The Day Didn't End Soon Enough

Franken should not have resigned. His fate should have been left 2the people of MN. Moore, who had sexual contact w a 14-yr old, should drop out. Conyers, who hit on his employees, should have resigned. Franken is a creep who acted inappropriatly, but his facts are different.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) December 7, 2017

I'm afraid to look outside.  Water will be running uphill.  Dogs and cats, living together!

I know Al Franken wasn't held to the legal standard for his alleged conduct, but there's a reason the legal standard for assault (the civil tort, not the criminal statute) is "a reasonably prudent person."

Assault, as a tort, is an offensive contact.  But what does that mean?  A contact that offends the person contacted?  No, that's too subjective.  Under that standard, simply bumping someone on the sidewalk or in a store could be a civil assault.  The legal standard, then, requires that the contact be offensive to "a reasonably prudent person."  Of course, under that standard, even grabbing someone's ass during a photograph might not be assault; because the jury would have to decide whether a reasonably prudent person would consider it offensive, or simply inappropriate.

The former is actionable, the latter isn't.  And the reason for the standard is pretty much this:

“I have to say that I’m so sad and appalled at his lack of response and him owning up to what he did,” Stephanie Kemplin, an army veteran who accused Franken of groping her while he was in Kuwait entertaining the troops in 2003, said on MSNBC.

“He just keeps passing the buck and making it out to be something that we — we took his behavior the wrong way or we misconstrued something or that we just — we just flat-out lied about what happened to us,” she continued.

Kemplin made the comments when asked if Franken’s resignation is justice for allegedly groping several women. Kemplin said that his resignation does not feel like justice to her and that she would like to see him acknowledge his behavior.

“Justice to me would be him owning up to what he did and to stop trying to pass the buck onto other individuals who possibly — they did commit the same things, maybe even more heinous than what he’s done,” she said, perhaps referencing to Franken’s comment in his resignation speech that President Donald Trump and Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore have not seen the same repercussions for their alleged sexual misconduct.

Justice in the courts is not justice as defined by any one individual.  What Ms. Kemplin wants is justice, by her standards.  What I say she wants, based on her statements, is a pound of flesh; or rather, an extra helping, since she has forced Sen. Franken to resign from the Senate without, as Tom Brokaw noted, any input from the voters of Minnesota.   But as long as it's about what offends an individual, a particular individual, a person named Stephanie Kemplin, then why not another punishment atop this one?  Why not a demand Sen. Franken please Ms. Kemplin by acknowledging his behavior in words that suit her?  And then go on to please every woman who made an accusation against him in the same personal, individual manner, and then perhaps say something that satisfies personally every Senator who called for his resignation?

This is where this nonsense goes, and to say it is as implacable as the sunrise (it is) is not to say it is just and right or even sound governance.  There is a reason there is a process, and it should be held to, even if that process is only the Senate Ethics Committee.

But process doesn't always end the way we want it to, so we should discard it when convenient, right?

Yet many of those same Democratic senators who called for Franken’s resignation joined in what appeared to be a sympathetic and supportive goodbye after his announcement. Franken’s speech and the ensuing response was much more partisan than the initial calls for investigation or his resignation. Franken made the sudden deluge of serious sexual harassment allegations against him sound like a pointed hunt, with innocent civilian casualties — and the room appeared to believe him.

In the opening lines of his announcement, Franken said America is “finally beginning to listen to women about the ways in which men’s actions affect them.”

His final message: Just don’t believe all of them.

Because in this Manichean phase, there are only two options:  believe all women who make accusations, or disbelieve all of them.  The middle ground of assessment is simply betrayal by other means. The only innocent people are the women making accusations; everyone else is just someone who hasn't come forward yet (women) and those who haven't been accused yet (men).

Or something.

Anyway, it ain't justice, because "justice" always means the good guys win.  Now we just have to figure out who the "good guys" are.  But we don't need a process for that; we just know.

Nothing So Became Him As His Leaving

Sen. Al Franken resigns:

A couple of months ago, I felt that we had entered an important moment in the history of this country. We were finally beginning to listen to women about the ways in which men’s actions affect them. That moment was long overdue. I was excited for that conversation, and hopeful that it would result in real change that made life better for women all across the country and in every part of our society.

Then, the conversation turned to me. Over the last few weeks, a number of women have come forward to talk about how they felt my actions had affected them. I was shocked. I was upset. But in responding to their claims, I also wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation, because all women deserve to be heard, and their experiences taken seriously.

I think that was the right thing to do. I also think it gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that, in fact, I haven’t done. Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others, I remember very differently.

I said at the outset that the Ethics Committee was the right venue for these allegations to be heard, and investigated, and evaluated on their merits. That I was prepared to cooperate fully. And that I was confident in the outcome.

You know, an important part of the conversation we’ve been having the last few months has been about how men abuse their power and privilege to hurt women.

I am proud that, during my time in the Senate, I have used my power to be a champion for women – and that I have earned a reputation as someone who respects the women I work alongside every day. I know there’s been a very different picture of me painted over the last few weeks. But I know who I really am.

Serving in the United States Senate has been the great honor of my life. I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a Senator – nothing – has brought dishonor on this institution. And I am confident that the Ethics Committee would agree.

Nevertheless, today I am announcing that, in the coming weeks, I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate.

I, of all people, am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party.

But this decision is not about me. It’s about the people of Minnesota. And it’s become clear that I can’t both pursue the Ethics Committee process and, at the same time, remain an effective Senator for them.

Let me be clear. I may be resigning my seat, but I am not giving up my voice. I will continue to stand up for the things I believe in as a citizen, and as an activist.

But Minnesotans deserve a Senator who can focus with all her energy on addressing the challenges they face every day.

There is a big part of me that will always regret having to walk away from this job with so much work left to be done. But I have faith that the work will continue, because I have faith in the people who have helped me do it.

I have faith in the dedicated, funny, selfless young men and women on my staff. They have so much more to contribute to our country. And I hope that, as disappointed as they may feel today, everyone who has ever worked for me knows how much I admire and respect them.

I have faith in my colleagues, especially my senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar. I would not have been able to do this job without her guidance and wisdom. And I have faith – or, at least, hope – that members of this Senate will find the political courage necessary to keep asking the tough questions, hold this administration accountable, and stand up for the truth.

I have faith in the activists who organized to help me win my first campaign and who have kept on organizing to help fight for the people who needed us: kids facing bullying, seniors worried about the price of prescription drugs, Native Americans who have been overlooked for far too long, working people who have been taking it on the chin for a generation – everyone in the middle class and everyone aspiring to join it.

I have faith in the proud legacy of progressive advocacy that I have had the privilege to be a part of. I think I’ve probably repeated these words ten thousand times over the years, Paul Wellstone’s famous quote: “The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard.” It is still true. It will always be true.

And, most of all, I have faith in Minnesota. A big part of this job is going around the state and listening to what people need from Washington. But, more often than not, when I’m home, I’m blown away by how much Minnesota has to offer the entire country and the entire world. The people I have had the honor of representing are brilliant, and creative, and hard-working. And whoever holds this seat next will inherit the challenge I’ve enjoyed for the last eight and a half years: being as good as the people you serve.

This has been a tough few weeks for me. But I am a very, very lucky man. I have a beautiful, healthy family that I love, and that loves me very much. I am going to be just fine.

I’d just like to end with one last thing.

I did not grow up wanting to be a politician. I came to this relatively late in life. I had to learn a lot on the fly. It wasn’t easy. And it wasn’t always fun.

I’m not just talking about today. This is a hard thing to do with your life. There are a lot of long hours and late nights and hard lessons, and there is no guarantee that all your work and sacrifice will ever pay off. I won my first election by 312 votes – it could have easily gone the other way. And even when you win, progress is far from inevitable. Paul Wellstone spent his whole life working for mental health parity, and it didn’t pass into law until six years after he died.

This year, a lot of people who didn’t grow up imagining they’d ever get involved in politics have done just that. They’ve gone to their first protest march, or made their first call to a member of Congress, or maybe even taken the leap and put their name on a ballot for the first time.

It can be such a rush, to look around at a room full of people ready to fight alongside you, to feel that energy, to imagine that better things are possible. But you, too, will experience setbacks and defeats and disappointments. There will be days when you will wonder whether it’s worth it.

What I want you to know is that, even today, even on the worst day of my political life, I feel like it’s all been worth it. “Politics,” Paul Wellstone told us, “is about the improvement of people’s lives.” I know that the work I’ve been able to do has improved people’s lives. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat.

For a decade now, every time I would get tired, or discouraged, or frustrated, I would think about the people I was doing this for, and it would get me back up on my feet. I know the same will be true for everyone who decides to pursue a politics that is about improving people’s lives. And I hope you know that I will be right there fighting alongside you, every step of the way.

With that, M. President, I yield the floor.

Thank God we got rid of him, right?!  No more allegations of ass grabbing about Senators! Who cares if he can address the Senate like that, it's unexamined allegations from the past and anonymous sources that really matter!  And who cares if the seat goes to a Republican!  Our hearts are pure!

Now, if the Senators who called for Franken's resignation could just show half the grace and intelligence and character he did.  And yes, I mean all the Senators who called for his resignation; every last one of them.

This is a joke, right?

Don't get me started on the definition of "credible:"

The Democratic women of the Senate had been talking among themselves about the Franken allegations for weeks, one Democratic aide said. None, however, went further than to call for a Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Minnesota senator, whom many had considered a close friend.

That stance became increasingly untenable as the accusations against Franken piled up. In calls and texts, the female senators eventually came to an unstated agreement, according to another aide familiar with their discussions: The next credible story of misconduct in a credible news outlet would prompt them to call for Franken's resignation.

I'm guessing it's frustration because they can't do anything about the stupidity of the Administration:

Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday cited attorney-client privilege to avoid telling lawmakers about a conversation he had with his father, President Donald Trump, after news broke this summer that the younger Trump — and top campaign brass — had met with Russia-connected individuals in Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.

Though neither Trump Jr. nor the president is an attorney, Trump Jr. told the House Intelligence Committee that there was a lawyer in the room during the discussion, according to the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California. Schiff said he didn’t think it was a legitimate invocation of attorney-client privilege.

“I don’t believe you can shield communications between individuals merely by having an attorney present,” he said, after the committee’s lengthy interview with Trump Jr. “That’s not the purpose of attorney-client privilege.”

Attorney-client privilege is a privilege held by attorneys.  It does not apply simply because an attorney is in the room, and it never applies to non-lawyers

Donald Trump, Jr. is not a lawyer.

This is Bugs Bunny level of reality, where he defies the law of gravity because he never studied law.  That's funny; this is an SNL sketch in real life.  Oh, I'm sorry; Al Franken used to be on "SNL."  Maybe we should take that off the air, too; just to be sure.

While I'm beating this dead horse....

The news makes it perfectly clear I'm pissing into the wind on this, because we have to get rid of Al Franken to prove we have "zero tolerance" for sexual harassment (not the legal workplace kind, but the social boorish kind) so we can continue to complain about Roy Moore because politics.

But we can't complain about Roy Moore because of this:

“Thank God for Mississippi” is the old joke: No matter how bad things were in Alabama, there always was a state right next door where things were often worse. Alabama is the third “hungriest” state in the nation, with 18 percent of its population food insecure, behind Louisiana and, yes, Mississippi. It’s the sixth-poorest state, with some 18.5 percent living in poverty, and the third-highest state when it comes both to murders and the number of citizens behind bars per 100,000 members of population. According to the Centers for Disease Control, opioids are prescribed in Alabama more than in any other state, and a Center for Health Statistics report notes that Alabama’s rate of overdose deaths from opioids has doubled since 2011.

But no, instead of campaigning about how to get the federal government to help his state pull itself from the clutches of such poverty, hunger and addiction, [which, you know, used to be the province of Democrats--yr. humble host] Roy Moore acts like a crackpot false prophet, preaching Islamophobia, homophobia and the dominance of “God’s law” over the Constitution; denying the allegations of the many women who say he assaulted or harassed or stalked them when they were teenagers (on Tuesday, a Moore spokesperson described the accusers as “criminals”) and all the time hammering away at his Democratic opponent Doug Jones on abortion.

Moore wants all abortion to be illegal and supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Jones has declared he is against “anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose,” but also has said that he supports “current law” that restricts abortion after 20 weeks unless pregnancy threatens the health of the mother.

Moore’s wife has attacked Jones for supporting “full-term” abortion, which is wildly and deliberately misleading. What’s more, the website AL.com reports, “An examination of statistics compiled by the Alabama Department of Public Health shows that late-term procedures are almost nonexistent in the state. Three out of 6,642 abortions performed in Alabama in 2016 occurred after 20 weeks, according to the agency.”

One position might actually help Alabama (and Mississippi, and Louisiana); it might even be the historic position of Democrats since FDR.  The other only makes Democrats in the Senate feel pure and zero-tolerant.  We can't do anything for Alabama, but at least in D.C. we can be pure of heart.

Well, I suppose that's something.

Needless to say, I want this to mean something (because how many Democrats in the Senate pinned Jeff Sessions' ears back so far we got a decent investigation out of it?):

Not accurate, @mpr @Stowydad. No final decision has been made and the Senator is still talking with his family. Please update your story.

— Sen. Al Franken (@SenFranken) December 6, 2017

But I am not optimistic.

Giant of the Senate

I'm not going to defend this:

“We posed for the shot. He immediately put his hand on my waist, grabbing a handful of flesh. I froze. Then he squeezed. At least twice,” Dupuy said.

Dupuy said Franken’s “familiarity was inappropriate and unwanted.”

“It was also quick; he knew exactly what he was doing,” she said. “He wanted to cop a feel and he demonstrated he didn’t need my permission.”

Dupuy is one of numerous women who have accused Franken of sexual misconduct, both before and after he was elected to the Senate in 2008.

But I am going to question this:

Dupuy said she “assumed Franken would step down” later the same day that Tweeden accused him of misconduct, and said Tweeden’s story “rang true” to her.

“I’ve been hoping Franken would just step down and I wouldn’t have to say anything.” she said. “I’ve been hoping I’d not ever have the moniker of ‘Franken accuser.'”

Huh?  You only need to accuse Franken because he holds public office?  If he didn't, it wouldn't matter?  And getting rid of him improves the Senate how, exactly?  Are we better off if the entire Congress is forced to follow the Pence rule?  Because that's the only alternative to a guy who gets "handsy" and must be expelled because of it.

If we can't allow people like Franken to be in the Senate, who do we leave there?  Or do we just walk away from this in a few months, satisfied that all the witches have been hunted out?  Because the problem is becoming less and less what Al Franken did, and more and more what is supposed to be done about it.

Sexual harassment is unacceptable. This morning I spoke with Senator Franken and, as you know, he will be making an announcement about his future tomorrow morning. I am confident he will make the right decision.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) December 6, 2017

Yeah, that doesn't make me feel any better about it.  "Zero tolerance" is a policy that levels everyone and raises up no one.  It's also a conveniently knee-jerk reaction that doesn't serve justice, only vengeance.  And it seems to me the question of whether Sen. Franken continues to represent the people of Minnesota is up to the people of Minnesota, especially absent a Senate ethics investigation finding that he isn't fit to serve in the Senate.

Well, at least we know the few Democrats left in the Senate will be pure, right?

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Bringing a knife to a gunfight:

Sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and should not occur anywhere. I believe the best thing for Senator Franken to do is step down.

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) December 6, 2017

Al Franken should resign.

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) December 6, 2017

I believe it is best for Senator Franken to resign.

— Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) December 6, 2017

And no man left behind: 

I agree with my colleagues who have stepped forward today and called on Senator Franken to resign. We can’t just believe women when it’s convenient.

— Senator Bob Casey (@SenBobCasey) December 6, 2017

Joe is calling for Senator Franken to resign. pic.twitter.com/ff5i1rnhJs

— Senator Joe Donnelly (@SenDonnelly) December 6, 2017

Sen. Al Franken should step down. Everyone must share the responsibility of building a culture of trust and respect for women in every industry and workplace, and that includes our party.

— Tom Perez (@TomPerez) December 6, 2017

I have listened to them. I have listened to my female colleagues, to women I work with and women in my life. And I agree the time has come for Senator Franken to step aside.

— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) December 6, 2017

Al Franken has flatly denied the latest accusation against him (that he tried to kiss a woman after a radio interview in 2006, claiming it was his right as an entertainer), apologized for other events he did not say were necessarily true, and called for an ethics examination of the allegations against him by the Senate Ethics Committee.  He is also the reason Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which led to the Mueller investigation, and who doubts there would be no credible investigation without Mueller?

But no, he has to go.  This unseemliness is unseemly!  He's not accused of the actions of Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Harvey Weinstein, or Danny Masterson, nor even John Conyers.  He's accused of improper kissing (all of which he denies) and some butt groping, maybe.

Hanging's too good for him!

We have to remove him, of course, so we can be pure in our denunciations of Roy Moore.  Utter bollocks.  Roy Moore is not in the Senate and once he is, if he is, it's an open question whether the Senate would investigate him and decide to throw him out or even not seat him.  (And by the way maybe we could focus on Roy Moore's reprehensible politics, huh?  Maybe? Huh?)  Al Franken has called for an investigation of the allegations against him, but forget that, we need to get rid of Al Franken!  He has been one of the most effective freshman in the Senate, but no matter, he must go!  Purity uber alles!

I swear, Democrats are still their own worst enemies.

Putting the Christmas back in "Christmas": St. Nicholas Day 2017

SAINT Nicholas. Day of death: (according to the martyrology) December 6, about 360. Grave: originally at Myra; since 1087 at Bari in Italy. Life (highly legendary): Nicholas was born at Patara in Asia Minor to parents who, having long been childless, had petitioned God with many prayers. Already as a youth Nicholas became noted for his zeal in helping the unfortunate and oppressed. In his native city there lived a poor nobleman who had three marriage-able daughters; he could not obtain a suitor for them because he could offer no dowry. The contemptible idea struck him to sacrifice the innocence of his daughters to gain the needed money. When Nicholas became aware of this, he went by night and threw a bag containing as much gold as was needed for a dowry through the window. This he repeated the second and third nights. During a sea voyage he calmed the storm by his prayer; he is therefore venerated as patron of sailors. On, a certain occasion he was imprisoned for the faith. In a wonderful way he later became bishop of Myra; his presence is noted at the Council of Nicaea. He died a quiet death in his episcopal city, uttering the words: "Into your hands I commend my spirit."

Nicholas is highly venerated in the East as a miracle worker, as "preacher of the word of God, spokesman of the Father."
--Pius Parsch

THE celebration of the feast of the nativity of Christ in the Orthodox church is patterned after the celebration of the feast of the Lord's resurrection. A fast of forty days precedes the feast, with special preparatory days announc-ing the approaching birth of the Savior. Thus, on St. An-drew's Day (November 30) and St. Nicholas Day (December 6) songs are sung to announce the coming birthday of the Lord.

Adorn yourself, O cavern.
Make yourself ready, O manger.
O shepherds and magi,
bring your gifts and bear witness.
For the Virgin is coming
bearing Christ in her womb.
--Thomas Hopko

O you who love festivals,
Come gather and sing the praises
of the fair beauty of bishops,
The glory of the fathers,
The fountain of wonders and great protector
of the faithful.

Let us all say: Rejoice, O guardian of the people of Myra,
Their head and honored counsellor,
The pillar of the church which cannot be shaken.

Rejoice, O light full of brightness
That makes the ends of the world shine with wonders.

Rejoice, O divine delight of the afflicted,
The fervent advocate of those who suffer from injustice.

And now, O all-blessed Nicholas,
Never cease praying to Christ our God
For those who honor the festival of your memory
With faith and with love.
--Orthodox Liturgy

WHAT keeps you from giving now? Isn't the poor person there? Aren't your own warehouses full? Isn't the reward promised? The command is clear: the hungry person is dying now, the naked person is freezing now, the person in debt is beaten now-and you want to wait until tomorrow? "I'm not doing any harm," you say. "I justwantto keep what I own, that's all." You own! You are like someone who sits down in a theater and keeps everyone else away, saying that what is there for everyone's use is your own. . . . If everyone took only what they needed and gave the rest to those in need, there would be no such thing as rich and poor. After all, didn't you come into life naked, and won't you return naked to the earth?

The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry person; the coat hanging unused in your closet belongs to the person who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the person with no shoes; the money which you put in the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help, but fail to help.
--Basil, 4th century

THE large rooms of which you are so proud are in fact your shame. They are big enough to hold crowds-and also big enough to shut out the voice of the poor. . . . There is your sister or brother, naked, crying! And you stand confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.
--Ambrose, 4th century

A voyce from heven to erth shal com:
"Venite ad iudicium."

This voyce both sharp and also shryll
Shal be herd from heven to hell;
All mydle erthe it shall fu Ifyll:
"Venite ad iudicium."

"Venite" is a blyssed song
For them that for joye dooth longe
And shall forsake paynes strong:
"Venite ad iudicium."

Glad in hert may they be
Whan Chryst sayeth, "Venite;
Ye blyssed chyldren, come to me,
Into vitam eternam.

"Whan I hongred, ye gave me meat;
Ye clothed me agaynst the heat;
In trouble ye dyde me not forget;
Venite ad iudicium.

"Ye socoured me at your doore
And for my sake gave to the poore;
Therfore wyll I you socoure;
Venite ad iudicium."

Sory in hert may they be
That hereth this hevy worde: "Ite;
Ye cursed chyldren, go fro me,
Into ignem eternum.

"Whan for nede that I dyde crye,
Comfortlesse ye lete me dye;
Therfore now I you deny;
Venite ad iudicium.

"For by me ye set no store,
Ye shall abye ryght dere therfore
In hell with devyls for evermore;
Venite ad iudicium."
--English carol, 16th century

Merry Krampus!

The timing is a bit off, because I didn't realize Dec. 5 was Krampusnacht, and forgot today was St. Nicholas Day (life at Chez Adventus has been a bit scattered of late).  I cross-stitched the pattern above (yes, I cross-stitch; did it for years before The Golden Child was born, abandoned it to raise a daughter and be a father, took it up again a year or two ago) for my daughter.  I expect it to have pride of place in her new home.  And frankly, it's friendlier looking than these:

It's that time of the year... #krampus pic.twitter.com/0aPKnXjEhH

— Leanna B (@LeaBlacksmith) December 6, 2017

A centuries-old figure and menacing counterpart to St. Nicholas, Krampus is a demon-like beast that swats at naughty children, and even has his own holiday—Krampusnacht.https://t.co/QG1zEvAglr

— National Geographic (@NatGeoMag) December 5, 2017

A Krampus from Slovenia:

And one from England, who somehow manages to look very English:

 National Geographic has a nice bit of background on this:

Krampus, whose name is derived from the German word krampen, meaning claw, is said to be the son of Hel in Norse mythology. The legendary beast also shares characteristics with other scary, demonic creatures in Greek mythology, including satyrs and fauns.

The legend is part of a centuries-old Christmas tradition in Germany, where Christmas celebrations begin in early December.

Krampus was created as a counterpart to kindly St. Nicholas, who rewarded children with sweets. Krampus, in contrast, would swat "wicked" children and take them away to his lair.

According to folklore, Krampus purportedly shows up in towns the night before December 6, known as Krampusnacht, or Krampus Night. December 6 also happens to be Nikolaustag, or St. Nicholas Day, when German children look outside their door to see if the shoe or boot they'd left out the night before contains either presents (a reward for good behavior) or a rod (bad behavior).

There is concern that Krampus is becoming too commercial.  No, really.  I suppose that cross-stitch pattern is proof of that.  Lord knows I spent enough of the special fabric the pattern maker markets to make mine look like the picture.

I suppose it was worth it.  But you can't escape that in this day and age, can you?  Krampus celebrations were revived as an anti-commercial Christmas effort, and yet....

I'm still ready to yield the word to the world, and find a new one to distinguish the church observance from the year-end celebration.  So long as I don't have to eat any Krampus chocolates....

The end of the world as we know it

...and I feel fine!

I'm trying to track this down for the sake of accuracy, but SCOTUS blog hasn't published anything on the ruling yet (and may not say much, indicative of how unimportant the Supreme Court ruling is in this case at this point).  So let's start with what I can verify:

The case will now proceed in a Texas state court, which could decide to stop the benefits offered by the fourth most populous U.S. city. Such a ruling again could be appealed to the nation’s top court.

Houston City Attorney Ron Lewis said that in the meantime the city’s policy to provide the benefits will remain in effect.

I start there because if you read something like this:

Houston had challenged a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court in June that overturned a lower court’s decision to grant spousal benefits to gay city employees. The state’s all-Republican high court had issued its ruling amid pressure from conservative officials who argued that Texas may be able to limit the scope of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which held that same-sex couples should be granted the fundamental right to marry. The Texas court argued that while Obergefell gives same-sex couples the right to marry, it does not necessarily grant them benefits. Monday’s decision was handed down quietly, with no comment or explanation. The move quickly triggered condemnation by activists. “Today’s abnegation by the nation’s highest court opens the door for an onslaught of challenges to the rights of LGBTQ people at every step,” Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the civil-rights group GLAAD, said in a statement.

You'd be right to think the Beast with "666" stamped on his forehead had risen from the sea.   Here is a slightly clearer explanation of what's going on:

The two conservatives [the plaintiffs, i.e.] argued that city employees did not have a "fundamental right" to receive government-subsidized spousal benefits and that it was "perfectly constitutional" to extend benefits to some married couples and deny them to others.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision did not address that specific issue.

"Pidgeon and the mayor, like many other litigants throughout the country, must now assist the courts in fully exploring Obergefell's reach and ramifications, and are entitled to the opportunity to do so," Justice Jeffrey Boyd wrote in the Texas Supreme Court's decision, which sends the case back to the original trial court in Houston. "We reverse the court of appeals' judgment, vacate the trial court's temporary injunction order."

Now, we elect judges in Texas (what, you want Greg Abbott or Rick Perry appointing them?), so there was some politicking involved in the case before it went up to the Supremes:

The Texas Supreme Court initially declined to hear the case, which challenged Houston’s benefits policy for married same-sex couples. In an 8-1 decision, justices let stand a lower court decision upholding benefits.

But the state's high court reversed course last month under pressure from top Texas Republicans. Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief in October asking the all-Republican court to reconsider. They also asked the court to clarify that the U.S. Supreme Court case legalizing same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges, does not “bind state courts to resolve all other claims in favor of the right to same-sex marriage.” 

That's actually where the outrage should fall, because of the status of the case when the Texas Supreme Court reviewed it a second time:

The justices on the state high court declined to hear an appeal on the case in late 2016, but caved in after Gov. Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick and state Attorney Gen. Ken Paxton all filed amicus briefs with the court asking the justices to review it.

When the Texas Supreme Court actually reviewed the case last June, they threw out a lower court ruling that had sided with Houston, ordering the lower court to hold a new trial. They concluded that Obergefell may have granted the right for same-sex marriage, but the federal decision “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.” Lawyers representing Houston appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Texas Supremes punted, in other words:  they told the trial court to try again, without the assumption Obergefell had settled the issue.  In other words, as the Court said, they want the parties to give them the legal fig leaf they need to get Abbott and Patrick and Paxton off their backs and to avoid primary challenges next year.   It's an act of judicial cowardice that they hope will allow them to reach the same conclusion again without being responsible for it.  Now you can see why the City of Houston appealed, having won the first time around.  And the Supremes used the excuse of remand for a new trial to decline to interfere in the case, which isn't really a surprise as this is a question of state law first, not of federal law.  Which, technically, is what's going on in Masterpiece Cakeshops, Inc. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, although the question of the 1st Amendment has (ridiculously, IMHO) been raised (basically, if the baker is an "artist," does he design and make cakes hoping to sell them, or does he work strictly on commission, i.e., by the job?  If so, how can he refuse to bake cakes because of sexual orientation, if he can't refuse to do it for Jews?  OTOH, Scotusblog tells me Justice Breyer noted a ruling for the baker would “undermine every civil rights law since year 2.”  Hope springs eternal.).  But the Court doesn't consider this issue "ripe" yet, as there are no conflicting state court rulings under Obergefell, so it isn't really a surprise they declined the appeal.

But has Texas now decided that same-sex couples can be discriminated against, even if they are married?  Well, the cities of Dallas and Houston don't think so.  Indeed, the Texas Supreme Court isn't even sure itself.   And it pretty clearly wishes this issue would just go away.

Life's a bench.

Poor Jerusalem

Nothing gold can stay

Oh, yeah:  this is why even Mike Pence would be an improvement.

President Donald Trump told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday that he intends to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a Palestinian spokesman said, amid a growing outcry across the Middle East against any unilateral U.S. decision on the ancient city.

Next year in Jerusalem?  Nope; next year in hell.

Whoo boy.  (Although it might explain Alan Dershowitz' "objectivity").

Then again, this is our Secretary of State:

“The State Department is not missing a beat,” Secretary Tillerson says at US Embassy in Brussels, where there’s no US ambassador to EU or Belgium

— Josh Lederman (@joshledermanAP) December 5, 2017

Maybe Pence would clean house, too.

History in Heroic Couplets

No, he didn't say it, but it's the thought that counts, right?

Stop me if you've heard this one before:

Boethius, the most learned man of his time, met his death in the hangman's noose.  He came from one of the most noble senatorial families of Rome and was a patrician, a consul, and a minister at the court of the Ostrogoth King Theodoric in Ravenna.  Nevertheless, he fell victim to this same barbarian ruler; neither Theodoric himself nor his realm was to survive for long following the demise of his minister.  Contemporary commentators believed that this tyrant had descended to the bowels of Mount Etna, into Hell itself, when he would occasionally return as a wild horse-man and a harbinger of doom.  In truth, Theodoric simply passed away in 526.  The precise reasons for the fall of his first minister have been lost in the mists of time.  No proof of guilt for a crime was ever brought forth.  It appears that this famous Roman was toppled purely by the mistrust of his king.  This turned out to be a serious misjudgment, which the Goth ruler must instantly have regretted, albeit not soon enough to save himself.

It's the opening paragraph of The Middle Ages by Johannes Fried (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2017).   Published originally two years ago, this is the paperback edition, so any resemblance to the pr esent is purely coincidental.

Or is it?

Admittedly, the closest we come to a Boethius for the Trump Administration would have to be Hillary Clinton, if only because Trump has again today accused her of crimes for which he can provide no evidence; but he clearly doesn't understand why he needs to.  But her fall would not precipitate his, except as further evidence of the corruption of government, and the corruption isn't nearly that complete or Mueller would not have a job.  Still, the description of Theodoric as a "wild horse-man and harbinger of doom" struck a chord, if only because Trump emerges from the night when the rest of us sleep, and especially on weekends when the news was supposed to only stir in its slumber for the Sunday morning snore-fests, to blast us all with more missives from Twitter.  Not the bowels of Mount Etna, but seemingly from Hell itself.

And this (from the same source) frankly sounds like a better explanation of "Trump supporters" than all those internet articles about psychology and brain structure:

Research conducted in the twentieth century into preliterate nations has given us a new insight into what these barbarians brought with them.  One key factor to emerge was that they displayed additive rather than a subordinate way of thinking, approached things in an aggregative rather than analytical manner, essentially took cognizance of surroundings on the spur of the moment, and were incapable of abstraction.  In other words, this way of thinking did not organize its environment systematically or according to categories, but instead preferred to cling tenaciously to familiar, traditional modes of thought and action....  Initially, as modern studies in developmental psychology have shown when comparing different civilizations, their traditional knowledge and their intellectual make-up must have been unsuited for the moment to progress toward a highly evolved form of culture and to the refined modes of living that prevailed in the Roman world.

"Evolved" and "refined," of course, resting on dreadful daily violence to those who were perceived in any way to threaten the Pax Romana; or who had something Rome wanted (goods, labor, etc.) and that Rome would take.  The collapse of Rome was not just because they became indolent.  The Roman model was unsustainable, long lasting as it was.

It's a bit condescending to apply that analysis to anyone, especially fellow Americans.  But no more so than the articles about psychology and brain structure, and ultimately Fried's point is that there are different ways of thinking, and the way re-introduced to the West via Boethius (his purpose in starting there) is the one that struggled with the non-Roman weltanschaaung; and, I think, like most ideas, has proven bullet proof.  Ideas never die, not really; just ask the flat-earthers.

Furthering the Confederacy

Alan Dershowitz confirms that association with Trump makes you stupid.  Follow the bouncing ball:

No. If he bribed somebody, if he told a witness to lie, if he destroyed evidence, if he committed an act not authorized by the Constitution, which constituted obstruction of justice, he could be charged with obstruction of justice. What you can’t do is take an act that’s constitutionally authorized and then psychoanalyze the president and try to figure out what his motives were.

It doesn’t matter what his motives are. Let me give you an example. President Bush, the first, pardoned Caspar Weinberger, who was as clear as could be, and the special prosecutor said that publicly, that his intention was to put an end to the investigation of Iran–Contra, which may have pointed directly to President Bush. The special prosecutor said that, but it never occurred to anybody that he had been guilty of obstruction of justice, because the means he used, a pardon, is a constitutionally authorized means.

Well, actually, because no one challenged the use of the presidential pardon, abuse of the pardon has never been defined at law.  Absence of a judicial ruling doesn't mean the act is constitutional, just that it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

The point I’m making is that the means are what’s important. It would be a violation of the separation of powers and the Constitution to charge a president with obstruction of justice for simply doing no more than exercising his constitutional authority regardless of what his motive is.

This pretty much turns criminal law, which depends upon establishing a mens rea (not the same thing as motive, and Dershowitz knows it) in order to establish a crime, on its head.  Mens rea is the difference between murder and manslaughter, for example.  Neither turn on motive, but both turn on intent.  Negligence (manslaughter) is not as serious a cause of behavior as pre-meditation (murder).  But you can overcome pre-meditation if you can at least clear the M'Naghten threshold, a/k/a the "insanity defense."  So mens rea is key to criminal prosecution.  But here's where Dershowitz goes from disingenuous to sloppy:

President Obama changed years and years of American policy, as he was a lame duck, by telling his ambassador to the U.N. that she had to abstain rather than veto. What if I can prove to you, and I think I can, that President Obama was not motivated by what was good for America or what was good for world peace? He was motivated by anger, frustration, and pique at Benjamin Netanyahu.

This was his attempt to get even with Netanyahu, and he was badly motivated. Let’s assume we find a memo that says that. We’re not going to go after the president for that. Politically we will. We’ll attack him, as I did, but we’re not going to go after him for a crime, for him using personal pique to hurt America. That’s political.

But what’s the underlying crime in the Obama scenario?

Well it would just by, you’d have to ... obviously, it’s not like obstruction of justice, but you could argue that, for example, if a president took a bribe from the Arabs to do that, he’d be guilty of a crime. Here, he’s doing it for crasser reasons. Taking a bribe, he’s doing it for personal gain and benefit. Even if there were a crime, nobody would ever imagine doing that. We don’t psychoanalyze the motives of presidents, or of justices, or senators

There is no crime in the Obama scenario, and Dershowitz knows it.  Apples and oranges, and he should know better.  But beyond that, it's the argument about bribery.  Bribery is a crime.  You don't need to establish that the person bribed is "doing it for personal gain and benefit."  You just need to establish they took the money under the conditions outlawed by the bribery statute.  That was precisely the problem the DOJ had in the Menendez bribery trial:  they couldn't establish any of it constituted a bribe.  Menendez got personal gain and benefit, but that alone didn't make it a bribe.  His motive in taking the money was irrelevant, as no illegal quid pro quo could be established beyond a reasonable doubt.  So if the President took a gift from the Arabs, he might merely be in violation of the Emoluments Clause, rather than the bribery statutes (the distinction would be the act, the quid pro quo for the "gift").  In either case, his motive would be irrelevant; it is the act that matters.  Dershowitz makes this point until he doesn't, depending on how it suits him.

And at no time does the President act without the possibility of oversight and review of his actions.  In Dershowitz's "Obama scenario," the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy.  If he goes too far, Congress can exert oversight authority or even pass laws (overriding any veto) to restrain the President's actions.  Similarly, Congress (through its statute making power) can authorize the DOJ to appoint special counsel to review Presidential actions like firing FBI directors.  A criminal investigation is not the same thing as a criminal trial, and still there's the underlying argument by Dershowitz that, when the President does it, it's legal.

That's a nice argument if you can get it to work.  Bob Menendez would like to have used it for forego a jury trial; but that's not the way the system works.  No one gets an unalloyed opportunity to do as they see fit in government, including the President.  Indeed, the only way to say that what the President did was not legal, is in a court of law.  But according to Dershowitz, you can't ever get there unless bribery is involved, and then only because Dershowitz thinks bribery obviates mens rea (again, Bob Menendez wishes he could have sold the court on that argument).  Dershowitz insisted to Chotiner that he is more objective than any other pundit, so he's right more often.  I don't need to defend pundits in order to point out Dershowitz may be a giant among them, but he's still an embarrassment among lawyers.  Exhibit A:

That raises the question of why did Flynn lie? I think Flynn lied because he didn’t know it wasn’t material. There’s a very interesting article … about how the Obama administration may have used the Logan Act as a way of starting these investigations. Any rational person has to know that the Logan Act is a dead letter. If in fact they used the Logan Act to get search warrants or to do anything, that’s going to have a real problem, because the Logan Act cannot be a basis for anything. It’s a dead letter. It’s as if it’s not on the books.

Meaning what?

Meaning when you have a statute that hasn’t been enforced in 215 years, there’s a concept in the law called desuetude. That wipes the statute off the books. You cannot resurrect a dead statute. [Editor’s Note: Federal courts have never declined enforcement of a law because of this concept.]

Meaning, actually, nothing at all.  This is a law journal argument, the kind practicing lawyers sneer at.  It's the product of a non-practicing lawyer reviewing the law for concepts that will win him/her tenure, and nothing more.  Courts relying on law review articles for legal decisions are as rare as hen's teeth, and lawyers who cite such articles as precedent before a trial judge need to check their malpractice insurance to be sure it's up to date.  Basically, if the courts have never enforced this concept, it's the dead letter, not the old statute.

No one can be charged with the violating the Logan Act, you’re saying?

Absolutely not. If anybody could have been charged, the primary guy to have been charged would have been Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan as president-elect negotiated with the Iranians to keep American hostages unfreed for weeks so that he could get the credit when he was president for their release. If there was ever a violation of the Logan Act, that was it. If there was ever another violation of the Logan Act, it’s when former President Carter advised Yasser Arafat not to accept the peace offer that Bill Clinton had made to him. If there was ever a violation of the Logan Act, Jesse Jackson would be in jail, Dennis Rodman would be in jail.

And, again, just because prosecution wasn't brought against Reagan or Carter or Jesse Jackson or Dennis Rodman, doesn't mean it can't be brought now.  I'm not even sure a court would allow that complaint as a defense against a Logan Act prosecution.  There is the recognized doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, after all.

One other thing:  Dershowitz makes much of the distinction between impeachment and prosecution under criminal law.  It's a worthy distinction, but probably a misleading one.  There is no judicial review of impeachment.  The Supreme Court can't overturn the verdict of the Senate when a Federal judge is impeached and removed from office (which has happened), nor when the President is removed from office (which hasn't happened).  This is a crucial difference, because the standard for impeachment is whatever the Congress decides it is.  "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a very loose phrase, and short of the Congress normalizing impeachment and running through several Presidents in sequence, I don't foresee the Supreme Court stepping in to enforce that Constitutional phrase in a way that pleases the Court but not the Congress.

Separation of powers, donchaknow?

On Beyond Zebra

So now, NPR* tells me, there is a "Generation Z".

The students entering college are not millennials. The next generation, Generation Z, has arrived. The oldest in the group are in their early 20s.

Not only have they never known a world without the Internet, some have had smartphones since middle school.

My daughter is 25, so I presume she misses the cut off of "early 20's."  She has never known a world without the internet, either, although it didn't enter our home until she was 5, if memory serves.  Who remembers the first four years anyway, right?  She hasn't had a smart phone since middle school because they weren't available then (or maybe they were, I'm getting too old to remember), so I guess she misses that mark.  Still, a new "generation" already?

Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?

Wikipedia tells me millennial start sometime in the '80's, and end sometime around the turn of the century.

Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years.

Which makes "Generation Z" no older than 17, at best.  Or, I suppose, no older than 22.  Somebody's fudging the numbers here.  And that's the point:  this "generation" thing is bullshit.  It started with Boomers, who started as the "Baby Boom Generation" and only became "Boomers" instead after we named my father's generation "The Greatest Generation" although "Builders" was the demographic term of art for a short while.  Having started this nonsense with the post-war baby boom, we turned it into a modern form of astrology, and everyone born within the imprecise dates for when each "generation" begins and ends, are suddenly all Pieces or Virgos or Sagitarii/usses.

What do we gain from this, except another layer on the Age of Anxiety?

And for this group, memes, animated GIFs and emojis are second nature, says Geoff Nunberg, a linguist who does features on language on NPR's Fresh Air.

"When you're young and you're talking to people with whom you share a lot of experience, a lot of your communication, whether you're talking or texting or sending emojis or whatever, really isn't so much about communication. It's just about connecting with people," says Nunberg, who teaches at the U.C. Berkeley School of Information.

Yeah, yeah, and we said everything was "cool" and "groovy" and moved on to advising people not to be "uptight" and ending every utterance with "man," which was sexist, but what did we know?  Although I have to say the distinction between "communicating" and "connecting with people" is so subtle it's lost on me.

And what do we call the next "generation"?  Will they complain that we ran out of letters?  Or will they be "Generation AA," and treated like batteries?

*yes, there are other sources, but I'm old and not as hip to this "web" thing the youngsters all use.

Mo(u)rning in America

In this moment in history, POTUS:
-attacks law enf. agents/free press
-is reportedly considering his own nongovt spy force
-supports an accused pedophile for senate & a NatSecAdv who lied to FBI
-has conflicting interests/foreign deals
-has an attorney who says he’s above the law

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) December 5, 2017

-employs family in the WH
-threatens DOJ independence
-has fired FBI’s Director & bragged to a hostile foreign country it was due to an investigation of his campaign
-sides with that country against our intel agencies
-criticizes the judicial branch
-praises authoritarian leaders

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) December 5, 2017

 

etc.

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) December 5, 2017

 

This should never be normalized or downplayed. Never.

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) December 5, 2017

Just another day in paradise.....

Confederacy of Dunces

Let's see:

First it was Steven Mnuchin and the money:

That won him lots of friends. (If ever an expression said "Let them eat cake!", it's the look on his wife's face.)

Sometime before that it was the Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke raising the flag whenever he entered the building, and spending mad money on decorating his office.

More recently, it's been Rex Tillerson petulantly destroying the State Department because he really doesn't want to be there, anyway (his wife made him do it!).

And, of course, John Dowd said he wrote the incriminating tweet for his client, so no harm, no foul!  And then he decisively raised the shades of Watergate, resurrecting the argument that, if the President does it, it's legal.

And today, there's Paul Manafort:

Business Insider reported Manafort had been ghosting-writing an op-ed with “a longtime Russian colleague” that was designed “to influence the public’s opinion” of the onetime Trump adviser.

“I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me,” former CIA officer Phil Mudd said. “As Grandma Mudd used to say, ‘That dude ain’t dumb, but he is stupid.’ How can you go into a bail hearing where you know the judge and the feds are so suspicious of you that they put incredibly restrictive measures in place so that you can’t leave your house, you have to ask permission to go see one of your kids, and you decide the feds aren’t suspicious enough to ask a question about whether you’re authoring a document with some contact with a Russian known to U.S. intelligence? What the heck is this guy thinking?”

“I thought I’ve seen everything,” Mudd said, “You can’t make this up.”


Michael Zeldin, who served as a special assistant to Mueller, agreed with Mudd.

“It defies explanation,” Zeldin said. “When you are under arrest and you are trying to get out from home detention and they look like they have a deal—they’ve put up properties that will be forfeited if you flee and you’re sort of desperate to get out of the house—to do this just undermines any effort to do that and the judge is going to have to determine whether or not she’s going to not only let that deal go through, or whether she’s going to let him stay in his home or incarcerate him. It’s a terribly stupid thing he did.”

CNN’s Chris Cillizza argued Manafort appears to not be “getting it.”

“That’s literally, like, one of the dumbest things you could possibly do,” Cillizza said. “Oh, okay, well you have these charges against you, ‘I’m going to co-write an editorial with a known Russian.’ It just doesn’t, it doesn’t make any logical sense. It certainly doesn’t make any legal sense.”

I'm sure we can all agree that, if Chris Cilizza thinks you're dumb, you've reached the nadir of stupid.

So just how dumb are the people surrounding Donald Trump?

You can't make this up.

"Keep Awake!"

Being the WSJ it's behind a paywall, but the summary and this quote at Vox are enough:

The retailer relies on rapid store openings to keep revenue climbing and investors happy; 2016 marked its 27th consecutive year of sales growth in stores open at least a year.

While many large retailers are closing locations, Dollar General executives said they planned to build thousands more stores, mostly in small communities that have otherwise shown few signs of the U.S. economic recovery.

The more the rural U.S. struggles, company officials said, the more places Dollar General has found to prosper. “The economy is continuing to create more of our core customer,” Chief Executive Todd Vasos said in an interview at the company’s Goodlettsville, Tenn., headquarters.

“We are putting stores today [in areas] that perhaps five years ago were just on the cusp of probably not being our demographic,” he said, “and it has now turned to being our demographic.”

It's a whole new meaning to "market driven economy."

There are many ways of "keeping awake," and many ways of interpreting the "signs of the times" and for whom the sky will darken and the "power of heaven" will shake.  As Vox notes:

[I]ncome inequality has been growing for decades in America, with the biggest gains accumulating at the top and the middle class facing stagnation.

Meanwhile, Congress just passed a tax bill that features a massive corporate tax cut and individual tax breaks that independent analyses say would favor the wealthy while eventually, without further intervention by a future Congress, result in a tax increase on the poorest Americans.

And it can be said that Trump "supporters" are waking up to this:

“Why are you going to lower their taxes?” auto industry employee Ron Stephens, 49, explained. “The level of lifestyle that they have versus everyone else — why do they need that? It’s not that big of an impact for them, but for someone making $30,000 a year? That would have a huge impact on them.”

Patrick Colley, a Teamster from Michigan stated that, in Trump he thought he had a president who understood the average worker.  Colley admitted that he still hopes to see some benefit from the tax package that still needs to be hammered into its final form by the Republican-controlled Congress. But he said reporting on the plan shows “too much gray about the wealthy” and how they will ultimately benefit.

Colley doubted corporations would invest their tax savings from the GOP Congressional windfall in their businesses by hiring more workers, saying they “are not in a caring mode.”

As for the rich who will see their tax burden go down and don’t have to worry about health care bills, Colley expressed frustration with the bill that will likely be signed by Trump.

“It’s depressing, you know? It’s depressing. I pay like 30 percent [in taxes], and I’m a regular guy. It’s not fair. And a millionaire pays like 12 percent,” he said. “It’s not fair. It’s not fair at all.

The words of the Gospels are often read as addressed only to believers, and only to matters metaphysical.  For the most part, however, they aren't; and they certainly don't have to be.

The Double Dog Dare

I dare you to tell Mueller you logged into POTUS’s Twitter account and wrote “pled” and the rest of that, John Dowd. I dare you. https://t.co/gDBnISywGS

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) December 3, 2017

And so he did:

John Dowd, President Trump's personal lawyer, tells me that a Trump tweet that caused an eruption yesterday was "my mistake," made in a tweet he had drafted and passed to White House social media director Dan Scavino.

Which isn't the excuse some non-lawyers may think it is.  Think of it this way:  lawyers write letters for clients all the time.  A client needs to write a letter in response to an inquiry under a statute.  Seeking to comply with the law, the client has a lawyer draft a letter in response to that request which is signed by the client and sent on the client's letterhead.

Who is responsible for the content of the letter?  Both, right?  The lawyer, to the client; the client, to the recipient.  So does it matter that John Down wrote the e-mail?   Kellyanne Conway says that's what happened here:

“I was with the President on Saturday all day, frankly, and I know that what Mr. Dowd says is correct. What he says is that he put it together and sent it to our director of social media,” Conway said on “Fox and Friends.”

She said that it’s common for Trump’s lawyers to craft his tweets.

“The lawyers are the ones that understand how to put those tweets together,” she said.

In that case those lawyers are certainly responsible to the President for what gets tweeted (quick!  Which tweets are by lawyers and not Trump?), but the President is still responsible for what gets posted to @realdonaldtrump.  He puts his name on it, after all.

And yes, John Dowd apparently is a very stupid lawyer:

It's not entirely the writing of the tweet that raises legal privilege issues - as lawyers we write client statements all the time. It's more that he now revealed that fact, which normally would require client permission, that could cause a waiver & open him to questioning. Fun! https://t.co/T265JeV1JY

— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) December 3, 2017

As his defense I guess Dowd can say Kellyanne did it, too.  This all leaves two similar questions in play.  The first has become familiar by now:  Why did Michael Flynn lie to the FBI?  The second is raised by this tweet:  why was it published?  If Dowd wrote it, who asked him to?  And what did Dowd, as Trump's lawyer, think would be gained by it?  Every lawyer knows silence is better than speaking, especially when there's no expectation you should speak, no question put to you that needs to be answered.

So what's the reason, legal or otherwise, to publish this tweet?  As Vox puts it:

Trump’s outreach to Comey looked bad already, even if he just knew that Flynn was under investigation (which he clearly did). But Trump’s interference looks even worse if, as the tweet says, he knew not only that Flynn was under investigation but that he outright “lied to” the FBI. He wouldn’t be just trying to protect an ex-aide who he thinks did nothing wrong — he’d be trying to argue that a guilty man shouldn’t face justice.

Dowd insists: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."  But that's the reason you tell your client to keep quiet:  because anything the client says might be construed against the client.

So why did Dowd put his client in jeopardy, rather than insist his client keep quiet?  If the client insisted on speaking, why did Dowd insist on writing such a poorly (in his words) drafted statement?

Advent 2017

At the shopping mall near Chez Adventus last night, some excitement.  Police cars blocked access to the parking lot on many sides.  It was reported as a shooting; turned out to be a "smash and grab."  Except nothing smashed, and nothing was grabbed.

The would-be thief went to a jewelry store and proceeded to smash at the display cases with a hammer.  It always works in the movies.  But in real life, the hammer just bounced off the glass.   Very, very strong glass, the kind used to make glass doors work as security doors.  Shatterproof glass.  His hammer blows rang out like gunshots, terrorizing the shoppers.  Calls went out, the police arrived, the frustrated thief fled.

It struck me as a metaphor.  The would be vandals who are Trump supporters still think they can smash and grab government goodies for themselves.  They can challenge the powers that be, take the reins of power, assert their will and be dominant!  Turns out it doesn't work that way.  Turns out they know as much about it as that thief knew about jewelry store security.  Turns out jewelry stores aren't so stupid as to leave their valuable merchandise in vulnerable displays, even during business hours.

Turns out things are not what they thought they were.  And now all they can do is run away.

Advent begins this year, as it does almost every year, with apocalypse.  Apocalypse is not devastation and disaster; apocalypse is revelation.  Apocalypse is realization.  One could say the thief at the mall had an apocalyptic experience, banging away on glass that refused to behave as expected, realizing he'd made a dreadful miscalculation.  .Here is the gospel reading for the First Sunday of Advent from the lectionary:

Mark 13:24-37
13:24 "But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,

13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

13:26 Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory.

13:27 Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

13:28 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.

13:29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

13:30 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

13:33 Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.

13:34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.

13:35 Therefore, keep awake--for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn,

13:36 or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly.

13:37 And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake."

But roll back a moment, to the reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, the reading from Isaiah, known to most Christians as the great prophet of the Messiah, of the virgin birth and the coming of John the Baptist and the relation of Jesus to the descendants of David.  Isaiah of the vision of the holy mountain; Isaiah of the frustration with God.

Wait, what?

Isaiah 64:1-9
64:1 O that you would tear open the heavens and come down, so that the mountains would quake at your presence--

64:2 as when fire kindles brushwood and the fire causes water to boil-- to make your name known to your adversaries, so that the nations might tremble at your presence!

64:3 When you did awesome deeds that we did not expect, you came down, the mountains quaked at your presence.

64:4 From ages past no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who works for those who wait for him.

64:5 You meet those who gladly do right, those who remember you in your ways. But you were angry, and we sinned; because you hid yourself we transgressed.

64:6 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy cloth. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

64:7 There is no one who calls on your name, or attempts to take hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us, and have delivered us into the hand of our iniquity.

64:8 Yet, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

64:9 Do not be exceedingly angry, O LORD, and do not remember iniquity forever. Now consider, we are all your people.

Isaiah wants God to return, although not as Messiah; simply as Creator in direct contact with the creation.  I love this passage, because Isaiah wants a sign, a proof of God's supremacy as clear as the one shown to Elijah:

So Ahab sent to all the people of Israel and gathered the prophets together at Mount Carmel. 21And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word. 22Then Elijah said to the people, “I, even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal’s prophets are 450 men. 23Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it. 24And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, he is God.” And all the people answered, “It is well spoken.” 25Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it.” 26And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. 27And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 28And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. 29And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.

30Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me.” And all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that had been thrown down. 31Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD came, saying, “Israel shall be your name,” 32and with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD. And he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two seahsa of seed. 33And he put the wood in order and cut the bull in pieces and laid it on the wood. And he said, “Fill four jars with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood.” 34And he said, “Do it a second time.” And they did it a second time. And he said, “Do it a third time.” And they did it a third time. 35And the water ran around the altar and filled the trench also with water.

36And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. 37Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” 38Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “The LORD, he is God; the LORD, he is God.”

1 Kings 18:20-39

That's what Isaiah wants; the great prophet of God, probably the most well known prophet of Israel, wants a sign from God like the sign to Ahab.  Who wouldn't keep awake to see that happen?  And yet God, who uses the prophets to speak to Israel, doesn't even answer; and Isaiah ends begging God to be merciful.

I heard the old joke again this morning about a man whose house is surrounded by rising floodwaters.  A driver in an SUV comes by and says "Come on, we can still get out in my truck!"  The resident refuses.  "God will provide," he says.   The waters rise further, and a man in a boat comes by.  "Come on, I can get you out this way!"  "No," says the homeowner; "God will provide."  Finally he has to escape to his roof, and a helicopter comes by and stops above him.  Again he refuses:  "GOD WILL PROVIDE" he shouts above the aircraft's roar.

Finally, he can't escape and he drowns, and finds himself before the Pearly Gates.  "What happened?," he asks; "you were supposed to provide!"  "I sent a car, a boat, and a helicopter," God replies; "What more did you want?"

What is the sign?  When is the sign?  And are we awake to it?  The situation of Elijah was not the situation of Isaiah; the situation of the homeowner was not the situation of the would-be jewel thief..  But there were clear signs they were both on the wrong path, if they were awake to them.  And I don't mean, in the case of the thief, the sign that says "Thou shalt not steal."  I mean the sign that says the world is not as simple and accessible as you think it is.  Nor, to the example of Isaiah, is God.

The story of Elijah and the priests of Baal is a compelling story, but it was already outdated by Isaiah's time.  The warnings from Mark's gospel seem already outdated today.  But apocalypse is not about warning; it's about assurance.

If the days of suffering make the moon go dark and the stars fall from the sky and the power of heaven shake, then surely bad times, terrible times, are upon us.  But that's when the triumph occurs; and it' s not about calamity and terror, it's about the fig leaf putting out leaves.  It's about the world working as it should, rather than as it shouldn't.  And why do you keep awake?  Because the apocalypse is the revelation of the way things really are, instead of the way we thought they are.  It's better to know, and not encounter the failure of the hammer against the display case, than to have your ignorance revealed, leaving you vulnerable.  The jewelry store did not know when the thief would come, but we can say it was "awake" to the probability.  The thief, on the understand, found revealed what he had failed to be awake to.  And we, the nation, were asleep to the possibilities that our system of governance could allow such vandals and poseurs and thieves and cut-purses into its halls of power.  The voters thought they could smash and grab, the rest of us thought they could never get in the store.  Turns out we were both asleep, though the glass cases of government are not proof against the employees who can loot the store after hours.  But if we wake, if we stay awake, will we find the world working as it should, rather than as it shouldn't?

Before we can find out, we'll have to wake up, won't we?