A Stain on our Democracy? I'd have to agree

Like millions of others this past week, I watched the second part of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Bret Kavanaugh. As I have said a googolplex times here, this isn't Wikipedia, and I will presume you know who he is and what has happened, or this will make little sense to you. If you know, no doubt you have made your own judgments, have your own biases and thoughts as I have mine, and will see it through your own lens. This is true whether you watched or know a little or a lot. Feel free to email me to comment, as I believe you will not be allowed to comment anonymously through blogger, and no one seems to want to leave a comment with their email address, which I guess I understand, given the dangers of the digital world.

The following is mostly a fantasy. It is the statement I wish Brett Kavanaugh could have given the day of his testimony (not the original testimony; I mean the one after Prof. Ford testified). I have hindsight in my favor, of course, and many conversations with many people over the last week, before and after the hearing. I've repeated a finding of mine, anecdotal, unsurprising, based on a very small personal and informal survey, but I still think powerful. During the day of his hearing, I spoke to 14 people, and including myself, 15 all told. This included friends, relatives and acquaintances. But, I knew who everyone liked and disliked politically and voted for (or not) in 2016. I also learned that day where they stood on Kavanaugh. Here was the interesting result. Five of those people either "hate" Trump, some virulently or at least dislike him and/or voted for Clinton. Every one of them thought Kavanaugh came off poorly, and that he was either too partisan or had a bad temperament, even if he were provoked, which did not justify his behavior. Five other love Trump. They all thought Kavanaugh did fine and that it was natural that he was furious at being called a molester, even a rapist, a serial rapist and even a serial rapist who drugged his victims. The last group was also five people, including myself, were people who don't like Trump or Hillary Clinton and/or didn't vote for either in the 2016 election. All of us five felt just like the Trump people did about Kavanaugh. By the way, of all those people there were only four women, though, of course, it would have been better if there were more. But, none of it was planned so it was what it was. Three of the women were Trump supporters and the other one didn't vote for either.

Yes, small sample size, and unscientific as can be. But, the results were hardly surprising to me. Although, the last group might not be the same in different geographic areas or bubbles like academia or certain workplaces, etc.  I live in middle class, white, middle-aged suburbia and that's who I was mostly speaking with. We tend to have similar opinions. Almost all of the people I spoke with who disliked Trump were on the telephone.

In any event, getting past my survey or whatever you want to call it, in the end, I have to agree with Kavanaugh. I did find it a national disgrace. We are reaping the whirlwind. I am saddened, really distressed, not only by the behavior of D Senators, who I thought behaved abominably (actually, worse at his first hearing) but also by the R Senators who out of fear of being called misogynist in the meeto! era abdicated any responsibility to defend a R nominee being assaulted by the other side, so that he was literally all on his own. I cannot imagine the Ds would have done that. But, the Rs also failed to own up to any responsibility for the anger that has arisen on the left because of their side's refusal to even consider Garland. Then again, the media would have been all over them if one of them so much as asked her a tough question. Perhaps I will try to show how to do that gently here too? It's really not so hard. I've had witnesses who had sympathetic stories and tried to bait me as an attorney into being too tough with them in front of the jury or arbitrators. I was able to avoid it without much difficulty. Also, that so many people decided that this man, who seemed beloved by so many others (everyone has people who do not like them), including co-workers, clerks, his children's friends and their family's, and so on, was "evil" or "hiding something."

But, I will leave the rest for the opening statement I wrote for him, which I will give forthwith. It is easier for me to write it a little more dispassionately than him for three very important reasons: One, no one threatened my family. Two, no one called me a rapist, never mind a serial rapist. And, three, I have the benefit of time and hindsight. I will not include even his better lines, such as his daughter's inclusion of the professor in her prayers. Because really, this is not his, but mine, though put into his person (we start with prayer - I don't pray). I'm just using his situation to say what given that hindsight, and experience, I think would have been most effective.

"Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein and Members of the Committee,

 You may not be surprised to know over the course of the past 11 days when I learned that Professor Ford claimed that I had assaulted her when we were teenagers, that I have prayed much. I have prayed alone. I have prayed with my wife and with my priest and my children. Whether it sounds farfetched to this committee or not, this committee has been in my prayers as well as anyone who truthfully believes I have done them harm. I was stunned, horrified, felt victimized, although not alone.

At the same time, I am a man, and I am subject to vanity, subject to pride, subject to anger. I know that if I came in here and stoically answered questions as if this was a walk in the park, it would probably be better for me. It would not make any difference to those who decided from before my nomination was announced that they were voting "no," or when it was announced that they were voting "no," or those who have determined that I was "evil," yes, "evil," in case anyone missed it. But, I have not been accused of being out of touch with proper behavior or social norms or that I "don't get it." I have been called one of the most heinous things you can call a man - a rapist. More, I have been called a serial rapist. And that is not even the worst of it. For those of you who run for office. These are not, as you say, Senator Klobuchar, normal times, though perhaps I think for different reasons than you. I have not in politics for a long time and my reasons are not partisan. I am concerned with civil order. And when I see a breakdown of civil order, public functions disrupted, violence and intimidation replacing argument and persuasion, then I think these are not normal times. And because these are not normal times, when a seat for the highest court in the land comes up, and it is contested not just by vetting the justice who is nominated, but by calling him evil, suggesting that he will cause pain and terror throughout the land, suggesting he is a pawn who rapes women and laughs triumphantly at their pain, well, it might result as it did result, with a death threat to the nominee's wife. I'd like you to think about that for a moment, because each of you, because each of you who has participated in castigating my good name, and I had nothing but a good name after 6 thorough FBI investigations, is responsible for a death threat to my wife. Maybe some of you have gotten death threats. Maybe you do not take them seriously. I do. And if my wife's life is threatened, who do you think she is frequently in the company of? What do you think that means to friends and family?

Perhaps you earnestly believe if you lose an election you have this right, not just to fight hard to try and persuade the other side and the public that you are right, but also to try to destroy men and women's lives if they are nominated for office by the "other side."

I know I am not the first one, And I know other people have dealt with far worse. Far worse. People have died in the name of freedom, been maimed in the name of freedom, seen their children sacrificed. And, of course, in doing this, someone in this process, and it can only be someone on one of the political staffs if not Ms. Ford's own lawyers, released her own name to the press and caused such distress to her life. Of course, she may not want my sympathy, feels it is false even, because she believes I molested her and am simply trying to appear sympathetic. But, I know I did not. So, I cannot help but give it, though it is mixed with wonder, of course.

I have listened patiently to your questions, the insinuations by you that I am supposed to tell President Trump what to do about the FBI, that I am hiding things, that I am a racist, that even before Prof. Ford's name came out I was complicit in harassment because I once clerked for a justice who was found to have harassed women. And I know I will hear all these again without apology or even acknowledgment that another Senator raised it 5 minutes ago. I know this because I was an attorney and I am a judge and I understand that this is part of strategy. But, all attorneys, all politicians, all humans should have limits, should have some basic decency.

I listened carefully to Professor Ford this morning. I do not remember her, for which I mean no offense but do not apologize. It is a long time ago and we meet a lot of people. I'm sure my words will be searched and no matter what I say, someone will find a way to interpret it so that I might have secretly, for some unknown reason left a loophole to mean that yes I did molest her or someone else. But, I will do the best I can so that at least people without an ax to grind will understand. I believe her when she says we met. I believe her that someone molested her at some time, although she cannot remember when or even what year. I understand the trauma of women getting molested and the effect it can have on them. But, I have never molested or forced myself on her or any other woman, period. I have never had non-consensual sex or unlawfully exposed myself to anyone. I have never taunted a woman. I have never tried to take a woman's clothes off against her will. At the time Professor Ford describes me, I was a virgin. I did not have sexual experiences with anyone except perhaps very few chaste kisses, which I do not choose to discuss.

I will do my best to answer your questions as dispassionately as I can, but I may fail. I'm sure I will hear that I will. I'm sure I will be told, no matter how I do, that I was intemperate, lack judicial temperament and am, as I said, evil. But, we have heard that already before this new material even came up. We heard that before I was even named and was only an X to be filled in.  But, I will continue to be honest beyond what is in my best interests. There is a large part of me that does not want to be stoic, that wants to let my anger out at not only the gross insult to me far beyond what anyone should have to absorb in accepting a nomination. It has been suggested to me by normally civil people that I use a certain declaration containing a swear word with you, that I trade insult for insult, because no nominee has ever been so insulted before this committee before, not even Clarence Thomas.

I'm not going to do it. But, I understand why they want me to and I believe a lot of people would not only understand why I did it, but might even stand up in their living rooms and applaud. And some of those people, would have been witnesses before Congress. As you said, Senator, these are not normal times.

I understand the politics of it but have to stay out of it. If you ask me about the president, I will recite to you from a prepared statement once. I understand you do not like him. I can't comment. After that, I will just ask you if you want me to recite the prepared statement. I understand about Justice Garland, who is a personal hero of mine, who I stood up for, but if you ask me about him, I cannot comment on it, and I will just read a prepared statement the first time. After that, I will just read it again if you want me to. Along with Roe v. Wade, which I do not expect questions about today, that's really what this is all about, and I think that's what most people in this country know and expect. But, that has nothing to do with me and it's not something that should have anything to do with me.

If you ask me about the FBI I will read from a prepared statement once. I understand you would like them to investigate, but I can't comment on it. After that, I will just ask you if you would like me to recite the prepared statement.

I do understand that this type of politics has been going on for a long time, much longer than anyone here has been alive. But, we've come so far in so many ways. Just not in this way. I found this quote from John Adams from a letter to Thomas Jefferson. By the way, that was era where the two sides routinely said horrible things about each other too. In any event, this was later in their lives and they were out of government, and had patched up their differences:

"While all other Sciences have advanced, that of Government is at a stand; little better understood; little better practiced now then 3 or 4 thousand Years ago. What is the Reason? I say Parties and Factions will not suffer, or permit Improvements to be made."

There's more, but I thought that was the most applicable part. We can see planets surrounding other stars and send robots through veins to cure diseases, but when another party takes power, we still try to destroy the lives of the people. It is practiced no better now than when the forefathers lived.

So, shut up, right? It is a seat on the Supreme Court. Death threats to your family, never getting to teach again because probably some of the students, egged on, will now call you a rapist or disrupt the class, perhaps never coaching again because protesters might show up at the game and endanger the children, hiring security guards for my children, these are the penalties I should have to expect, because I was nominated by a president you don't like. So, it's my problem, right.

You do have a duty, of course, to investigate the claim. It could have been handled confidentially with Chairmen Grassley two months ago and it would have then been discovered that none of the other people allegedly involved, including Prof. Ford's friend have any memory or knowledge of it, that there is no date or year for it, no evidence whatsoever of it. I am not making light of her feelings or pain. I am talking about reality. It did not need to be this for her sake or mine. It did not need to be this for the sake of the country. As to the other claims, all I can say is, are you serious? Is this where we are at? A woman can claim she went to ten parties where I was involved with the gang rapes of women, where no one called the police, where there is no evidence of it, and we are to take it seriously? What claim is so far-fetched that we do not take it seriously? Must it involve space aliens? I wish, I wish, I wish I was not jesting.

As I said before and might say again in answering your questions, Professor Ford sounds credible and I believe she is sincere, I know for a fact that she is wrong because I would never, even as a young man who sometimes drank too much, do such a thing. I was surprised, I have to admit, that no one asked her, a professional psychologist, if people in general, witnesses after even 24 hours, trauma victims ever have false memories. I think it is fairly well known, and one doesn't even have to be a trained psychologist to know it. But, there are books on the market and people giving talks about the certainty they had in accusing someone of rape, only to years later realize that - they were wrong. I admit, I wish someone else had brought that up, but, it looks like, I will have to.

I will take a deep breath now and submit to your questions. Forgive me if I am not the model of stoicism today, although I will try to re-achieve that level. Try to imagine that someone has accused you of one of the most heinous crimes we know of in front of the whole world and that you were worried someone was hunting your spouse or family and perhaps you will understand.

I will take your questions now."

That's my Kavanaugh statement. Of course, he had all that stuff about his dad and his calendar, some of which worked, some of which was booooorrrrrinng.

And, his petulance with some of his questioners, particularly Klobuchar, who is generally well-liked, and not as did not play well with anyone who did not want him to be confirmed in the first place, and did play well with those who thought the Ds were off the charts obnoxious when they first addressed him. But, other than the narrow band of Fox, talk radio and a few other media outlets, the overwhelming television and print coverage is anti-Trump (too well established to argue - see the Harvard study) and anti-Kavanaugh.

Even after it is over, it wasn't over. We had to listen to another round of dreadful speeches from everyone. I was even surprised at Lindsey Graham, who was outraged, purple with rage while Kavanaugh was being questioned, but calmed down the next day to say much the same thing, and defended his own policy again of voting for D nominees and treating them with dignity, even though he disagrees with him. I will give him a B-, not an A. Here's why. First, he's delusional to say they did the right thing with Garland. Yes, it was legal, but it so violated the trust the two parties must have with one another, that it has fueled this anger (and, yes, I'm perfectly aware that pretty much all of the the leading Ds had earlier said that they thought the rule should be no appointments in a presidential election year when it suited them - but that was insane too). If the Ds get the Senate there will be no more Trump higher offices filled until Justice Garland is seated on the Supreme Court, period, and we will see about after. Of course, he won't do that, so . . . .

Second, Graham does vote for the D nominees. And he does not sneer at them from across the floor. Nor do the other R committee members (at least since Sessions is gone). They were not as obnoxious as Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Hirono, Leahy and Durbin were, at least, with Kavanaugh and Korsuch, but they were smarmy and tried to be a little tricky, at least with Sotomayor and Kagan. I grimaced a little, but they were still respectful. Jeff Sessions questioning Kagan over her gun position while Dean at Harvard Law was probably the hottest exchange - he did look like he wanted to smite her. But, Sessions wasn't calling her a monster. He was just calling her out as being a liberal secretly against guns. And, in my opinion, she got the better of the exchange (as the justices usually do), because he was being paranoid. Compare that to the way to aforenamed D Senators treated Kavanaugh even before the Ford accusation came out - "Evil."

The problem is, a quarter to half the country is happy to agree that Kavanaugh is a monster, or at the very least, his being nominated by the Trump is enough to justify the destruction of his personal happiness, and his family's with it.  A friend of mine I was speaking to yesterday, who is unable to discuss anything about Trump without becoming enraged and quickly hanging up (he once, at his house, told me he was leaving the room if we didn't stop talking about Trump - meaning, he could, I couldn't - and I don't even like Trump), told me he trusts his judgment and he could tell from the first second that he saw Kavanaugh, he's an evil guy, part of the whole conspiracy to take the United States down and use it for the profit of just a few people. Yeesh. But, that's the Sanders-Warren-Democratic Socialist message, isn't it? Not really Clinton's, but, could she even run now if she didn't adopt it? I think she would soon get the Jim Webb treatment if she ran in 2020, unless she completely caved, kowtowing to the new generation. If she didn't, they'd yank her mike, and I don't mean figuratively. Cuomo found he had to say "America was never great" when he ran against a no borders, no Ice opponent, and he was initially a fairly moderate, actually conservative D.

A number of the Ds on the committee, friends who spoke with me, commentators online, etc., complained that Kavanaugh revealed himself as not having a judicial temperament. I know very few people who have not lost their temper at one time or another, many with very little reason. A very few of them show stress, but will not raise their voice no matter what the the provocation. I yell all the time now at my gf, but believe me SHE GODDAM WELL DESERVES IT!!!!! (God, I hope she doesn't read this - if I don't post next month, you'll understand. Donations are welcome). But, I have a pretty good sense of humor about myself. You can insult me a lot. I don't get upset about ethnic or slurs ("she" insults me so regularly I have to have a pretty thick skin), but, I admit, if you hit the right nerve about my personal integrity basically, call me personally dishonest, I can get pissed. And, though it doesn't seem to happen that I can recall. If you called me depraved, a child molester, rapist, etc., yeah, I'd be furious too.

The irony is, we live in the most sensitive times I've ever experienced in my life. It is the opposite of when I grew up, when it seemed people had a much thicker skin except for people we found a little weird, or, of course, little kids. Now, people are very quick to get insulted. Do parents even teach their kids "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me," anymore? We even have micro-aggressions, which I'm pretty sure mean "'not-aggressions' but we'd like to call them aggression anyway." Words with dual meanings ("retard" comes right to mind) or words that sound like other words (famously, niggardly) can be dangerous.

Everybody, well almost everybody (not Don, who sometimes commented here before Google screwed up the comment feature) is so freaking sensitive. Yet, when Bret Kavanaugh, on the word of a women who is going by memories that can at best be described as cloudy and incomplete, 35 or so years old, uncorroborated even as to the presence of her own friend, is called a child molester (she was a child at the time), and then also a serial rapist and drugger of women, some people expect him to say, "pip-pip, carry on" or not be livid or upset. His life is changed forever. He has already said he may never teach again. His own students would probably heckle him. How can he be alone with women now? How vulnerable is he? He has to worry about the security of his family, his parents? If he gets on the Supreme Court, are idiots going to be screaming out "rapist" at the oral arguments. We saw what the morons did at the first hearings he had (no Senator Grassley - it is not free speech when the police are dragging them away).

Today, people say they feel "unsafe" if someone has an opinion they do not like and they need "safe zones" or people get fired for their opinions (as famously happened at Google and just happened, I believe at CERN. But, Bret Kavanaugh is not allowed to be upset or show it, because he's going to be a Supreme Court justice and we have to pretend they are without partisan . . . ehhhh . . . they are without partisanship. How silly. Every other member of the court is as partisan as they can be. He'd be no different. In fact, he'd probably still be the least partisan of the R justices. I understand why politicians keep up the pretense of these partisan fantasies that the other justices are fair or impartial, but why do other people? Why not just say, I just want my side to win? Is there an R who wouldn't want Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from every controversial case, as a liberal constitutional scholar now insists Kavanaugh would have to, because she said something intemperate about Trump? Come off it. We know how every one of them really feels? Do you remember what Obama said that caused the the Rs not to go the State of the Union address anymore? It was nothing, a pittance over a case? Should they all recuse themselves? Of course not.

Of course, it doesn't matter to the Ds (neither parties feel shame - their friends all support them), because, as I wrote above, it's never been about him (and certainly not about Ford). It's mostly about Garland and Trump and Roe, in some order. I have no doubt, with the hysteria we are seeing, that some of them have talked themselves into believing the rhetoric.

I'm sure many ordinary citizens, forgetting that a week ago they were fine with him even if they were Ds or liberals, because now they have a handle that they'd be outraged at, no doubt, if used against a Clinton when one was in office. Come to think of it, not too long ago in history, they were. Except, almost all of that we've learned was true, and even some of them (and me - I supported him throughout it) kind of came to believe he may have been a rapist too. Indeed, I've only today learned that Juanita Broderick is demanding an FBI investigation into her alleged rape by Clinton. Anyway, partisanship is very powerful, blinding, and I'm sure they believe, whatever it is they believe and that includes believing they were fair in appraising it and coming out on the side they did. As Judge Roy Bean was supposed to have said - "First we have a fair trial, then we hang him." Or perhaps it is just the most magnificent coincident ever known to humankind - that in fairly appraising political controversy, Ds and liberals will side almost every time with Ds and liberals and Rs and cons will side with Rs and cons. And when they don't, their own side will hate them with a white hot heat little seen outside of supernovas.

I do hope Bret Kavanaugh gets on the Court. I have a gentlemen's bet that I hope I lose that he will not. So far I'm losing as he passed the Committee, when Flake voted for him. But, as we know, Flake nearly buckled and did the whole FBI thing, which, if you were watching, was just a weird ballet between him, who didn't know what he was trying to say, Grassley, who just wanted to finish and the Ds, who wanted Flake to make unprecedented demands (or an "amendment," which made no sense) on his yes vote that really made no sense. His experience, particularly with the two women in the elevator, tells us something. It is going to be an all-out "protest-assault" on Flake, Murkowski and Collins and probably a few D Senators to get them to vote against. I am hopeful it doesn't turn violent, but it seems to me that Ted Cruz and his wife were all ready chased out of a restaurant (which now has armed guards b/c the owners are getting death threats - although many Ds have assured me their far left is not becoming violent) in the name of Kavanaugh, so chances are not great if those protesting violence don't feel that they are getting their way.

Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat (ironically, when I was a liberal, I could not stand him at all as he had the most combative and obnoxious debating style) and Harvard professor who often pontificates these days in favor of conservative outrage at political correctness b/c so many liberals truly have gone so far off their nut that it is hard to believe, has been falsely accused himself in the past and knows what it is like. He called what goes on these days nearly sexual McCarthyism. That's kind of like what it is, but maybe worse.  Whatever it is, I am passed my dating age and don't have to suffer much because of it. But, I feel for young people today. Many are just ignoring it, but many are just accepting it and they are missing a lot and also being afraid. I've heard too many say so to me, and it's not like I've talked to that many, to think it's just me being an old codger saying damn those kids and their newfangled ways.

The man I sometimes refer to here as Eddie told me that he heard recently that not only should affirmative consent be obtained before sex, but that it should be enthusiastic consent. Well, there goes my sex life and that of almost everyone in my age group. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just saying. But, even Eddie, pretty far to the left by his own admission, thought that was over the top.

And, I'm done watching. The Senate has been speaking about it non-stop, as have the talking heads. I really can't listen anymore to either side. Poor Bret. We will see what happens. But, I just don't think he's going to make it and that will be the shame (as was Garland).  

Farewell, John McCain

Have you noticed that death alone awakens our feelings? How we love the friends who have just left us? How we admire those of our teachers who have ceased to speak, their mouths filled with earth! Then the expression of admiration springs forth naturally, that admiration they were perhaps expecting from us all their lives. But do you know why we are always more just and more generous toward the dead? The reason is simple. With them there is no obligation.” – Albert Camus

I wrote the following paragraph in December, 2006, thinking about the then upcoming 2008 presidential nomination process, trying to predict who might have a chance in the nomination process. At the time, Rudy Giuliani was doing really well in the polls before he self-destructed (and as far as I am concerned, never completely recovered). After I wrote it, McCain bottomed out, was virtually out of the race, but held on and rallied to win it. And I was glad. I’m correcting a couple of typos, which I left in the original, before posting this, because, frankly, they are embarrassing. And who’s going to complain if I do? Without some compulsion to be honest about it, who would know? Ironically, I frequently edit other people’s work for profit and friendship, but somehow still can’t find the strength to edit my own posts before I hit publish, even if I spent days writing it. I’m just babbling, as usual. Here’s the bit on McCain:

“John McCain. Long time Arizona Senator. I am a little biased here. He has been my personal favorite since the late 90s. McCain is a genuine war hero. In the modern world, you often just need to sign up or show up for hero status, but McCain survived years of POW torture, and refused to go home ahead of others who were there before him, which he could have due to his privileged position as an admiral’s son. Sounds pretty heroic to me. I like McCain for his moderation, his willingness to buck his own party, his willingness to admit mistakes. He is a formidable speaker, strong on defense, and appears to me, at least, to put country first. Many conservatives dislike him for the same reasons I like him. Naturally, I don’t like everything he does either. Some of his supposedly benevolent positions like the campaign reform law he sponsored and his attempts to censor certain commercial activities in order to protect children, cross over first amendment boundaries in my opinion. I watched a hearing where he grilled now convicted Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling, and showed a lack of understanding of basic economics. However, most of his comrades seemed equally clueless. He has already disappointed me by wisely asking the forgiveness of the same religious groups he castigated in 2000 by going to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and speaking there. Still, he knows what he needs to do to win. I give him THE BEST CHANCE TO WIN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION DESPITE GIULIANI'S GENERAL POPULARITY.”

Reading it again, I’m actually surprised to see that I feel pretty much the same way today as I did in 2006. I don’t know that I would change anything substantive in it. When he died he was still my favorite politician. I think my future biographer will have little trouble establishing that as I just did a word search for “McCain” on my blog and that found I’ve mentioned him in 99 posts since I started in September, 2006!!!  I’ve only posted 497 times total. That means I mentioned him in about 1 out of every 5 posts. That probably means I mentioned him in almost every political post I’ve written. Glad I didn’t know that. And, what I wrote, seems to be generally the same stuff that others say about him all the time, both the good and bad of it. So much for originality on my part.

When McCain lost his bid for the presidency, I was, not surprisingly, disappointed, although he did such a bad job campaigning that at the time he lost, it was already a foregone conclusion to everyone but those for whom it is an article of faith to be certain their side will win until they don’t. I was living in Virginia at the time and the local city newspaper published an op-ed I wrote about it. It doesn’t look to me that I ever posted it here, and it’s definitely too late now. If I recall, my main view was that the reasons he lost did not include his choice for VP (although, is there anyone left who doesn’t think that was a bad choice outside of her family?), but rather Bush fatigue, the economic collapse during another Republican’s term and, did I say this – a really bad campaign?

My feelings at his recent death were more complicated. First, we had quite a while to deal with it since he first announced his brain cancer.  So, hardly a shock. Second, I am in a period where I can barely stomach to watch anything political, though I expect that will change next year when people start jockeying for position for 2020. I also have a strange tendency to get irritated when the press makes a big deal out of a politician dying. I don’t know why. Maybe there’s a good reason, but I can’t think of it. I just do.

But, most of all, I wasn’t planning on watching because I didn’t want to see the hypocrisy of his fellow pols, most of whom I didn’t respect the way I did McCain, praise him, even treat him as a savior, when all they did during their careers were shoot him down unless they thought he’d vote the way they’d like. He was not, for all of his vaunted moderation, a popular man in many ways. Leave aside his famous explosive temper and perhaps some arrogance in private that I’d expect a world famous person like him might have (people who aren’t even famous on their block are arrogant, so why not him?), politicians, like most people, do not like moderates much. Yes, they hate their opposition, but I think they hate the moderate more (and McCain was largely conservative his whole career – just more moderate than most). The reason is, the moderate ruins the game, that is, that either a Democrat or Republican position, or a conservative or liberal one, is all there is. And one side has to win (coupled with the fantasy that next time everyone will see reason and it will be them).

Democrats sometimes loved him prior to his run for president. That’s because he’d sometimes take their side and more often, work with them on something he saw as important. Republicans, not surprisingly, hated him for that. After all, he took their money and ran as a Republican. There’s nothing politicians hate more than apostates. And the love from Democrats ended when he had the temerity to oppose their choice. Then he became a bad guy. I get to quote Mark Twain here at length. I actually love this and handcopied pages of the two speeches out of a book. Because I’m grateful to people who even skim what I write, this is only part of it:

“I have referred to the fact that when a man retires from his political party he is a traitor — that he is so pronounced in plain language. That is bold; so bold as to deceive many into the fancy that it is true. Desertion, treason — these are the terms applied. . .  What is the process when a voter joins a party? Must he prove that he is sound in any way, mind or body? Must he prove that he knows anything — is capable of anything — whatever? Does he take an oath or make a promise of any sort?— or doesn’t he leave himself entirely free? If he were informed by the political boss that if he join, it must be forever; that he must be that party’s chattel and wear its brass collar the rest of his days — would not that insult him? It goes without saying. He would say some rude, unprintable thing, and turn his back on that preposterous organization. But the political boss puts no conditions upon him at all; and this volunteer makes no promises, enlists for no stated term. He has in no sense become a part of an army; he is in no way restrained of his freedom. Yet he will presently find that his bosses and his newspapers have assumed just the reverse of that: that they have blandly arrogated to themselves an ironclad military authority over him; and within twelve months, if he is an average man, he will have surrendered his liberty, and will actually be silly enough to believe that he cannot leave that party, for any cause whatever, without being a shameful traitor, a deserter, a legitimately dishonored man.

There you have the just measure of that freedom of conscience, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech and action which we hear so much inflated foolishness about as being the precious possession of the republic. Whereas, in truth, the surest way for a man to make of himself a target for almost universal scorn, obloquy, slander, and insult is to stop twaddling about these priceless independencies and attempt to exercise one of them. If he is a preacher half his congregation will clamor for his expulsion — and will expel him, except they find it will injure real estate in the neighborhood; if he is a doctor his own dead will turn against him.

I repeat that the new party-member who supposed himself independent will presently find that the party have somehow got a mortgage on his soul, and that within a year he will recognize the mortgage, deliver up his liberty, and actually believe he cannot retire from that party from any motive howsoever high and right in his own eyes without shame and dishonor.

. . .

This infamous doctrine of allegiance to party plays directly into the hands of politicians of the baser sort — and doubtless for that it was borrowed — or stolen — from the monarchial system. It enables them to foist upon the country officials whom no self-respecting man would vote for if he could but come to understand that loyalty to himself is his first and highest duty, not loyalty to any party name.

Shall you say the best good of the country demands allegiance to party? Shall you also say that it demands that a man kick his truth and his conscience into the gutter and become a mouthing lunatic besides? Oh no, you say; it does not demand that. But what if it produce that in spite of you? . . .”

And

"He taught them that the only true freedom of thought is to think as the party thinks; that the only true freedom of speech is to speak as the party dictates; that the only righteous toleration is toleration of what the party approves; that patriotism, duty, citizenship, devotion to country, loyalty to the flag, are all summed up in loyalty to the party. Save the party, uphold the party, make the party victorious, though all things else go to ruin and the grave.”

It reads like a satire, but it is real life. It hasn’t changed at all since Mark Twain’s day. Someone should have read it at McCain’s funeral even if they are all pretending to care about what he preached and how he conducted his life. Because that's them, that's most people.  Before he died and after he died.

I saw what I expected to see as the funerals approached. Putting on C-Span, I watched one Senator (I’ll be nice and leave out his name) praise him for putting “country over party.” I am sure many did. If they thought it was such a good thing, I’d expect we’d see them do it too. But, that hasn’t been my experience with that Senator or most of the two parties (Graham, Manchin, come to mind).  I turned the tv off before I saw crocodile tears, which may have been genuine, for all I know. People have an incredible capacity for self-deception.  I thought it would be too much to watch his televised funeral, but at the last moment I decided to do so. It wasn’t so bad. The eulogists did a reasonably good, if not inspired job.

But I heard about “country first” again at his funeral in Arizona. How long will that last? I expect until the tv coverage ends and it is back to day to day politics. And, in fact, just now, I learned that this same Senator – Okay, Chuck Schumer. There, I said it – in response to the White House holding back a fraction of the record-setting number of documents demanded in Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing (requesting something like 4 to 5 times the amount of the next highest number requested for any previous Supreme Court nominee and they’ve already released far more than twice as much as the next largest earlier production), is claiming it is a “cover up.” Well, you know, it could be, of course, but I doubt it. But, both parties have dirty secrets and are reprehensible when in power. Maybe Kavanaugh is a serial killer who only targets widows and orphans. They would run with that if they thought it would work. And, if they can find one women who thought one off color joke by a staffer of his was improper and who did not lose his job, they will act as if Kavanaugh raped an entire village.

If you aren’t spinning already, John, start now. What do you think would happen if he didn’t die, and came back to the Senate? The same grieving conservatives would have disliked him as an apostate, respecting only the small power he had garnered. The same grieving liberals as a right wing nut case, as they did when he opposed Obama. It is not that I don’t think that people should patch up quarrels after they retire. I do, where it is genuine. But, he wasn’t retired. And this isn’t genuine, even for those who are genuinely touched by his death.

At the top of this post I quoted from a Camus book I read quite a long time ago, The Fall. It was a great book, I thought superior to The Stranger, his most famous. But, little stuck has stuck with me over the decades but the tone of the book and that one line, which I vaguely remembered and had to look up. I put his question to those politicians mourning McCain. Why are they all so complimentary and admiring to a man whose political philosophy they rejected out of hand? Because they no longer have to deal with him, have any “obligation” towards him. As when he lost the election – gave up – they could afford to be generous. It makes them look good. Ironically, the biggest jerk of them all, Trump, is being the most genuine, outside of McCain’s family, who I expect loved him.

I would like to avoid going to funerals where I'm not wanted and don't want to go, in my life. I can think of someone I know who I found more than a little disagreeable in life, who will likely precede me to the grave. I have said that I do not want to go to that person's funeral to others who think it is a matter of showing respect, being supportive of a survivor or just being conventional. What if I have no respects to pay?  What if I think it will be a distraction or that it is showing disrespect?  If I do go, for I am subject to acting out of pity, it will be out of obligation to the living. Probably, I would regret it, even if it is not dramatic. 

McCain did put country first. At least, consistent with his beliefs. And he did it to his own detriment over and over again. He would tell them in Iowa that corn subsidies were wrong and he’d say in the industrial belt that those jobs weren’t coming back. He’d even say this when campaigning. And, when he thought it was important, he’d vote against his party. At the end, I think he may have been voting against Trump.

Of course, he could be wrong, or, I could think him wrong and I did so all the time. It doesn’t matter – as Stalin once, supposedly anyway, said of Churchill – I don’t know what he said, but I like his spirit. I did like McCain’s spirit. I liked his sense of humor, I liked him calling his friends, even kids “jerks,” I loved his standing up to his party, and I liked his admitting when he was wrong or that economics wasn’t one of his strengths (it wasn’t – he seemed clueless). It is a rare trait in any person, never mind a politician.

Over and over again, it has been said that he acknowledged he wasn’t perfect. Well, come on, he’d better. But, then again, others don’t. He was far from perfect but admitted that he had pandered and did things he wasn’t proud of to win. Maybe it was not much, but it was a lot more than I hear others doing. And he did it while he was vulnerable and in the game.

But, did he have a happy life (we sometimes ask when people die)? Not counting the 5 ½ years of hell, of course.  I expect a lot of the time he was genuinely pissed off, but, he had a job that would lend itself to it. Still, it seemed to me that he was happier than most were -  a happy warrior compared to most of them.

Speaking of happiness, I am reminded . . .  that always sounds pompous. Take two. Once, a long, long time ago. . . Take three. You know I like history, right? And, Herodotus, was the “father of history?” Heard of him, right? So, in his histories, he wrote about a king named Croesus. Croesus was so rich (his people, the Lydians, who lived in modern day Turkey, may actually have invented coinage, or at least solid silver or gold coinage) that we still 2500 or so years later have an expression, “. . . rich as Croesus.” People said it when I was growing up all the time and it was a thing. Anyway, rich as he was, when the celebrated wise man, Solon, paid him a visit, he made the mistake of asking him if he was the happiest person. Solon, undeterred by Croesus’ disappointment, explained that he wasn’t. Apparently, you have to be dead before you know, to see if you died well and what else was going to happen in your life. You can almost see Donald Trump asking some celebrated wise man this and being angered at the answer.

Croesus had some setbacks. His beloved son, who he tried to protect after being warned about his death by an oracle, was killed nevertheless in the manner predicted. He was totally f’d by an oracle and attacked Persia, destroying an empire, just as the oracle predicted – but it was his own. He was almost burned alive by Cyrus, the greatest conqueror of his generation, but, either through royal or divine intervention, survived and faithfully served his conqueror. But, given a measure of freedom, he was no longer a king. It did not seem like he met the expectations he set for himself or ever achieved the happiness he thought his wealth deserved. I have to say, I know a few people like that.

It would seem to me, applying Solon’s standards, McCain was wildly successful and happy. He arguably had a head start, being the son of an admiral who was the son of an admiral. I have not read any of his books, and I cannot say whether he had a pleasant or sad childhood, whether his birth was a benefit to him or too much pressure. Whatever it was, he ended up flying a bomber in the Vietnam War, was shot down, was gravely injured in his crash, worse when captured, worse when tortured for years. And, like Trump, he’d tell you he was no hero, he cracked. He signed a statement for his enemies and prepared to kill himself, stopped by his tormentors. He should not have suffered so. But, just the same, it probably forged his personality to a large degree, just by surviving it. I’m sure he would rather have done without it, a hundred times over. But, it also made his reputation forever. Even if it is a thin silver lining, it was something. Who besides him and Trump would say he wasn’t a hero? I’m sure there are some, because many people – many good people - can’t separate politics and character. McCain could and did. For all his famed feistiness, he was forgiving, probably more so than I am. He went back to Vietnam more than once, and was instrumental in that country’s partial reconciliation with us.

I have said before, I do not understand the story about his refusal to leave Vietnam before his turn (they went in order of capture), when the Northern Vietnamese found out his parentage. I do not understand why they didn’t tie him up in a box and drop him off at the Swiss embassy. What would they do? Give him back? Still, no one has ever challenged it and maybe it is true. I can’t say.

I listened to the eulogies of Joe Biden, Barack Obama and George Bush. McCain chose them to show we have to get past political differences, as he was justly famous for doing. And, they spoke well. Everyone has spoken movingly about him, obviously other than Trump, who, left out, has been wisely and uncharacteristically mostly silent about it. His daughter and son-in-law did attend and sat quietly through the withering “America has always been great,” shot at Trump by McCain’s daughter. To be honest, she’s entitled at her father’s funeral to some liberties, but, I thought it unnecessary, a distraction and not so wise.

Many commentators are, in fact, claiming the funeral, designed by McCain to a large extent, was a repudiation of Trump by his exclusion (though it was said if he came, no one would have stopped him).  I can’t say for sure, of course, but I think they are, too some degree, at least, correct. It was just a sentence here or there, but it was enough. Looking at it as generously as possible, in repudiating Trump, he was repudiating the one he sees as epitomizing what he didn’t like about politics in general on both sides.  But, how much a “healer” McCain would have appeared to be had he invited Trump?  I don’t think Trump is so narcissistic that he would have ruined the funeral, although others might have been ungracious to him. Trump Derangement Syndrome knows few boundaries.

How do you have healing when the president, elected by roughly half the electorate, and geographically speaking, most of the country, is excluded and mocked? If that was McCain’s plan, it was a dumb one. He’s not responsible for his daughter’s eulogy or the jabs taken here and there at the president. To the extent he would have smiled, well, the celebration of his life is marred by that too, because making it about Trump - which is now the media drumbeat, trivialized McCain's life - which was about so much more.

As always, I’m not trying to be remotely comprehensive about his life or even his funeral. I left a lot out that I know without reading it, and I’m sure there is even more on just Wikipedia that I don’t know. I don’t really care enough about the details to study it. I just know why I liked him so much more than everyone else, although, as stated in that 2006 post, I recognize that these are probably some of the same reasons others despise him. You know what they are too, so I don’t have to say. Nor do I want to try to compete with the eulogizers. They did pretty well, even Bush, with whom a speech can be a deadly weapon.

I’m just going to say, good-bye John. I think we are lucky to have had you. You made politics better, even if in a small way. Perhaps it was not with any lasting success, but some small success that will resonate here or there. Perhaps, like some of history's unsung heroes, it will be a long term victory rather than a short term one. Perhaps that’s the most anyone can do. And it definitely is not the same without you.

Musical notes

Over the almost 12 years I've written this blog (unbelievable to me - I thought I'd just try it out), I've written about music relatively little - I think five times - twice on Louis Prima  - Sing, Sing, Sing (12/10/07 - really about his song of that name) and Ladies and Gentleman: I give you Louis Prima (5/16/08). Then The music goes round and round (9/1/15) in which I just discuss my favorite pieces of my favorite musicians, and Music is not my life (12/10/16), which memorializes my pathetic attempts to learn to play an instrument. Last, was La Vie en Rose and other things that make me cry (1/14/16). La Vie en Rose was a song made famous by Edith Piaf and probably written by her (unclear in France's system, she wasn't entitled to claim to have written a song - I know, weird). 

Like everyone I know, I love music. That is, I don't think I have ever actually met anyone who has told me that they don't love music, though I suppose it's possible. This blog has always been about what I am thinking about lately, and that happens to be music, though, naturally, I have no idea why. Mostly I listen to symphonic music (colloquially, like most people nowadays, I just call it all "classical", to warn those who are dying to tell me that this one was baroque and that one romantic). I've even been reading biographies of those usually classified as the greatest composers - Bach, Tchaikovsky and Beethoven (along with Mozart, I believe Bach and Beethoven are the most universally revered, and I suspect Tchaikovsky is in most classical listeners top 10). It is interesting to me how many of the composers just seem plain nuts. I'd exempt Bach, who, though certainly driven, seemed to have a normal life including a family. Tchaikovsky - nuts. Beethoven - nuts. Mozart - I haven't read a biography yet on him, but it is suspected he had Tourette's syndrome or some form of autism. Mental illness and extreme creativity have often been linked in the popular mind, though I don't know if there is some authoritative epidemiological study on it and it's not my purpose here.

My purpose is, actually, just to review or recommend some new favorites. I'm not going to presently revise The music goes round and round, and a look at it tells me I still feel roughly the same about the best of my favorites. But, I know one change. Louis Armstrong would get a new entry - Skokiaan. I heard this song on a documentary about New Orleans, played by a modern band, and they attributed it to Armstrong. It's not really his, but he did an amazing cover in his own unmistakable way. It immediately became a standard on my workout ipod list.  Here's Wikipedia's first two paragraphs, footnotes excluded:

""Skokiaan" is a popular tune originally written by Rhodesian (Zimbabwean) musician August Musarurwa (d. 1968, usually identified as August Msarurgwa on record labels) in the tsaba-tsaba big-band style that succeeded marabi. Skokiaan (Chikokiyana in Shona) refers to an illegal self-made alcoholic beverage typically brewed over one day that may contain ingredients such as maize meal, water and yeast, to speed up the fermentation process.The tune has also been recorded as "Sikokiyana," "Skokiana," and "Skokian."

Within a year of its 1954 release in South Africa, at least 19 cover versions of "Skokiaan" appeared. The Rhodesian version reached No 17 in the United States, while a cover version by Ralph Marterie climbed to No. 3. All versions combined propelled the tune to No. 2 on the Cash Box charts that year. Its popularity extended outside of music, with several urban areas in the United States taking its name. Artists who produced their own interpretations include The Four Lads, Louis Armstrong, Bill Haley, Herb Alpert, Brave Combo, Hugh Masekela and Kermit Ruffins. The Wiggles also covered this song on their Furry Tales album. The music itself illustrates the mutual influences between Africa and the wider world."

It's infectious and a song I hope to hear it live someday. Here's a link to an Armstrong version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doJfIVW93fs

Another piece that is hardly new to me or likely you, but which is of much older vintage than you'd think is Minuet in G minor. This was attributed to Bach for over 300 years because it was found in his wife's yearbook he would prepare for her, until the 1970s when a researcher recognized it not as Bach's, but from Christian Pezold (sometimes Petzold), a contemporaneous organist-composer of Bach, now long forgotten, who also came from a musical family. I can't seem to track down any English language discussion of the subject, but I've read that Bach scholars are fairly in consensus about it. Still, if you go on the internet, you'd more likely find it attributed to Bach. Can't fight the internet. Like time, it is infinitely more powerful than any man or woman. The minuet would be quite familiar to you from a few modern sources. The Toys did a version based on it in the '60s, written by Hall of Fame composers Linzer and Randell, called Lover's Concerto (even though, of course, it's not a concerto) and were soon followed by an even better version of it by The Supremes. Then, in the 1980s, a now little-remembered movie (I say that because I've asked people about it and they don't remember), Electric Dreams, had a duet played by a sentient computer and a celloist who thought she was playing with her neighbor. The music is from the minuet, but made more modern and exciting. 

Here is the link to the Supreme's Lover's Concerto - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU8MuWJm_cY.

Here is the link to the Electric Dreams' duet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVE8taDWmMc. Give it a minute or so to get going. It starts slow but it's worth it.  It's also a good movie, though it now seems outdated, that you can also find on youtube.

Sometime in the past year I also discovered a guitarist who gives street performances and records his music free for our consumption online, though you have to pay for many concerts. I know I recommended him to Bear, but I'm not sure anyone else. He's a German Jew born in Ukraine where he spent a few years and since then has lived all over the world including in New York. He looks like a hippy Jesus freak and burns incense on his guitar while he plays. You get the image. But, his music, sort of Flamenco and Gypsy, is to my ear beautiful and I read somewhere that his Song of the Golden Dragon has over 40 million youtube views. So, though it may not be your cup of tea, it is apparently a lot of people's (which is how I feel about rap - not my cup of tea, but it sure seems popular).  Here's a link -

Song of the Golden Dragon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gphiFVVtUI.

I don't think this next artist has much of a following and I doubt the harmonica is going to get her there. But, this piece by Indiara Sfair called Improvisation in C Minor works for me. She recorded it over a backing track by someone Arthur Sowinski. Whoever he is, I guess he makes them for people like her.  She should try out for America's Got Talent. She'd have a shot if she picked a few good pieces to play and wowed them.

My next to last selection is not new or unheard of or long forgotten. It's been famous for over 200 years - Beethoven's Piano Sonata in C Minor aka The Moonlight Sonata. A German music critic gave it it's sobriquet a few years after Beethoven died, and many more people know it that way than by the formal title, including me. It's a haunting piece written in three movements. I really don't understand why one piece is a sonata, another a fantasy, another an etude, etc. or some more than one, but Beethoven himself called it Sonata quasi una fantasia, essentially, a sonata in the style of a fantasy. Many people have thought that the idea that the music evoked moonlight was laughable, and I usually don't the idea of music really having any meaning except to us as individuals - though we are often given suggestions by the composer or others that seem to fit. I have little doubt you could call many a musical piece War to one group and Peace to another and have them both sure it was aptly titled. In any event, since I sleep so poorly, I find there are times that I desperately need a nap in the afternoon, but can't get quite there. I found that the Moonlight Sonata helps.

There are a few other pieces by Beethoven I've become very fond of recently as I study him. One is his Creatures of Prometheus, written for his only full-length ballet. It's excellent on its own accord, even if not the best of Beethoven, but, in the finale, even a non-musician like me can hear an earlier version of the final movement of the much more famous (and greater) Eroica. Another piece of his I've come to love is his Missa Solemnis, which is really a generic title for Solemn Mass, which many other great composers have composed, including Mozart's Missa Solemnis in C major and Bach's Mass in B minor. I'm generally not a big fan of masses. I just don't get the interest in Bach's St. John's and St. Mathew's masses - in fact, I can't listen to them, though I've tried a few times each. However, I love his Mass in B minor and the two mentioned above by Beethoven and Mozart.  Usually, if you read or hear the title Missa Solemnis, without attribution to a composer, they mean Beethoven's. 

My Beethoven appreciation studies also led me to another somewhat older contemporary of his, who he thought the best of them (the feeling, by the also irascible Cherubini, was not mutual). Not that anyone puts Cherubini in Beethoven's league, but you get a sense of Beethoven's heroic style in some of his works and I like it. 

I haven't put links to any of these classical musicians because they are long works probably no one is going to listen to and you know where to find them if you want.

I will leave off with a young youtube star who I know I've mentioned before by the name of Daniela Andrade, a singer who plays soft acoustic covers of many famous songs in her own style, usually by herself with just guitar and a microphone but sometimes with a friend.  Talk about being lulled to sleep. If I didn't share a bedroom, I've sure I'd use her work for bedtime too. I first found her while listening to different versions of La Vie en Rose. When you are home reading or taking a nap, just put her on youtube and let go. I can't say what my favorite covers from her are, but, I love her version of Shakira's Hips Don't Lie (on which Shakira guest appears), Gnarles Barkley's Crazy and her haunting versions of Christmas time is here which she subtitles on her video f/t Cutest Dog in the Galaxy (you'll figure it out). Come to think of it, I love her Have yourself a merry little Christmas too.

Hips don't lie - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3_DL0q9oq4

Crazy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzxag7U3SnkCrazy - 

Have yourself a merry little Christmas - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wratYG6H-B4

Christmas Time is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iAaEH_dR_Y

I don't know that I will find any converts. Musical taste is like any other taste and that means subjective. I doubt my ever-lovin' gf would like any of it much, but, she did agree to go to an Estes Tonnes concert with me in December, so, there is hope.

The wisest thing . . . .

Recently, I read a question on a forum, something to the effect of - What is the wisest thing you’ve ever heard?

Although some contributors put a laundry list, I thought the question called for one.

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”   

This is from Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, a book I first read quite a few years ago – possibly as long ago as college or law school. He was a holocaust survivor. I believe his whole or almost his whole family was killed by the Nazis. Mostly, the book, or the first half anyway, is about forgiveness (the second half is about the psychotherapy he developed). I’m not talking about forgiving the descendants of Nazis, who should not be saddled with their ancestor’s sins. I mean the actual killers.  I admit, while I think forgiveness is valuable and often healthy, his capacity for it greatly exceeds mine. Still, he managed to forgive brutal and prolific murderers – I am taking his word for it. Anyway, whether I could forgive the people who wiped out my family (or other people’s families) or not, having a good attitude is pretty key in this world. And, I just know too many people who don’t have one. Even people who were born into such a great time and place as our own and objectively seem to have little to complain of. 

*

Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it, that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.

Descartes, beginning his Discourse on Method. Actually, I think it is wise, but only because when I first read it, I read only the single sentence. I took it as ironic and funny. The idea that it is natural to think your own way of thinking is not only right, but common to any right thinking person. But, he wasn’t being funny. He seems to be serious and believed that reason existed “naturally equal in all men.” Here’s the longer quote from his Discourse.

“Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world: because everyone thinks he is so well endowed, that even those who are hardest to satisfy in everything else, have no habit of desiring more than they have. What it is unlikely that all are wrong, but this shows that the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is properly what is called common sense or reason, is naturally equal in all men, and as well as the diversity of our opinions does not come from what some are more reasonable than others, but only that we conduct our thoughts in various ways, and do not see the same things. For it is not enough to have a good mind, but the key is to apply it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues, and those who do not work very slowly may move much more, they always follow the right path, as do those who run, and away from it.”

If there really is such a thing as common sense, and it is not just a way we gratify ourselves by categorizing people we agree with, I disagree it is equal in all people. Probably the potential for it is when we are born. But, particularly among the more conventional, we think it is so. So, I’ll truncate his statement and take out the part I like. In the end, wouldn't it be better to have uncommon sense?

*

Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world - and it never will.

This from a Mark Twain speech, Consistency, which, to my thinking was brilliant start to finish. Not a lot of speeches like that anymore. Like many great sayings – you have to stop before you take it to its logical conclusion and read it in the spirit offered. But, if he wrote “Loyalty to petrified opinion rarely breaks a chain or frees a human soul in this world – and usually won’t in the future,” it would lose a lot of its oomph.

What opinion is petrified and what is just solid wisdom? How about “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Old, venerable and petrified? Not yet it’s not. Really age has nothing to do with it.

So, why do I think it was wise? Because it often is. Twain meant (says I), don’t hold onto old ways of thinking when they’ve lost their usefulness and can’t be true. It’s what I see happen with friends and acquaintances, with different social groups all the time. Not that I’m opposed to tradition. I love many traditions and I’m sure I hang on to petrified opinions too. I’m pretty sure that, generally speaking, the older people get, the harder it gets to deal with change.  I just hope that I can change when it is called for.

*

“For at least I know, with certainty, that a man’s work is nothing but the long journeying to recover, through the detours of art, the two or three simple and great images which first gained access to his heart.”

Albert Camus. Lyrical and Critical Essays. 

I read L’Etranger (“The Stranger”) in high school French. Camus was a huge literary hit during WWII, in which he was part of the French “resistance” (as a writer, not a fighter). He wrote a few novels, which I liked, and some essays, which I found torture (unlike his sometimes friend, Sartre). The book from which the quote is taken was published a decade after his death, as he died a young man in an automobile accident. Politically, he was far left. When I was reading him as a kid, I had a lot more patience for the far left (never the far right – but, that’s how I was raised) than I do now. He was also generally a pacifist, a notion I grew up with in my head. Later in life he championed human rights. Not surprisingly, I was attracted to his personal story and I liked his created ones. Only a few years ago I read a biography about him and concluded, presuming it was relatively fair and accurate, however charming his personality might have been, however attractive to women he may have been, he was a jerk in his relationships.

But, whatever he was, I appreciate his statement about the great images we continue to seek after. For myself, I know where those images came from. They can be found in the first books my mother read with me – Born Free and Edith Hamilton’s Mythology. It shouldn’t be a surprise that books like Peter Mathiesson’s  The Snow Leopard and Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, both of which drip in mythology and nature, are at the top of my list. Not only have I read both multiple times, but I am always looking for something else that might match them, not just in ability, but in the images – nature and myth that I apparently have sought to recapture since my youth. Wagner's Forest Murmurs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08vTtu4pmjk) captures the essence musically and to my ear is one of the most beautiful pieces ever composed. Camus' statement is true for me. I don’t know if it is true for others. But, if I take everything I think I know about human psychology, I suspect it is and so include it in my list. Many insights can be found multiple times and said multiple ways throughout literature. But, I don't think I've read this elsewhere. If true, it explains many things about people, particularly artists, that we will never understand, as it is buried in a childhood past that we can’t penetrate without the aid of scholars able to mine an unexpected amount of personal material from someone when they were little. More often, even with famous people, we get to pick these images up only later in their lives, if at all.

*

"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said 'I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.'"

Ben Franklin’s Speech at the Constitutional Convention, read by James Wilson. Franklin is my great American hero. One of the two indispensable men (along with Washington, that’s a convention that I agree with it – others were very important, but no others had the age, dignity, wisdom and personality to be indispensable).

There are many statements one can find that are odes to self-doubt. Darwin wrote – “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” I have a fondness for that type of statement. In fact, I have a tendency to like philosophers who explain our ignorance more than those who think they know a lot more than is possible. But, I don’t know that anyone ever stated it so effectively or charmingly as my favorite founder.

*

“I have long entertained a suspicion with regard to the decisions of philosophers upon all subjects, and found in myself a greater inclination to dispute than assent to their conclusions. There is one mistake to which they seem liable almost without exception; they confine too much their principles, and make no account of that vast variety which nature has so much affected in all her operations. When a philosopher has once laid hold of a favourite principle, which perhaps accounts for many natural effects, he extends the same principle over the whole creation, and reduces to it every phenomenon, though by the most violent and absured reasoning. Our own mind being narrow and contracted, we cannot extend our conception to the variety and extent of nature, but imagine that she is as much bounded in her operations as we are in our speculation.”

David Hume – The Sceptic

Karl Popper, also one of my favorite philosophers, wrote something similar once, using the psychologist Alfred Adler as an example. “As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold."

I suspect that the process of resorting to Hume and Popper describe pertains not only to philosophers and theorists but to all of us. And maybe it can be a good thing and a survival mechanism because having frequent resort to a defense makes it practiced and effective. That is, until we come up against something new or that needs a different approach. And we are almost always coming up against something new.

*

“What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.”

St. Exupery, Wind, Sand & Stars

This is frequently attributed to C. S. Lewis, who was known for three things – writing the Narnia series, being a Christian apologist and being for a time J. R. R. Tolkien’s best friend and a member of their group, the Inklings, at Oxford. The falling out appears to be Tolkien’s fault, at least by more modern thinking, as he opposed Lewis’ second marriage on religious grounds.

Maybe Lewis wrote something similar. I couldn’t tell you and I have no intention of reading all of his works in order to try to find it. I did try to read a couple of his non-fiction books and couldn’t get past the first chapter. He probably was a really good writer, but, it was dull as far as I was concerned.

St. Exupery was, of course, most famous for The Little Prince. I read it in French when a kid for in French class (that is, the class read it – I believe I attempted it when awake enough on rare occasion), but found it much easier recently with the help of a dictionary, when necessary. It’s a fun and occasionally poignant story, and the desert plane crash that figures largely into it is autobiographical. St. Exupery was a pilot before he was a writer. I’m not sure that other than TLP, he was a great one. My experience with him is limited to one other book. Nevertheless, this pithy statement about perseverance resonates with me. Often in life, including in my own profession, there is nothing to do but put your head down and slog along. It is true as well, as was sung in one of my favorite songs, The Gambler, “you got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.” It is at that dividing line that wisdom comes into play. But, when you fold ‘em, someone else walks away with the pot. Or the job. Or the victory. Or the girl.

*

“But extremes of all kinds are to be avoid[ed]; and though no one will ever please either faction by moderate opinions, it is there we are most likely to meet with truth and certainty.”

Hume, History of England

I’ve written on several occasions on the topic of moderation and what it means to me, but foremost in Why I am not a conservative (or a liberal) III; Eight political propositions on August 28, 2011, but in a great act of generosity and self-sacrifice, I will spare you having to read it and just give you the propositions:

Proposition 1 – Most statements about politics are general statements and should be subject to qualification, exception and nuance.

Proposition 2: Authority is necessary to a peaceful civilization, but, your obedience should end at the point it would require you to violate a deeply held belief or personal commitment, regardless of the ramifications.

Proposition 3: Being independent comes from a recognition that our political associations, particularly if formed when young, come from factors other than critical analysis or reason; it is deeply affected by how we were raised.

Proposition 4: Being independent requires an understanding that values are not immutable and often change over time for a society and for individuals as well; it is anathema to those who believe that ethics or morality are given to us by a deity, or must be a product of some authoritarian or historical factors.

Proposition 5: Moderation is a temperament that is necessary to learn or playing nicely with others, on a personal, political or societal level; however even moderation needs to be moderated, for in too strong a dose, it can be astronomically dangerous in the face of a lethal enemy (think Nazis, Bolsheviks and al Qaeda). Moderation also takes into consideration that conflicting principles or values can sometimes both be true.

Proposition 6: Just like honesty is the best policy, and yet not the only policy, the goal of individual freedom or liberty is but a primarily important political policy or value, and not the only one. 

Proposition 7: Of all the values which contribute to the happiness of man individually and collectively, the value of individual liberty, as a direction and a goal, is the most efficient, the most effective, and the most desirable way to get there.

Proposition 8: The good news is that our society has always been directed to a large degree on a libertarian pathway and it is our heritage of what is called the enlightenment or enlightenment values that have forged the way.

I don’t know that I would write it the same way today, 7 years later, but I think it would be largely the same – only vaguer.

But, some other things are true of moderation that come to mind, and, since I cut out most of what I wrote 7 years ago, these points may also be in there somewhere –

      1.     As Hume points out, moderates aren’t too popular with most others, including other moderates, b/c they disagree with most everyone about any number of things.

      2.     Moderates don’t all agree on everything with one another, sometimes anything.

      3.     Most people think they are moderates, as they associate it with fairness, and who doesn’t think they fair? They also have trouble believing others are moderates because they disagree so much. But, I actually think it’s a plurality of American voters.

      4.     Being moderate doesn’t mean being in the middle on every issue, nor perfectly balanced between the views of partisans. Sometimes there only is one valid side.

      5.     Even if it were metaphysically possible to be absolutely in the middle politically, you couldn’t stay there without moving, because the two basic sides move, most often towards the extremes, and not always evenly.

      6.     People on one side or the other will see moderates as the other side; partisanship requires looking through the wrong end of a telescope at others, and not behind them on their side seems like they are in the distance – that is, the opposite side.

      7.     Because moderates are all over the board and have no group dogma, they don’t make good political parties and are only a political force when the two major opposing camps are roughly evenly split.

      8.     Sometimes moderation is only possible when one side wins and has all the marbles; this has actually happened many times in history.

      *

These Bickerings of opposite Parties, and their mutual Reproaches, their Declamations, their Sing Song, their Triumphs and Defyances, their Dismals, and Prophecies, are all Delusion.

We seldom hear any solid Reasoning. I wish always to discuss the Question, without all Painting, Pathos, Rhetoric, or Flourish of every Kind.

John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson

I can’t tell you how many times I have used that quote in a comment online. It is so apropos right now where two sides are yelling at each other and no one listening. Politics in general is largely about trying to keep the other side from even having a voice at all, and we see plenty of that.

I know most people will not be watching the Justice Kavanaugh hearing, maybe this fall (not if the Ds can help it – they will hope to delay until after the election to see if they can flip the Senate and block Trump appointments). I’ve watched every Supreme Court hearing since the eighties when C-Span started showing them, although some of them years after they were held, and they are pretty much a joke. The party out of power, now the Ds, will do what they can to make this about anything but whether he is a jurist qualified to be on the Supreme Court, which, obviously he is. They will try to find personal frailties, some mistake he made in life or something that looks like a mistake in the goldfish bowl of politics, someone who will tarnish him, they will ask him questions about hypothetical matters or to make them promises – anything they can think of which he can’t answer. I actually watched his hearing when he became a Court of Appeals justice in 2006 and it was pretty much just like that. In fact, other than the fact that he has aged a dozen years, you might not be able to tell the difference between the two hearings – unless they find some dirt.

*

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.   

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Another quote I use over and over again in my goal to write the least popular comments in media history. On rare occasion I get as many as 30 people writing angry replies, although more often I’m politely ignored by most people. It’s quite rewarding. Unfortunately, what I’m usually saying about the King quote is something like this – “Those who now pass for “civil rights” advocates have killed MLK, Jr. a second time, standing his dream of our judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, on its head – now, they want everyone judged by the color of their skin, or their sex, or some other superficial aspect, rather than their intentions and character.”

I’ve written about King a couple of times here (Beating up on Martin Luther King, Jr. in public, 10/30/08 and Killing the dream again, 8/28/17) so I won’t belabor it. He might not have originated the “I have a dream” concept and certainly much of his celebrated speech was taken from others (if interested, check out the 2008 post), but no rational person would argue that his speech wasn’t powerful and eloquent. There are many ways to say that we should judge people by their character. But, it seems like it was something everyone knew but rarely applied. And, then, something changed. I saw it in my lifetime. While you could not say without laughing that there was no longer prejudice or racism or that lifetimes of oppression does not have effects long after it is gone, oppression and discrimination began slowly, but steadily, to decline. I am not saying that it would not have happened without King and the dream, but I do believe he was a great leader and inspired a lot of people. It happened faster and better because of him. The length of time it took Rs to recognize what he accomplished and their long desire to minimize his contribution to all of our lives, is a mark against them. I doubt many of them would own up to it now. But, now it is the left that is looking to judge by ethnicity and color. All you need to do is read the articles that repeatedly come out taking this approach. Racism is disturbing in whatever form it comes in. 

What happened to change this among those you would think would want to continue his legacy and success? Why is victimization, separationism and anti-education (a trilogy I learned from great linguist and writer on race, John McWhorter) still so prevalent, when it seems to increase, rather than decrease, racial disharmony? I have a theory. When people identify with a group that has been oppressed and denied dignity and respect for so long, and they finally get equality of opportunity - or approach it, it is hard for some to accept it without wanting something more. Call it revenge, call it comeuppance, retribution, social justice - call it whatever you like. But, the recent result in our country has been stepping away from wanting to be judged by character and instead demanding to be judged by skin color or something similarly superficial, to demand to be seen as a victim that needs retribution or required acceptance by others who might at least internally discriminate. In turn, there is a reaction of distrust and resentment from others and not only the minority - but those competing for the benefits of being a minority in our society. Sadly, this is what young people are being taught. It's more early Malcolm X, before he rejected his approach himself and was killed for it.

I don’t know what the solution will be, but I think it could be a return to the dream.

Next month or year I might have a whole different list of the “wisest” things, although probably most of these quotes have appeared in prior posts. I wasn’t going to exclude them from this post because of that. But it really doesn’t matter. I read a lot and am always looking for wise or inspiring things. And, I like to pass them on.  Someone else might have an entirely different list. I notice that when I invite people to post their own responses, no one does – not even my few regular commenters. So, instead, I am inviting no one to offer their own opinion. See how that works.