Two Roads, Merging As One for the Winners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be well. See you down the road.

Mister Mark

In the Aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mister Mark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mister Mark

Lombardi's Question, and An Apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mister Mark

Someone Who Can Handle All This?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mister Mark

Fire Him? Not the Point

No. Arne Duncan won't be fired. And I don't think he should be.

Better that the NEA Representative Assembly narrowly, but clearly, voted "no confidence" in the Secretary of Education. The Obama Administration deserves it.

Read that again. The Administration. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Barack Obama appointed Duncan to the position. He had many decent and competent choices. He chose Duncan.

That's because he believes in merit pay as a way to improve teaching. He believes in dissolving contracts that have layoffs based on seniority. If it were his way, all teacher contracts would change in that direction.

It may be politically correct not to blame the President for the present national attitude that, somehow, teachers are primarily to blame for the lack of student progress that's plaguing public education. It may be. But Duncan's indefatigable efforts, the requirements for the Race to the Top, and what appears to be a similar attitude in renewing No Child Left Behind, land at Obama's feet.

Indirectly, of course, a vote of no confidence says that to the President, too. It isn't an easy call, what with the administration strongly behind a new jobs bill that will save over a hundred thousand teacher's jobs if passed. Some thanks we get, might be their attitude toward the NEA.

So as usual, it isn't an easy call to make. The debate on the NEA-RA floor demonstrated that. It is a highly-charged political world we now live in, where bits and pieces of victories are all that can be expected, especially now. It is difficult to accept.

But to move to fire Duncan not only will not get any attention from anybody but the most cynical pundits, it will appear to be sour grapes for supporting a Presidential candidate who did no more and no less than tell everybody just exactly what he was going to do. Sometimes, one must accept the reality.

234 Years, and What Else Do We Know?

The fireworks exploded again last night at the Milwaukee lakefront. Thousands watched. Most parked legally.

It is time to look at ourselves, 234 years on, halfway through this year. Do you like what you see?

Are the Tea Partiers gaining ground and legitimacy? Or are they a passing political force, amorphous and too fluid to hang on?

Is the President the leader he said he would be? He's doing pretty much what he said he'd do, after all. He's actually accomplishing some of it. Isn't that what leaders do?

Or is it ourselves that need a little re-examination? If we elected a person who's fulfilling some of his pledges, why are we still complaining so much? Did we elect someone for a different reason and, faced with the political results, now look back and wish we hadn't? (Been known to happen before; in this case, we get Sarah Palin, too, remember)

Why are the demagogues gaining a foothold? What is it about them that continues to attract? As FDR gained popularity in the 1930s, as the effects of the New Deal kept slowly improving the economy, their rantings died off. Not so much today; cable TV has too much backing. They'll always be there.

And as they do, there is an inevitable wearing effect: the emotional, simplistic, attack-mode approaches of their rhetoric keeps us on edge. It's a different country now: the political intrudes into nearly everything that isn't being sold in front of our faces. A lot of us are needing that Bloom County trip into the dandelions--just to sit there for a moment and think about not very much.

It's a stressed-out nation right now, trying everything it can to find solutions. Change we've got; hope is another issue. 234 years, and I'm not sure we know much else.