's no guarantee of a logical, factual approach leading to ex-'s defeat. But with the cloud hanging over Biden now gone, there may be some discussion of policy alternatives, which the Democrats have consistently won during this century. We can only hope.

Biden has suggested his would be a transitional presidency. That it will be--either to a brighter new day, or down the stairs to a new disaster led by a con man with unprecedented lust for power for which the Supreme Court has already paved the way. That will be our call.

In the meantime: Farewell, Joe. Thanks so much for saving the United States of America. Again. At least for a while. "Still" would be a better word, but we can't use that one. We don't know if democracy will survive. Yet. But we know that in yielding, you've given it its best chance in this perilous moment.

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

Mister Mark