Update: Time to implement Section 4 and rid ourselves of Trump, at least virtually

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 25:
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

This provision for removing a president who is unable to function will never be employed by the Republicans, as they will be loyal to a f***ing moron, as former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson labeled Trump, no matter what, in order to maintain power.  Despite his daily demonstrations of mindless incompetence and puerile malice, the Republican party grovels obscenely before their chosen master.  They chose not to remove him after an impeachment process over his  attempt to withhold aid from Ukraine unless they aided him in maligning the Bidens.  They chose to ignore the constant stream of lies and misinformation that come out of his mouth.  As TV actor and producer Larry David says, "The man has not one redeeming quality."

For those who refuse to join or be intimidated by Trump and his collaborators, they can mentally and culturally remove Trump from office and refuse to accept him as president.  Some protest that such an attitude would fragment the nation, but it could not be more irreconcilably divided than it is.  Removing the incompetent, the malice driven, and corrupt from office is provided for in the Constitution.  The GOP may refuse the formal actions, but knowledgeable citizens can do it virtually and cite the Constitutional process as their reason for so doing.  It may have an effect on the election, but the moral and intellectual rejection of Trump as a violator  of all that is just and decent in the premise of America is a priority matter.  As Al Franken recently wrote:  

 "We are left to proceed despite our president and find the leadership we need elsewhere. From governors and mayors and other civil servants. From health care professionals and scientists and economists. From community leaders and each other." 

The current actions of Trump's removal of the people whose jobs are to guard the integrity of government needs crucial attention.  They are a threat to the rule of law and "the most acute threats yet to our democracy."  Here is a list of the officials related to the impeachment proceedings who Trump has fired or demoted for doing their jobs to protect the government from malevolent dishonesty and its consequent corruption:

• Michael Atkinson, inspector general of the intelligence community
• Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, National Security advisor
• Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, for being a brother to Alexander
• Ambassador Gordon D. Sondland
• Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr.
• John C. Rood,  under secretary of defense
• Joseph Maguire, acting director of national intelligence
• Elaine McCusker,  Defense Department official
• Jessie K. Liu, prosecutor of Trump's friend Roger Stone
• Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff
• **Glenn Fine (April 7:  President Trump has removed the chairman of the federal panel Congress created to oversee his administration's management of the $2 trillion stimulus package.

He endorsed the firing of Capt. Brett E. Crozier who saw the slow response of the Navy in dealing with infected crew members on his aircraft carrier as a serious threat to his crew of 5,000.  Trump's chosen Department of Defense  collaborators anticipated Trump's displeasure at being exposed and claimed they lost trust in Captain Crozier because he appeared to panic.  In their explanations there is not one word of concern about the infected and exposed personnel, which includes Capt. Crozier.  Trump and his collaborators are a menace to humanity and the respect for decency as serious as the Nazis were.  And in  Covid-19, they have found their equivalent to the gas ovens.

If America has a chance of surviving, it depends on an effective resistance to Trump.  And that means not investing hope in an election to get rid of the virulent malignancy that grips the nation.  There is a hope among many  that Trump's behavior has sparked a desire for decency in some of those who have supported him.  Such a hope is giving the  Trump collaborators credit for more intelligence and  benignity than can be justified.

During the 2016 election campaign, Trump's character was on display.  Even many of the contending GOP candidates at the time said that Trump was unfit  for the office.  The grab-'em-by-the-pussy tapes came out, the payments to hush up mistresses were revealed, his six bankruptcies and fraudulent business dealings were on the public record, and still 62,985,106 people voted for him.  (65,853,625 voted for Hillary Clinton.)  Those facts  say much about what has happened to the people of America.

The current voter registrations for South Dakota indicate what the political trend is for the upcoming election:

• Republican   47.47 %
• Democrat      28.18  %
• Independent   23.76 %

People who think our constitutional republic will eventually right itself are unaware of the doubts that our founders had.  Ben Franklin, who was well acquainted with vagaries within the political constituency  expressed the basis for those doubts:

"This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

With Trump chosen as president, we have reached that point of corruption.  It is wrong to think of the Trump voters and supporters as neighbors who  merely have a different political viewpoint.  They are collaborators who endorse the immoral, the fraudulent, the malicious, the vicious, the utterly depraved.  By the leader they endorse, you shall know them.

A virtual application by the people of Section 4 will mean a confrontation with Trump's collaborators.  It will mean an open expression of despising what they represent.  It may well mean an underground-like resistance to the despotism they are a part of and have imposed on the country.  But as Franklin also warned, "Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you."

College presidents can be dangerous

About Northern State University, where I  taught for 20 years, a former long-time academic dean said, "Northern is a darned good school.  We had a couple dud presidents…"   He didn't name them.  But I think I can.  Although I won't at this time.  I will recount some things about them, however.

First, I note that when I left journalism to become a college professor, college presidents served as the lead scholars at the institutions.  They established themselves as accomplished scholars who were successful at transmitting their special knowledge to students and in orchestrating the faculty in that process.  During my first year teaching I daily encountered my college president walking across campus as he was coming from a history class he taught and I was on my way to teach a freshman composition course.  He often stopped me to chat about campus matters and how things were going with my teaching.

During that time colleges were entering what they called a period of "retrenchment."  They were finding it difficult to operate with tuition and their endowments.  To keep going, they would have to raise student tuition to a prohibitive level or find a way to increase their endowments.  While college presidents always had to deal with funding, it was not their major function.  Their first priority was knowledge, its acquisition, and its transmission.The time of retrenchment changed that, and college presidents found that fund-raising, financial management, and its related manipulation of faculty and programs, became their full-time function.  College boards of trustees concentrated on people connected to the corporate world when searching for new presidents and dismissed scholarly accomplishment and academic stature as essential credentials.  They wanted people who knew and could court other people with sources of money.  When the search committees released the resumes of candidates for a college presidency, they emphasized their fundraising and associations with money sources.

In my early years as a professor, faculty meetings with the college president involved reports and discussions on the status of academic programs and the progress of students.  During my later years, the meetings were largely taken up with reports on fundraising activities.  Professors understood that their jobs were dependent on the revenues their institution managed to raise, but their actual jobs were to teach subject matter, not become servants to the sources of the money, which many presidents saw as the function of their colleges.

One of those presidents was a Donald Trump type.  He lied constantly.  Many of his lies had no point.  The faculty decided he lied about everything so he wouldn't have to keep track of the truth.  He also engaged in mass firings of his staff so that he could replace them with his sycophants.   His tactic for getting rid of senior administrators was to call meetings for which targeted people were never notified, and then cite their absences as evidence that they weren't doing their jobs.  When one dean was out-of-town on college business, he called the president to get his concurrence on an administrative matter.  The president refused to take his call.

That president believed that image was all that counted and needed no substance to back it up.  He once told a faculty meeting that the college was "what it appeared to be."  A senior history professor responded, "And we appear to be liars."

The faculty, however, continued to do their jobs.  But a decade of the man's reign left the college damaged in terms of its reputation and its academic function.  

His replacement was a man that the faculty welcomed.  He had a style of speaking that seemed thoughtful and eloquent when he addressed the campus community as a candidate.  But when he took over as president what had promised to be a bright light for the campus turned out to be quite a dim bulb.  Northern was founded as a teacher's college and teacher education was one of its strong curricula.  Shortly after the man became president, the college lost accreditation of its teacher education program.  A professor from my department was on the teacher accreditation review committee and warned that some things needed attention and correction according to the standards on which the college was to be examined.  His concerns were dismissed and subsequently the college was discredited. The college was thrown into a some years of turmoil as it made a desperate effort to regain its accreditation.  Students graduating in education did not find a welcoming job market.  And teachers with degrees from Northern did not find a welcoming climate in which to work.  Finally, the regents became informed about the man's deleterious effect on the college and gave him an opportunity to resign,  which he took.

What saved the college from disrepute was the fact that the faculty did their jobs in presenting strong coursework and maintaining high standards of academic performance from the students.  Those facts were of essential importance when in the college's effort to become reaccredited, which was successful.  The college disassociated itself from the performance of those dud presidents.  That's why the former dean can say it's a darned good school.

South Dakota strives for the bottom for its universities in its attacks on faculty

The South Dakota legislature has voted to ban state university faculty from collective bargaining, which the faculty has done for more than 40 years.  The governor signed the ban into law on Thursday, March 12.  On the same day, the legislature voted not to fund the Dakota Promise scholarships for needy students.  This all comes at a time when the universities have experienced a  slump in enrollments.  The collective bargaining ban gives prospective students some very strong reasons to go to college elsewhere.  It gives professors compelling evidence that South Dakota is not the kind of place where real professors can do their work.  In total, those laws give public notice that South Dakota is officially against education and truly educated people.  

This is not the first time that South Dakota higher education has earned a place on lists by professional organizations as a system of low academic repute at which professors are warned against working.  From 1962 through 1991, South Dakota was on the list of censured administrations by the American Association of University Professors.  Here is, in part, the 1991 report by the Association of the state's history of censure:

The 1962 Annual Meeting directed censure against the Board of Regents of Education of the State of South Dakota for having summarily dismissed, in 1958, a professor of agronomy with fifteen years of service on the faculty of South Dakota State University. The 1969 Annual Meeting voted censure on the administration of Northern State College, also under the jurisdiction of the South Dakota Board of Regents, following the summary dismissal in 1966 of a newly appointed political science professor. The 1982 Annual Meeting determined that the outgoing and incoming presidents of Northern State College had done what they could to resolve the case which led to this censure and that the responsibility henceforth rested solely with the board of regents.  [Academe, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1991), pp. 40-46 (7 pages) American Association of University Professors]

At the 1991 meeting of the Association, it reported that the regents had resolved the issues for which the censure was placed with the implementation of policies negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement with the faculty:

These policies, incorporated into the board's regulations, will be reflected in the 1991-93 collective bargaining agreement in force at all institutions under the jurisdiction of the board.[Academe, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1991), pp. 40-46 (7 pages) American Association of University Professors]

The collective bargaining agreement that effectively removed the censures and elevated the status of South Dakota higher education to be competitive with public colleges and universities throughout the nation was a faculty initiative.  When I came to South Dakota in August 1979 to join the faculty at then-Northern State College, the first collective bargaining agreement was put in force.  Professional organizations to which I belonged had listed South  Dakota public colleges as not meeting the administrative  standards expected of reputable institutions, and they advised against taking a job in them.  However, the collective bargaining agreement going into effect addressed the deficiencies, and the organizations acknowledged that the faculty was making strong efforts to correct them. 

When I came on campus, the faculty was quick to inform  new members that the system was  operating under new, enforceable standards of academic quality and integrity, due process in personnel matters, academic freedom, and responsibility to  the students.  They pointed to the collective bargaining agreement as a legal contract to which faculty members and administrations had to abide.  It meant that the system was operating with standards to which the best colleges adhered.  It was a matter of faculty pride.

The censure had become a problem for the state's universities.  During the 1970s, a doctorate degree became a requirement for faculty throughout the nation.  The nation was producing more doctorates than jobs, however, so colleges were able to fill vacant positions, but the people who filled those positions earned their degrees from reputable and competent institutions.   They saw the need to bring South Dakota institutions in line with the standards of academic administration they experienced where they earned their doctorates.  One of those standards is shared governance in which the people who do the scholarship and research and keep abreast of the advances in their fields of study have a voice in shaping the curricula and the academic standards of their institutions.  Some South Dakota faculty saw that the way to achieve these goals was to organize and engage in collective bargaining.

Over a period of years, South Dakota faculty worked at organizing for a certification election which would establish a collective bargaining organization and set up the process of negotiating an agreement under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.  A majority of the faculty voted to certify the Council of Higher Education as their bargaining unit, which was affiliated with the South Dakota Education Association.  An agreement was negotiated and took effect with the fall semester of 1979.

A minority of the faculty thought organizing as a union put them in the same category as labor unions, but the majority understood that they were a professional organization that negotiated a contract which gave them the freedom and the power to study and teach according to the highest standards of their profession.  

Teacher unions have little power in South Dakota.  They are prohibited from striking, which leaves them with little leverage at the bargaining table.  And the "freedom to work" laws prevent the bargaining agent from collecting fees from all bargaining unit members which pay the expenses of negotiating a contract and the other business a bargaining organization engages in.  This was not a problem in the early years of the contract, as about 80 percent of the faculty at Northern State, where I worked, were dues-paying members.  But the membership soon began to dwindle.  Older members retired.  And an ironic circumstance took a good portion of the younger members.  Once they were working under a collective bargaining agreement, their work in South Dakota became recognized as an affirmative credential.  Many younger faculty used that credential to launch searches for better jobs, and there was a significant outmigration of faculty leaving the state, which reduced the number of dues-paying union members in the state.  Their replacement faculty was not actively recruited to join the union, and membership and interest in an organization that promoted and defended professional standards declined.  Over time, the faculty union, while negotiating agreements with the Board of Regents that set the standards and conditions for faculty work, dwindled down to a 10 percent membership, according to statements made in the legislature.

The faculty has responsibility for the decline of the institutions for which they work to keep them from devolving into diploma mills that issue degrees of questionable worth. While individual faculty members may conduct courses which meet the academic standards established by faculty scholars at large, institutions now with a ban on collective bargaining in South Dakota have no formalized system of faculty participation.  Rather, the universities can return to producing degree programs which are fragmented and incoherent.  Legislators and regents like to cite the stupid banality that  educational institutions should be run like businesses.  The ban was predicated on the premise that the collegial processes enforced by the collective bargaining agreement are bothersome and need to be eliminated to give the administrations management flexibility.  In the minds of the legislators, academic integrity is a bother.

Students complain that they end up at graduation with degrees that do not obtain them jobs, but leave with a staggering debt from student loans.   Students who have degrees from selective schools get the jobs:  "The value of a college degree also varies depending on the institution bestowing it. The tiny minority of students who attend elite colleges do far better on average than those who attend nonselective ones."  South Dakota public universities are not among those designated as selective.  The task for a conscientious faculty is to offer students the opportunity to become competitive with graduates from reputable colleges and universities.  But when the faculty is demoted to the status of day laborers who do their jobs under the supervision of low-grade politicians who are bent on bringing intellectual talent under their control, not on enabling people of earned credentials and intellectual talent to do their work, the degrees they issue are of little value.

The South Dakota faculty exercised their right to collective bargain under the rules and procedures stipulated by the National Labor Relations Act.  Their motive in the collegial tradition was to have a voice in the conditions in which they worked.  A large part of that motive was to lift South Dakota higher education out of its sullied reputation for academic inferiority and provide the students who held the degrees it granted with some academic respect.  [When during my first year in South Dakota I was sent to Sioux Falls to a recruiting fair with other colleges at a high school, I recall students referring our exhibit as being from "Northern State Junior High School.]  The collective bargaining agreement was as much an effort to provide credibility to the degrees earned by students as it was to give the faculty a voice regarding their professional status and the standards in how students are educated.

The sponsors and promoters of the ban on collective bargaining protest that the ban is not an attack on the faculty.   (The ban's main sponsor has had her legislative integrity called into question.)  But when the faculty is deprived  of an important collegial process that defines its essential role in higher education--one that it worked hard to develop and enforce--what else can it be called but an attack?   The ban returns the universities to the status that earned them censure by professors.  And that status has implications for prospective professors and students.  But especially for current professors who seem to have surrendered their voice in academic affairs with an obsequious silence. That surrender raises doubt about the quality of higher education within the system.

The reason offered by the ban's sponsor for its creation is that collective bargaining takes up time and effort and the  regents and administrators need flexibility.  What it achieves is the removal of faculty as collegial participants and their designation as low-level workers whose job is to do what the bosses tell them.  And that is not the status people earn doctorate degrees to achieve.

Prospective professors need to be warned (and some disciplinary organizations are doing so) that working for a South Dakota state university is not going to enhance their professional credentials.  Rather, anyone who willingly works for a university that is run like corporation will be branded as an academic hack.

Prospective students need to be informed that the faculty who bring their disciplinary expertise to the governance of the universities will not be the ones designing their educations and that the freedom to learn and investigate has been appropriated by politicians who have no understanding of how a university is supposed to function.

For anyone who values a true higher learning, the message is simple:  avoid South Dakota state universities.  

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities

Pissing duels and bitchy fights are irrelevant to politics of democracy

Those sessions with presidential candidates held on television advertised as debates are not debates.  A debate is when a proposal is raised as a subject and debaters present the facts and reasoning for and against the proposal.  Those televised spectacles are to debating what a drunken barroom brawl is to an olympic boxing event.  

As such an event approaches, the news anchors speak of it as a fight event.  They talk of attacks, striking out, swinging knock out punches.  Lost in their fight club frenzy is any marshaling of facts or cogent reasoning.  They see the alleged debate as a brawl intended to hurt and destroy.

Conflict is one of the criteria that the public responds  to in news stories. It is one of the features editors look for in evaluating a news story.  But it is also an aspect which has a special appeal to some people.   A segment of the population loves to see a fight in which one party will get humiliated.  Tabloid and cable news goad debate participants to move beyond mere disagreement over some issues into open anger, hostility, and malice.  Some of these alleged debates have had all the coherence of a fight over a swing on an elementary school playground.   To those of us involved in teaching human communication, these occasions are evidence of a massive failure of our education system.  Most educated people who note the gross deficiencies in these so-called debates dismiss them with a shrug of the shoulders.  The commentators who presume to divine the winners of the debates do so on the basis of who dominated and put on the most brash performances.  They assess the presentation of ideas and supporting arguments far down on their lists of comments.  But their guiding principle is to produce the angry conflicts that make "good television"--fodder for the dolts.

The cable news anchors have goaded some thoughtful and articulate candidates to act like Donald Trump in order to get some positive notice from them.  And Trump has been thoroughly diagnosed by experts on human behavior as entering an advanced stage of dementia.  The candidates have submitted to the demands for performances rather than focus on ideas and supporting information.  The American people have accepted this as the way democracy works, unaware that Big Brother has manipulated them so that they can't see what is before their eyes or hear what is actually said.

For those who may wish to know what the real issues are for American democracy, there is the written word still being produced.  And there are some town halls during which candidates actually provide information.  But how many people care or know how to avail themselves of that information?

What makes brains circle drains?

JohnTsitrian over at the South Dakota Standard takes up a favorite state aphorism recently recited at a legislative cracker barrel.  It is, "if you don't like South Dakota, get out."  Cory Heidelberger's Dakota Free Press covered the latest outburst.

And that is exactly what many bright and talented people do. They leave when they get the opportunity.

Having been retired for a long time, I no longer have daily encounters with college students, but when I did, getting out of South Dakota was the prime goal for many of them.  They wanted to live and work some place where their educations and abilities were recognized and appreciated.  And for a time, their goals were the cause of an almost-war declared by state officials and leaders.

Northern State, where I worked, was primarily a teachers' college.  It was a successful one.  It excelled in teacher education, but over time gained a reputation for the strong programs in the subject matters that teachers teach.  Consequently, students in other disciplines found that it made  them competitive in many fields of endeavor.  

I recall writing letters of recommendation for students, not only to surrounding states, but in places as distant as California, Massachusetts, and Florida.  At one point, state officials and leaders were made aware that there was a migration of our strongest students from the state.  School principals and superintendents were finding it difficult to fill vacant teaching positions because so many candidates were taking jobs in other states.  They complained to the department of education and the regents that the state schools were not helping supply the best teachers.

A president of Northern State was called on the carpet because the school was advertising as part of its recruiting program its success at placing students out of state .  It was using the term "gateway institution" as a way of emphasizing that it provided a pathway to other places.  It appealed to students whose goal it was to get out of South Dakota.  The college president was severely rebuked by state officials for using the term.

The faculty was asked to help the administration address the matter of the brain drain, and our first task was to define just how serious the problem was.  With the help of some school districts, we found that there were two waves of outmigration in the state.  The first was when students graduated from high school and went out of state to college.  The second occurred at graduation from college when students who went to college in South Dakota left the state to take up their careers.  What we found was that the bright students were motivated early in their educations to set the goal of leaving South Dakota.  Programs such as special scholarships were established to lure bright students to stay in the state to go to college, but such efforts only delayed the point at which they would leave.

The students told us the reason for their goals to leave.  They aspired to live and work in circumstances not available in South Dakota.  The pay, particularly in education, was much better elsewhere.  And so were the commensurate working and living conditions.  Parents and teachers encouraged young people to seek productive and satisfying lives, and they sought such lives where they were available--wnich was seldom in South Dakota.  

One of the measures of a state that is used by market analysts to identify the attitudes that shape the intellectual environment within a state is to trace where prominent people choose to live when they retire or move out of state. Many retirees move because of the winter weather.  They join the migration from the Midwest in general to retirement communities in Florida, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, etc.  Winter in South Dakota can be confining.  And many move to where they have family, whatever the weather may be like.  But a significant number move to places where the culture is more sustaining.  Around the time I retired, a number of fellow retirees moved to Minnesota suburbs within an easy commute to the Twin Cities.  They sought a change in intellectual climate.   When one of them was queried about why he moved from South Dakota to a similar climate, he said, "My idea of retirement is not sitting in a boat on the world's biggest stock dam [referring to Lake Oahe] trying to catch the world's dullest fish, or blasting away at the world's dumbest game bird while trying to avoid getting shot by some of the world.s dumbest hunters."   He then cited the cultural opportunities of the Twin Cities and access to a huge university library where he could continue to participate in the work of his chosen profession in a more leisurely manner.  He did not endear himself to many South Dakotans.

Dedicated South Dakotans find it difficult to deal with the fact that some people find the state less than appealing and uplifting, and they get angry and hostile and tell those people to leave if they don't like it.  Then they get peevish when people do.  

Despite a climate that can reach the extremes of unpleasantness, the state has a variety of geographical features that make it interesting and stimulating.  Or at least, they could.  But the human environment countermands that potential.  While people blithely speak of South Dakota nice as a social characteristic, the dominant traits that pervade the state are small-mindedness, resentment, and often outright malice.  Those are the things that people of some knowledge, intelligence, and good will want to eliminate from their lives.  And so, they move on as soon as they can.

The degree of outmigration is given numbers in an article in The South Dakota Standard by attorney Jay Davis on the massive demographic shift that has taken place within the state during the last 50 years.  While two urban areas have experienced vigorous growth, outlying counties have experienced population losses up to 46 percent.  Brown County, where I reside, has about held its own since 1970, showing a population loss of only one percent.

But the loss of physical bodies is the outward sign of a loss of human interest.  I have written frequently that people who don't move their persons out of state often withdraw their participation in their communities.  I have noted this in South Dakota for many years.  Some civic and cultural organizations in which I once was active simply do not exist.  Veterans and fraternal organizations which once ran vital facilities in town have folded up and receded into the background.  

Josh Marshall of The Talking Points Memo writes about this despair and withdrawal on the national level:

 ...people...find the news so bad and toxic that they are trying to make a voluntary exit from the public sphere – withdraw into work, family, hobbies.

Both Jay Davis and Josh Marshall see the advent of Trump as the signal of the intellectual and moral deterioration that is changing the social and political direction of the country.  One political faction is behind legislation introduced throughout the country which is plotted to subsume the privacy and freedom of designated people and impose oppressive and punitive measures on them.  The South Dakota legislature has almost abandoned legislating to build the state to devote its efforts to repressive and punitive laws.

Donald Trump is the voice and the personification of the people who put him in office.  Their notion of making America great resides in an incompetent alleged businessman--six bankruptcies, who brags about groping women, a briber of women with whom he has cheated on his wife--a violation of law for which the lawyer he ordered to make the payments is in prison, and a prolific liar who has tallied over 16,000 lies in the conduct of his presidency.  His character was thoroughly revealed in the news and in the way he conducted himself at his rallies and public events.  There is no way his supporters could not know this.  He is what they want.

They represent what people who do leave South Dakota are  getting away from.  But now the malice and dishonesty that seethes beneath South Dakota nice is a national issue.  If there is no place to go, people withdraw and retreat into enclaves.  Even if Trump is voted out of office, the people who endorse dishonesty and corruption with malice toward all who don't will be with us.  It is government by the people and about half the people want national degeneracy.  It is not a matter of partisan politics.  It's a matter of moral choice.

Intelligent and honorable people would rather avoid the degenerate.  Brains and aspirations are circling the drain looking for some positive hope to grab onto before they are swept into the great American sewer.  Even churches are not a refuge from Trump's contaminants  which are as virulent as coronavirus and have the same effects.

During the impeachment trial, there was much quoting of the founders, especially from The Federalist Papers. They were invoked as sophistries to obscure the nefarious ways of Donald Trump.  But our current times make the revolutionary words of Thomas Paine more relevant, as he wrote "These are the times that try men's souls." He offers some words to grab onto:

~It is an affront to treat falsehood with complaisance.

 ~That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.

~We have it in our power to begin the world over again.

*The stable genius destroys an honor*

"For the President of the United States to bestow one of the nation’s highest laurels on Limbaugh is a morally corrosive and politically cynical act. It is a kind of assault on the achievements of so many previous award winners, a list that includes Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., Václav Havel, Rosa Parks, and John Lewis. It is appalling to see Rush Limbaugh’s name listed alongside theirs."

The New Yorker

If Donald Trump has any genius, it is his talent to destroy human decency.  He is totally driven by malice.  

There is a long list of people who over the years have been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Most are people who have contributed to the advance of democracy in some way that can be acknowledged, if not totally agreed with.  The criteria for the awards  are  contributions to: "(1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors".   There are quite a few from the political world and they cover the spectrum from rigid conservative to progressive liberal.  Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, for example, are recipients, and while we who lean to the left oppose their policies and their political machinations, they did not descend to a level of perfidy and contumely in the way they conducted themselves.  

That is not so in the case of Rush Limbaugh, who was made a recipient by Donald Trump during his State of the Union speech.   Trump and Limbaugh share a trait.  They never say or do anything out of good will.  Even benign words out of their mouths have a malicious purpose.  Trump emulates Limbaugh, who is also driven by malice.  

Limbaugh is a prolific spreader of lies.  He has earned a reputation for his malicious attacks and lies. When his broadcasting network is confronted about the damaging things he says, they reply that he is not a journalist, but an entertainer who performs for his audience.  The inference that can be drawn from that is that Limbaugh's audience is composed of the kind of people who once packed their picnic baskets to attend public hangings to make holidays out of them.  Nothing is as entertaining as watching other people humiliated and strangled to death.  

Limbaugh is a master of scurrility.  He maligns hordes of people.  But he keeps a lot of fact-checkers employed.

In one stroke of reality television, Trump turned the Presidential Medal of Freedom into a badge of dishonor.  Now good people live in fear that someone might want to hang one around their neck and put them in the same category of dishonor as Limbaugh. 

The U.S. is primed for an explosion

From The Onion:  Satire comes true

I claim no status as a predictor of public events.  But sometimes the indications that something is about to happen are so abundant and so compelling that the conclusions are obvious.  The indications that the United States is about to erupt in a violent rebellion have reached that point.  

I came to such a conviction many years ago when I worked for a newspaper in Illinois.  I spent a weekend in September in Wisconsin at a  workshop held by a journalistic organization.  As I drove back to Illinois late on Sunday afternoon, I was passing by Lake Geneva in the company station wagon assigned to me.  A large group of college-age people who had apparently gathered to enjoy an early autumn weekend had turned to demonstrating.  Civil rights, the draft into the Vietnam War, poverty, women's liberation, and many other things motivated them to abandon recreational pursuits for expressing their dissatisfactions with the direction the country was headed.  They crowded the highway I was on and were obstructing the traffic.

There were some young people who seemed to enjoy the opportunity to act out, but most of them were expressing their opposition and anger at the political attitudes dominating the nation.  They halted the traffic, were shouting and waving signs of protest, and  milled around to avoid the police who had converged to try to restore order.  One young man in an effort to evade the police jumped up on the hood of my station wagon as he ran from the police.  He left a big dent from the boots he was wearing on the hood.  I was going to have a hard time explaining that dent to the fleet manager when I turned the car in.  But the major impression left on me was that the country was headed for a time of violent rebellion.

And, indeed, it exploded

There was much violence in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  The Detroit riots, the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Kent State, and a multitude of other eruptions are forgotten as dominating the social history of the time.  There was something about the intensity of the young people surrounding my car that Sunday afternoon that projected a sense of the tumult to come.  And it came.

For the past few years I have felt a sense of foreboding like that again.  As massive marches have been organized to protest what Donald Trump stands for and does,  I've expected the peaceful demonstrations to explode into a flash of anger.  The impeachment of Trump has brought the nation to its flash point.

Democrats are widely criticized for the impeachment.  They knew the Senate would acquit him of the charges.  Conservatives have obtained a lot of enjoyment out of deriding the Democrats' defeat and what they regard as the triumph of Trump.  They gloat that the American people are watching Trump deny and evade any responsibility for his attempt to extort the Ukraine president into performing one of his malignant schemes.  But the impeachment had a different purpose than punishing Trump.  For those who have the intelligence and moral courage to face unpleasant truths, the impeachment detailed an instance of Trump's belligerent malignity and the GOP senators' cowardly servility and anxious will to make a mockery of their oath of impartiality in service of their master.  Together, they cancelled out the respect this nation has earned as it strove to be the world's leading democracy.  The impeachment detailed how low this nation has sunk and who is sinking it.

But that is all a prelude to the explosion of rage that has been building up with each lie Trump has told and each nod of assent to his lies by those who join him in the debasement of the nation--whether out of fear of him or the desire to be like him.  

As I heard Trump make his petulant and juvenile rant during his "victory celebration" and heard and saw politicians prostrate themselves before him in an obsequious fervor through their applause and laughter,  I could sense the revulsion being inspired throughout the nation.  It was a pageant of obscenity.

An election is coming in November.  But the vibrations I am sensing make me doubt that the nation will hold together that long.  Trump and McConnell put on a very convincing demonstration that facts and Constitutional procedures can easily be subverted by people who would rather have kings and courtiers.  People who saw this demonstration for what it is will not be so foolish as to believe the democratic processes have any integrity left in them. 

Let's see if the Capitol is standing by election time.  Or anyone gives a damn if it is.  If they survive what promises to be an angry summer.