The National Anthem, Earl Warnke Style

 

When I was in high school, I was in the band. I played alto sax. Full disclosure-I never really liked playing that instrument. And I really wasn’t very good. But band itself was fun. The band room was a great place to hang out when we could get away from doing other things. And marching band was a riot. To someone who wasn’t in it, I know it’s hard to understand. But there was something about it.

But marching band was only for football season. So when basketball season rolled around, there was no marching band. Instead we had what Earl Warnke, our band director, called “Iron Band.” It was called that because it was brass and drums only. No strings, and no woodwinds. Which meant no flutes. No clarinets. No oboes. And…no sax. But Iron Band looked fun, so my senior year I asked Mr. Warnke if I could play the cymbals. I mean, how hard could it be? He said yes, and it worked out well. I got in the games for free. I had a great time. And I don’t remember making any huge mistakes with the cymbals. (Yay!!)

Since it was about 50 years ago, I don’t remember much. But I have one very vivid memory. And I have to admit, I’m not sure this is a real memory. Maybe my mind has made it up sometime in the last 50 years. I really don't know. But this is the story as I remember it. Anybody who was in Iron Band in the winter of 1972-1973 is free to confirm, correct, or deny my account. Because like I said, I’m not 100% sure it’s correct. I sure hope it is, because it’s kinda fun.

The memory involves the National Anthem. Of course, we played it before every game. Nowadays, they normally have someone sing it, I think. But back then, we just played it, and the crowd sang along.

When the players were warming up, the countdown clock in the gym was on. As I remember it, when the clock hit zero, the buzzer sounded. I think today we normally wait until the buzzer goes off before we play the anthem. But that’s not how I remember it back then. Because I swear to God, Mr. Warnke started it while the clock was still going, and he tried to make it so when we played the last note, the buzzer sounded simultaneously. So it sounded like “And the home of the BUZZZZZZZ.”

Even better, at the beginning of the season, he started the anthem with about 1:15 left on the clock, because that’s about how long the anthem takes. But in my memory, each game he started it a bit later. Maybe 1:12. Then maybe1:08. You get the idea. For reference, Whitney Houston’s version, as well as Chris Stapleton’s, both clock in at right around 2 minutes.

But swear to God, by the end of the season he started the anthem at about 40 seconds. Which means we were really flying.

And I loved it. And the crowd loved it. It didn’t make the anthem mean any less. But it took it from a “performance showcase for someone” to an anthem that we appreciated. At least it did for me.

To this day, I feel like the anthem should be about a minute long. Any longer than about 1:20, and in my opinion you’re showboating, not singing. But hey, that’s just my opinion. To each his own.

And I am 100% sure I got that whole idea from Mr. Warnke. If I’m ever asked to sing the anthem anywhere (definitely unlikely) I’ll try to hit 1 minute. 

But I probably won’t end it with a buzzer, like Mr. Warnke did. That would be way too cool for me.

It's MLK Day

Today is Martin Luther King Day. 

I'll be honest; I don't have a lot of memories about him from when he was alive. I was 12 years old when he was killed, and really, not many kids followed the news in 1968. The ONLY thing I remember is talking to a very kind and gentle adult (let's call him Robert) about him. Robert said to me something like: "I don't like him. He's all about violence." I didn't know much about him. But I remember responding: "I don't think so. I'm pretty sure his message is all about non-violence." And Robert responded: "Maybe, but it seems like wherever he goes, violence follows."

You can agree with Robert or not. That's not the point I'm making here. My point is this:

In 1968, MLK had a 33% favorable rating.
In 2011, MLK had a 94% favorable rating.

How can that be? It's become "politically correct" to "favor" MLK. And we've memory holed what he really stood for. Which is why I find so many who are "honoring" or "remembering" him today so disingenuous. You can argue about what he stood for I suppose. But I can state with 100% certainty, that he would definitely have been FOR the voting rights acts that are currently being filibustered out of existence. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of every single historian who knows anything about him. 

Robert was a very kind and loving individual. He wasn't an asshole, a bigot, or a racist. At least I'm sure he didn't consider himself that way. Yet he didn't like MLK.

And while I can't prove it, I'm pretty sure that a whole bunch of politicians who have either filibustered or voted against the voting bills would not have been MLK fans back in his life. Yet, they tweet all their "remembrances" of him, as if they would have loved him. All the while voting against everything he advocated. But it's now the politically correct thing to "honor" him. Honestly, I would have more respect for them if they just admitted that they don't agree with his ideas. It would be very unpopular, but it would at least be honest.

And if you're about to respond with the "judged by his character, not the color of his skin" quote, just stop. Please. Because if you read anything about what he said, he definitely talked about the mistreatment of African Americans. 

Also, keep in mind this about the voting rights bills. Those against it aren't even trying to say it has anything to do with "election security." If you can get them to comment at all, they will admit it's about limiting the vote. Trump himself said: "They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again." And for all the talk about "WE NEED VOTER ID," that's even in the bill. It allows voter ID, but DOES set a standard so it's consistent from state to state. 

So read the quotes below. And if you're still glad that the voting rights bills are likely to fail, then please do NOT tell me how you "honor" MLK. Because he would disagree with everything you're saying. But if you agree with him, then please admit, at least to yourself, that Republicans are voting against what you believe. And if you don't agree with him, then please admit, at least to yourself, that you don't. 

A Really Bad Awful Day... Until It Wasn't

The day started bad and was getting worse. After the Eastwood Cross Country team got off the bus for a meet at Mary Jane Thurston State Park in Grand Rapids, we were immediately engulfed in mosquitoes, absolute swarms of them. It was hot-way too hot for September, but we warmed up anyway, some wearing sweats in the 88° heat to keep away the bugs. After waiting for what seemed forever for the middle school races, finally our races came.  After running through the water, the muck, and the heat, trying to ignore the mosquitoes, and for the most part running not particularly well, there came a couple of disqualifications for wrong turns, and some not-so-pleasant words from the coach. We were hot, frustrated, angry, and bug-infested. It was really time to go home.

So we loaded all our wet, tired bodies, with our wet, stinking clothes, onto the bus, and headed home. Ten miles later, it got worse yet. Just a few miles out of Grand Rapids, the bus came to a very sudden stop. It didn't smell real nice either. No matter what the driver tried, the bus just wouldn't go. For some reason, the brakes had locked up, and they had no intention of releasing. A man on a motorcycle stopped to see if he could help, but unless he could carry 45 kids on the back, there wasn't much he could do. So the bus supervisor was called, and he said he would send another bus, but it was going to be a while. Everyone was hot, tired, frustrated (especially the runners who had been disqualified) and we all just wanted to get home.

 Then just when it seemed it couldn't get any worse, everything changed. The kids got out of the bus and sat in the grass on the side of the road. The adults were grumbling, as adults usually do. But one of the girls saw the pond that just happened to be right by the bus, went to the house nearby, and found the woman who owned it.

"Can we?” was the question. "Sure, no problem!" was the response.

So the bad, awful, day quickly became a vacation, as one hot, tired kid after another took refuge in the cool pond. A party atmosphere quickly developed, complete with picture taking, mud fights, and dives, all recorded for posterity on video,

But then it got even better. The man on the motorcycle reappeared, this time driving a car. He pulled out a cooler of bottled water, some pop, and a bunch of pizzas. The kids ran from the pond and scarfed down the pizza and beverages, just as the replacement bus came. The angel with the pizzas never did leave his name, but his actions helped make a really bad afternoon into, as one girl said. "One of the best things that ever happened to us!" The man only said that he had kids too, and the smiles were all the thanks he needed.

 As we drove home, watching the kids laughing and smiling, it occurred to me how the simple actions of a few people made a bad night very memorable for a bunch of kids from another school district. There was the woman who let us swim, the man with the pizzas, and a few law enforcement officers who directed traffic and let it all happen. Their choices helped make a really bad awful day a whole lot better.

 So whoever you are, we all say thank you. It was a day we will not forget!

Summer is Really Over!

Some of you may know that I have an outdoor shower, on my deck. I take every shower from spring through late fall there. 

Today, I shut it down. Too much freezing weather in the forecast. We've also closed up the deck furniture, and our outdoor bar. Summer is truly over.

Honestly, I always look forward to the changing seasons. I don't think I'd really like living somewhere that is always warm.

That being said, I still find it sad when summer is finally gone. Yes, we'll have a few more warm days. And yes, I'm still mowing (although not as often.) 

In my teaching/coaching days, summer was over the first week of  August, when Cross Country started. Because while it was still warm, the freedom that was summer was over by then.

Now, it's not the beginning of coaching that marks summer's end. It's the shutting down of my outdoor shower!

And while I don't mind the winter, (although I wish it were shorter) it's still somehow a sad day when summer is over.

Yes, in a few months, it will warm up. Sometime in April or May I'll fire up my shower once again. And I'll mow lawns once again. I'll have track meets to score once again. And outdoor church services to play piano at once again.

But the future is never promised. And while I assume I'll be here to welcome summer back, the melancholy that hits me when I close up the shower is still very real.

And today, November 10, summer is officially over--I've closed the shower!

I'll mow lawns tomorrow, and I'll still be wearing shorts while doing it. And the forecast is pretty good, so there's that. 

But summer is over. Not a bad thing. Just a sad thing.

I Would Have Been Proud...

I Would Have Been Proud...

To die like this. But then, I'm 64. Anthony Huber was only 26.

Some background:

Recently a 17 year old man went to the protests in Kenosha. He had an assault rifle with him. Not hidden in any way; but instead right out in the open, in his hands.

The police saw him. They were there to keep the peace I guess. So you would think they would have told him to leave maybe, or check his ID (17 isn't old enough to carry a weapon) or maybe even arrest him. After all, he had a military style weapon in a region where they are worried about violence.

But they didn't do any of those things. Instead, they thanked him, and gave him a bottle of water.

A few minutes later, he shot 3 people. Two of them died.

One of those killed was Anthony Huber. Anthony was 26, and he was at the protest with his skateboard. When the shooter started shooting, Anthony didn't run. Instead he charged the shooter, armed only with his skateboard. He was trying to prevent the shooter from killing even more people. However, the shooter got a shot off, hitting Anthony in the chest. Anthony died.

Yes, I'm angry at the police for what they did and didn't do in this situation. However, that's not the point of this article.

My point is this: I don't know if I would have had the courage to do what Anthony did. I'm guessing, sadly, that I wouldn't have. But if I were in that situation, I hope I would have that courage. Even if I died from it. 

I'm 64, and I've had a full, good life. So if I would have done that, and been killed, I could accept that. It would be an honorable death. And honestly, I can think of worse ways to die.

But Anthony was 26. He leaves behind a girlfriend and a child. He HASN'T lived a full good life. He should still be here. But he's not.

It would have been better if it had been me. But honestly, it shouldn't have been anyone. This was just wrong. And Anthony showed incredible courage.

He paid for it with his life. Sadly.

Liberation?

I have no problem with protesting. It's an American tradition. Protest, march, chant, whatever you need to do. As long as you don't hurt anyone else. That's fine.

And I even understand, to a point, these people protesting for "Liberation" of their states. I mean, I understand the danger of giving up freedoms for safety. It IS a slippery slope. We gave up some freedoms after 9/11 for the sake of safety, and I'm not sure I agree with them. So I understand.

However, the problem I have with these protests is that these people want to be able to come and go freely, even though it endangers others. And in their protests they're doing exactly that. But that's dangerous. And not just to themselves.

What if someone in that group is an asymptomatic carrier? Chances are very good that there's more than one or two in that group. So if these protesters infect each other, then go to Kroger's or Walmart, or the Pharmacy, they can transfer the coronavirus to these workers. The workers who HAVE to be there, and who are taking chances every time they go to work.

So honestly, if a protester gets the virus and dies, that's of his own doing.

But going to the protest, then infecting an innocent store worker? Then that innocent worker could die?

That's just wrong. I"m sorry that these people can't make the  sacrifice we're asking for-to stay home. We're not asking anything superhuman-just stay home. I saw a post about a WW2 vet talking about the sacrifices his generation made. Yet these protesters don't want to sacrifice at all. And in the process, they may be (probably are) killing innocent people.

I'm not sure these protesters have thought it all the way through. At least I hope they haven't. Otherwise, that means they don't care who they injure. Or kill.

Which Fictitious Person Would You Choose to be Real?

I’m warning you up front, that this post probably has limited appeal. I’m answering a question I’ve wondered about for a while.

I think the question is actually pretty good: If you could have one fictitious person be real, who would it be?

But my answer(s) are all based on science fiction I have read or watched. So if you’re not a sci-fi geek, my feelings won’t be hurt if you quit reading right now.

Anyway, I can’t come up with just one. I have four.  Here is the first, and probably the one I’d pick if I had to pick just one:

Hari Seldon

Never heard of him? Not surprising. Well let me tell you.

Hari is a character from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy, set many years in the future, when the entire Galaxy is one big empire. Hari invented a science called Psychohistory. It’s not a real science, at least not yet. But I think it could be. And it sure would be helpful, which is why I wish he were around.

For the truly geeky, follow along while I explain it.

Imagine you have a container of gas, like air. There’s a zillion molecules of that gas in there, all zooming around at different speeds, like so many bumper cars, except much smaller, much faster, and in 3 dimensions.

It is impossible to predict exactly how any one molecule will behave. It’s completely random. Yet, with simple gas laws I used to teach to sophomores, we can with a high degree of accuracy, predict how the entire container of gas will behave. If we heat it, squeeze it, pressurize it, let some out, etc., we can tell exactly how it will respond.

Psychohistory treats our civilization like the gas container, where each person is like a molecule. While nobody can predict how any one person’s life will play out, with psychohistory, we can predict how society, in broad terms, will progress. This is kinda what sociologists do today (I think) except in psychohistory it is treated mathematically, like we do the gas laws. In The Foundation, Hari predicted the Galactic Empire would come to an end, and that it would degenerate into a bunch of warring Kingdoms. Then he set about making the conditions right so that the “warring Kingdoms” phase would last a minimum of time. You’ll have to read the books to see how he did. And by the way, they are in the very top of my favorite books list. (They’re short, easy to read, and actually pretty simple--and I reread them every other year or so.)

But psychohistory only works if the people don’t really know about it. They have to be ignorant of its workings, so they respond naturally in all situations--not trying to “out-think” it. But if Hari were alive today, and if psychohistory were a thing, he could predict how our civilization is going to change. Not in the short term necessarily, but overall in the long term.

But he could also possibly effect enough change to push it in a different, hopefully better, direction. Just as he did in the trilogy. In fact, throughout the trilogy, and the sequels which came later, they always refer to the guidance of “the dead hand of Hari Seldon.” Luckily, Hari Seldon was wise, kind, and altruistic. Psychohistory in the hands of an evil genius would be deadly for all.

Which is why Hari was the perfect man to use Psychohistory.

And why the world could really use Hari Seldon today.

Mistakes, Mistakes, Mistakes

I was told recently that, as a former teacher, I should try to educate, not finger-point. But the same person also asked me, about Trump’s handling of the Coronavirus: “What did he not do to help combat this problem? Did you want him to drop the "A" bomb on China to kill it and everyone there.”

This person is a good, honest, intelligent person. But he has no idea about Trump’s response to this crisis.

So here I’m going to answer his question. And if it sounds like finger-pointing, I’m sorry. But if a public servant, especially the President, is not telling the truth to us, we should know about it. And pointing that out, assuming we are honest about it and not spinning our own falsehoods, should be not only acceptable, but mandatory. So while being as unbiased as I can be, here are a few of Trump’s mistakes on this topic.

(By the way, if you think I’m just being strictly partisan, I have praised Governor DeWine extensively for his handling of this crisis. I didn’t vote for DeWine, I am not a fan of DeWine. But I can be honest and give credit when it’s due. And also today, for the first time, Trump at least had some honest answers in his press conference. I’ll happily admit that.)

Here’s just a partial list of what Trump “did not do.”

1) After the Ebola scare, Obama established an office of Pandemic Response. The Trump administration got rid of it. Trump says it’s not his fault, maybe someone in his administration did it, that he knows nothing about. But Senator Sherrod Brown just showed a letter he sent to Trump about this very thing. Regardless, it left us completely unable to react when this virus hit.

2) We have not had nearly enough test kits. Although nobody will take responsibility for this, instead of using the WHO test kits, the CDC decided to make their own. But they didn’t work, and there weren’t enough of them. Consequently, when South Korea is testing 10,000 people per day, we are testing more like a few hundred. Just recently testing has started to increase. That’s good, but way too late. Also, if we had known from the beginning actually how many people were infected, it is possible we would not have had to resort to the drastic measures we are taking now.

3) Trump said early on he banned travel from China. That’s a stretch, at least. Even though we knew about this on January 8, he didn’t act until January 31, and even then the “ban” was more of a band-aid. Many people from China could still get in the country.

4) He imposed a travel ban on Europe just recently. That sounds good, but the virus was already in the country. Banning travel at this point actually might have made it worse. He gave the first order in a national speech, and within the next few hours, the White House had to “correct” what he said 3 times. Nobody really understood. So all Americans in Europe came home at once, flooding the airports, making huge crowds. Exactly what we DON’T need.

5) Trump downplayed the crisis from the beginning, because it would hurt his election chances. This was reported by multiple sites, but feel free to disbelieve it if you’re a Trump supporter. I can’t prove it. But the story was that he was more worried about the election and the stock market than our health.

6) In his travel ban from Europe, he didn’t include England, even though it was heavily infected. I have my guesses as to why, but he didn’t change it until the discrepancy was shown to him at a press conference.

Finally) He has lied about this from the beginning. On February 25, he said “We’re very close to a vaccine.” (A vaccine is at least a year away). On February 26, he said “The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down close to zero.” (At this point, we have over 4000.) He also has said "Nobody could have known." That's not true; we all knew. My own opinion, and it’s just an opinion, is that he just makes up whatever sounds good.

I”m sorry if I’m bashing the President. But in this situation, every single health official, epidemiologist, or anyone with knowledge of the situation has been critical of his handling of this. The only ones who have not, it seems, are certain conservative media outlets.

A Heart of Gold. Or Stone.

I think it goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. Most of us are not very good at judging other people. Let me explain with some examples from my teaching days. They are mostly true, with just a bit of exaggeration to make a point.

I once knew a guy (we’ll call him Mr. Smith) who was not a nice person. We all knew it. I have no idea why, but he was nasty to everyone. He was selfish, arrogant, critical of others, and never took the blame for anything (because of course HE was never wrong). While he was no genius himself, he tended to put everyone else down. You know the type. Well, one day a kid was stuck at school with no ride home after all the practices were done. Mr. Smith actually went out of his way to give the kid a ride home (which others of us did routinely). The next day some people were saying “I always though Mr. Smith was a jerk. But he gave that kid a ride home. He even went out of his way to do it. Deep down inside, he’s really a nice guy.

That’s fair enough I guess. During crunch time, Mr. Smith did the right thing.

Then there’s Mr. Jones. He’s almost always good to other people, doesn’t criticize, always does his best to be fair and decent. He’s humble and caring. You know the type. One day his temper got the better of him and he was really nasty to a kid. He dressed the kid down in front of his class, when he really shouldn’t have. So what were some of these same people saying now? “You know Mr. Jones always comes across as a nice guy. But he treated that kid really bad. Deep down inside, he’s really a jerk. He just hides it well most of the time.”

I’m exaggerating a bit, but not too much. I see this happen all the time. A lot of it has to do with timing, (What have you done for me lately?) We tend to remember the most recent thing about a person.

But it also depends on what we WANT to think about someone. Mr. Smith had a small group of influential kids who liked him, so everyone else WANTED to like him. This gave them a (very bad) reason to do that. But it shouldn't have. We shouldn't let insignificant things define our opinion of someone.

We do this in family, career, and politics. And it costs us. We can't choose our family, so of course we do our best to see the good in them. But for others, we owe it to ourselves to judge fairly.

Yet for many of us, even when almost every single thing we see tells us a particular person is a bad person, we allow ourselves to believe that "deep down inside, he or she is a good person." Because for some reason we want to believe that. I understand about "seeing the best in a person." I really do. But we also have to be realistic.

We should know better. But many don't.

I’m a Republican. Just like Ike.

The first time I voted, I voted for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter. While I thought they were both decent men, I really liked Ford’s idea of smaller government, and letting the market sort out our economic problems. That made sense to me. Four years later, though, I didn’t see this working out like I thought it would, so I voted for Carter over Reagan (My guy lost both elections!) Although Reagan was a decent man, who was very good at inspiring people.as time went on I came to wonder about his policies.

And now, looking back from 40 years in the future, it seems to me that the Reagan administration was the beginning of a very hard shift to the right in this country. (I’m not the first to say this; I believe it’s pretty well documented.)

This shift is in contrast to the policies of Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, a Republican President in the late 1950’s. Look at some of his beliefs:

• Against big military spending
• For equal pay for women
• For protecting Social Security
• For accepting refugees
• For raising the minimum wage
• For strong unions
• For taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate (the top marginal tax rate was 91%)

He was also responsible for the Interstate Highways (one of the single costliest government projects ever).

Today, that’s very similar to what the Democrats are asking for. But where Eisenhower was considered centrist, Democrats today are called “leftist” or “socialist” or quite often “libtards” or sometimes just “idiots.” And many even say that Democrats want these things to "control the masses." (I'm not exactly sure how that would work.) But instead, maybe Democrats are just trying to help out the less fortunate among us.

This is one time that I think looking to the past can help in forming the future. Because I would like policies similar to the 1950’s to 1960’s. Yes, I realize the world is different, so the policies can’t be exactly the same. But the ideas behind them can:

• A minimum wage that is actually a living wage.
• Less military spending
• Equal pay for women
• Protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
• Strong unions
• Wealthy people paying their fair share in taxes

In addition, how about these? ( I think Eisenhower would embrace these.)

• I’d like college to be affordable again, like it was when I went to college.
• I’d like the government to tackle another huge project, not Interstates, but healthcare.
• I’d like policies to help the environment, including but not limited to addressing climate change (EPA was started during Nixon’s administration. Nixon of course was a Republican.)

If I had these views during the 1950’s or 1960’s, they would fit in perfectly with those of the Republican party at the time. From everything I can find, none of those things differ significantly from what Republicans stood for in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

But now when I have these ideas, I'm called a “leftist” or “socialist” or “libtard.” Of course, I’m none of those things. But that’s what I'm being told.

I wonder what they’d call “Ike” today?

I stand with Ike.

A Generational Rx

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.    Go HERE.

I Never Understood Propaganda, Until Now

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.    Go HERE.

The Myth of the Left Wing Press

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.

Go HERE.

What If Trump...?

Let’s pretend that in the next few weeks, Trump does something completely unethical, immoral, and illegal. Let’s say he gives Russia some classified military information in exchange for Putin helping him build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

First of all, can we all agree that that is wrong on just about every level? If you don’t agree with that, then go read something else, because you’re not going to like this. (And also, don’t call yourself a patriot.)

My question is: If he does this, how will he be held accountable? Here are the normal possibilities.

1) The Department of Justice investigates him. Doubtful. The DOJ is supposed to be independent of the president, and as far as I know, always has been. But that is not the case here. Attorney General William Barr has gone on the record over and over defending the president, as if the president is his client. Barr is also implicated in the Ukraine situation. I think we can be pretty sure that Barr would let it go.

2) Local Judicial Districts, such as SDNY, or the FBI, could investigate. Nope, Barr just issued an order, that from now until the election, nobody can initiate an investigation of any political candidate without his approval. That’s not normal.

(Besides, the DOJ ruling is that a sitting president cannot be indicted, or even investigated, for crimes.)

3) The Senate could investigate. Well, that’s not going to happen. They’ve made it clear they will not cross Trump, no matter what. That’s a given.

4) Maybe the House. And they might. But no Trump supporter is going to believe them, because they would yell things like “All you do is investigate, just because you hate Trump.”

5) That leaves the press/news media. And that could happen. But Trump has that covered as well. Most Trump supporters believe that anyone except Fox is fake news. So no matter how much evidence is uncovered on Trump, Fox will not cover it. So his supporters will not believe it, if they even know about it. They will portray it as “enough already” and even independents might say “let’s move on.”

So if Trump does something horrible? As far as I can see, there is no possible vehicle to make Trump supporters believe it. The Justice Department, Congress, or the media either won’t cover it, or won’t be believed by them.

So the best that could happen is that the non-Trump supporters will go all in. Nobody else will. But since Republicans control most of the power structure, he won’t be prosecuted. He won’t be impeached. There will be no real consequences.

Realistically, Trump can do whatever he wants. Without any real worries. Sadly, this isn’t just a hypothetical. Something like this could happen.

And probably will.

Here, right matters. Truth matters.

I’m retired, at least in the winter. So I have time. And I’ve been watching the Senate impeachment trial, off and on. I admit that I have followed the Ukraine story more closely than most, so not much has surprised me.

I was surprised, however, at how much detail the House managers used to make their case, and how complete and ironclad their argument seems to be.

To me, it’s very clear that what President Trump did was wrong. I’m not really sure at this point how anyone can argue otherwise, and I don't think the President's lawyers really will. Whether you think what he has done rises to impeachment level is, of course, a judgement call.

But, I just heard Adam Schiff give final remarks for Thursday’s session. While the last 10 minutes was spell-binding, at least to me, this part here was just so powerful. (The link is here.)

Here's what Mr. Schiff said:

Colonel Vindman said "Here right matters. Here right matters." Well let me tell you something. If right doesn't matter, if right doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how good the constitution is, it doesn't matter how brilliant the framers were, it doesn't matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is.  It doesn't matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost...It's what's made us the greatest nation on earth. No constitution can protect us, if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust this president to do what's right for this country; you can trust he will do what's right for Donald Trump. He'll do it now, he's done it before, he'll do it for the next several months, he'll do it in the election if he's allowed to. This is why, if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise we are lost.

Damn!