RE: The Needed Mental Attributes Of A President; The Presidential Campaign And Forthcoming Appointments To The Supreme Court; A Bail Out For Homeowner

February 29, 2008

RE: The Needed Mental Attributes Of A President; The Presidential Campaign And Forthcoming Appointments To The Supreme Court; A Bail Out For Homeowners; And Bloomberg’s Game.

Yesterday, at our faculty lunch table, I was marveling at the fact that a person as stupid and incompetent as George Bush has regularly shown himself to be, could appear so personable, charming and even intelligent as he was when speaking about (and to) the Boston Red Sox before the White House news media. (Even discounting for the possible aid of speech writers, Bush really wasn’t half bad.) A colleague responded with a remark that triggered a thought: what we were seeing is an example of Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. There is not just one form of intelligence, as psychologists long claimed. There are many kinds, says Gardner in a now widely accepted view. There is verbal/logical intelligence (the kind lawyers need), musical intelligence, kinetic or physical/athletic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, artistic intelligence, and so forth. A person can have one kind in high degree and be deficient, or even wholly lacking, in others.

Upon reflection, it is obvious that this is the story of Bush. His amiable, good old boy persona reflects a certain kind of interpersonal intelligence, sometimes in high degree. But he is totally lacking in the kind of analytical, logical, thoughtful intelligence needed by a leader, much less a President. Americans, often being fools who vote for the more personally attractive guy, elected Bush twice. They have learned to rue the day they did so, since he lacks the kind of intelligence that is more needed for a presidency.

This is relevant in the 2008 campaign. I shall concede biases in what I am about to write, biases in some ways inconsistent with my generally highly antielitest views (a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds, I think Emerson said). Obama seems to have shown tremendous interpersonal and organizational intelligence in this campaign. Not yet fully plumbed, many pundits say, is his analytical intelligence in the form of substantive ideas, plans, programs, etc. I find it hard, however, to doubt his analytical intelligence. Here is why (and here comes a bias that in a way is inconsistent with my generally antielitist views): Obama was President of - - was the top guy on - - the Harvard Law Review. In my day, anyone who was President of the Harvard Law Review inevitably was hugely bright as an analytical, verbal/logical matter, possibly (or probably) was even a genius. Until somebody tells me it was different in Obama’s day (about 20 or 25 years later), I have to believe that the same still held true then (and now too I would imagine). So I don’t have any doubts about Obama’s analytical intelligence, the kind a President needs.

Hillary Clinton presents an interesting contrast. Her interpersonal intelligence, at least in her public persona, does not seem all that high, shall we say? One hears that people she works closely with adore her, but publicly she is far less appealing. What about her analytical, verbal/logical ability? Well, I once interviewed a tremendously bright Harvard law professor who had met her and was deeply impressed with her brightness (albeit very put off by her inconsistency, which perhaps even amounted to dishonesty). And an enormously accomplished and intelligent former student of mine who was a high official in Bill Clinton’s administration said he is the smartest guy this person ever met. But, you know, I nonetheless doubt that the Clintons are so smart as a verbal/logical, analytical matter. And here is my partly horribly elitest reason for the doubt. If the Clintons were so smart, how come they weren’t on the Yale Law Journal? Law reviews after all, especially in those days, were populated by the best - - let’s even say it, the smartest - - students.

Now, I can think of lots of answers to the question I just asked, especially the following three answers. Everyone admitted to the Yale Law School is very smart. Maybe Bill and Hillary were concerned with other things, in particular politics and do goodism, rather than with academics or getting on the Law Journal. And it is true that there are lots of lawyers who later do very well, and are very smart, but who weren’t on the law review. (This is perhaps especially so when a person has to work his or her way through law school.)

Yet, despite these good reasons in opposition, the nagging partly elitist doubt still won’t down, and still less will it down when one considers how competitive Bill and Hillary are said to be. Of course, in Hillary’s case, there also are other reasons to doubt her logical intelligence, although one could also say that there were other factors at play too. The other reasons for doubt include: The mess she made of health care circa 1994. Her vote for an Iraq war and the complete unwillingness to concede error. The overconfidence going into the campaign and the failure to understand the quality of the competition. The flip flopping on positions. I am even told - - is it true? I find it hard to believe -- that she failed the D.C. bar exam the first time. In those days (I don’t know about today), that bar exam was regarded as one of the easier ones to pass. If she did flunk it, how in hell did that happen? It wasn’t the New York or California bar exam you know, which are hard exams. Did she not study? Did she study but fail? If she didn’t study, what does that say in a number of ways? If she studied but failed, what does that say?

And when all is said and done, it remains true that the one time that Bill and Hillary were in an environment where everybody might be thought pretty smart, at the Yale Law School, they didn’t stack up so well against the competition. Maybe it should be no surprise that Hillary has been outmaneuvered by a guy who did stack up well against similar competition at Harvard.

So, there you have it. I think that the Democratic candidates’ performance in law school and on the bar says something about abilities one needs to be President. We have seen, after all, the disasters wrought by a President who lacks those abilities. My view is partly elitest and contrary to my general antielitest feelings. But I fear it is right nonetheless.

I keep saying the view is only partly elitist. For, to bring up a thought triggered by a lunch table conversation today, it is also true that my view can be thought to posit that, despite their high LSAT scores and college grades, not everyone at the Yale Law School, or other “elite” law schools, is necessarily all that smart. I do think that high college grades and stratospheric LSAT scores do not necessarily mean that someone is especially bright, even in an analytical, logical/verbal way, and that thought is highly antielitest - - and totally contrary to the conventional wisdom. (Imagine - - saying that not everyone at the “elite” Yale Law School is all that smart, when the joke is, as was also said at our lunch table, that people who can’t get into the Yale Law School go to Harvard Law School.) So, there is an antielitist side to a view which in another way is elitest.

All of this stuff about what might be shown by an experience in higher education brings up John McCain. I am told - - again, is it true? - - that he was pretty close to anchor man in his class. (I believe - - correct me if I’m wrong - - that anchor man is the term for last in the class at Annapolis, and that goat is the word for last in the class at West Point. (George Pickett, appointed to West Point by Abraham Lincoln - - if you can believe that - - was, I think, the goat in his class at the Point.)) Does his class standing (if what I was told is true) say anything about McCain’s level of intellectual intelligence, his analytical intelligence (or his mathematical/scientific/technological intelligence, since it was the Naval Academy)? Well, I don’t know, though to be consistent about it, I’d have to guess yes, although one might also think his class standing was in good part a result of his being, apparently, a screwoff. More recently, though, his really stupid involvement in the Keating Five scandal, his very recent flip flopping on the Iraq war and torture when there was no good reason for the flip flopping, and, most of all, his view that we should be ready for a 100 years war, cast serious doubt on his smarts. Can he really be serious about the 100 year war stuff? Is he nuts?

You know, Bill Maher made a hugely perceptive comment about McCain the other night. Pointing out that McCain’s grandfather and father were each famous admirals (and McCain started out in the Navy), Maher said that a problem with McCain is that he regards war as the natural state of affairs. I was delighted to hear that said by someone with a public voice which is heard widely. For I myself have been saying for some time that one of the major problems with our generation, McCain’s and mine, is that we grew up with nearly continuous war, and many of our generation came to believe that war is inevitable and to be expected. Such a view is disastrous; and it is unintelligent because it will make disastrous war more likely and wreck the country in the process. Yet it is the view held by McCain, so it is hard to think him intelligent or fit to be President.

* * * *
Let me turn briefly to a different subject, one the Presidential candidates have not been discussing, but which is highly important: the selection of federal Justices and judges. Without getting deeply into it, I’ve noticed that sometimes I say I’ll write in more depth about something later, but never get around to it. Well I do plan to write more on this later, and hope I do get to it, perhaps as near term as within a week or two.

In the meanwhile, let me say this. As extensively discussed by Jan Greenburg in her recent book and at a full day conference at MSL, the reactionary right has succeeded in creating, or is no more than a whisker away from creating, the Supreme Court that it wants. There are four hard line conservatives, and one middleman who is often conservative. Another conservative appointment or two and it’s all over for the next 20 to 40 years. As said about abortion by one of Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court clerks (quoted in a recent biography of Blackmun), decisions will be made “‘once and for all by some right wing minority’” of the electorate.

The candidates, however, aren’t talking about the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts. But they damn well should be and the public ought to insist on it. There is no question that the right to abortion (er, choice) is at stake. Of crucial importance to the country, also at stake is the question of Presidential power, i.e, the question whether the President will have the authority to be - - and will indeed be - - the kind of all powerful, monarchical official the farmers feared, while Congress continues to be a mere cipher and the courts do zip. And, finally, also at stake will be the rights of the small man, whom the current screw-the-small-guy-five don’t care about, and questions of the power of willing states to protect the environment against degradation by big companies who buy off Washington (and lots of state capitals too).

* * * *

Screwing the small guy brings up another brief point. Bush and the Republicans are against a bailout for the small people who have been hurt badly by the subprime mess fostered, for awhile to their enormous profit, by huge commercial banks, huge investment banks, mortgage brokers, and other big business types. The Bushies think that helping the small guy will represent moral hazard, will encourage people in future to buy what they can’t afford, to live beyond their means. Well, let’s accept what these paragons of mendacity say; let’s forget that big businesses defrauded small guys, defrauded investors, cooperated in illegality, repeatedly urged small people to take out mortgages the banks knew were unaffordable and, in the case of ARMs, just plain crazy. Let’s forget all that devastating culpability - - which the Administration, Congress and the Supreme Court will doubtlessly find ways to ignore or protect - -and just focus on the moral hazard of giving the small guy a break despite his unfortunate behavior. Tell me, how is this moral hazard different from the moral hazard of bailing out Chrysler, which was bailed out only to fall flat on its face again later? How is it different from bailing out the savings and loan industry? How is it different from bailing out the railroads in the 1960s? For that matter, how is it different from helping out - - by giving them scores of billions over the years - - some of the worst governments in the world, like Pakistan’s, or Egypt’s, or Saudi Arabia’s, or Indonesia’s?

These questions answer themselves, of course. There is no difference. Except one. These bailouts and help outs were for the benefit of the rich and powerful. The homeowners’ debacle deals with the small guy, who is neither rich nor powerful. To steal from Karl Marx, but to do so with regard to the top dogs, not the bottom ones, “Wealthy and powerful of the world unite. You have nothing to lose, and scores of millions of people to screw over with your hypocrisy.”

* * * *

A last point - - a question really. What is Michael Bloomberg’s game? He says he will not run for President (which is very likely wise in view of Obama’s popularity), but thinks an independent candidate could win and will support someone who says and does what he considers the right things. Is he setting the stage to support the candidate, if there is one, of Gerald Rafshoon’s independent group? Is he hoping this group will run an independent candidate who is bound to lose but who will set the stage for a winning Bloomberg candidacy in 2012 (like the Republicans with Fremont in 1856 and then Lincoln in 1860)? Is he possibly even aiming for a vice presidential nomination on a major ticket now, and then a run for the presidency in four years, when he is 64, or eight years, when he is 73? Will he support some non-Rafshoon-group independent candidate if a highly worthwhile one throws his or her hat into the ring (which is unlikely)? Is he aiming for a cabinet position? Should he simply be taken at his word? (Take a pol at his word? - - even one with the good qualities that Bloomberg has?)[*]

Well, I have no idea. Does anyone?



R:\My Files\Blogspot\Blogltr.NeededMentalAttributes..doc



* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@mslaw.edu.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

Re: The Names Of The Washington Professional Sports Teams.

February 26, 2008

Re: The Names Of The Washington Professional Sports Teams.


I am reading an advance copy of a book that will be published in May called The Cult of the Presidency. It is a Cato Institute book authored by Cato’s senior editor, Gene Healy. Because Cato is libertarian rather than necessarily deeply conservative at all times and about all things, I not infrequently find myself agreeing with its positions, positions which most of America, and the conventional wisdom, usually dislike. So it is with The Cult of the Presidency. Healy is giving us extensive unvarnished truth that is unpalatable to the conventional wisdom, truth that includes, I will immodestly say, matters which I began writing about in the late 1960s to the derision of hotshots at Yale Law School, federal judges, lawyers generally, students of the presidency and the body politic. But we are now at the point -- are long past the point -- where the truths spoken by Cato, Healy and a few others can no longer be ignored. It’s my hope that the Cato/Healy book, authored in the belly of the beast, in Washington, DC, where Cato is a big deal and is not usually ignored as the rest of us are, will be the beginning of serious rethinking by a lot of people about the disastrous nature of the Presidency since at least 1960, if not well before.

So far, it probably sounds as if this is a posting about Healy’s book. Well, it isn’t. I shall post about Healy’s work in the future. Also, he will be at our law school to do a one or two hour television interview about his book in late April for Books of Our Time and to appear at a conference on characteristics of successful presidents.

This post, however, is about a sports thought triggered by one word -- “moronic” -- in a paragraph in the book dealing with Steven Colbert’s appearance at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an orgy of Washingtonian big dealism held every year. That paragraph, in turn, is part of Healy’s attack on the hero worship which envelops the president and is fostered by presidents, their hangers-on, the mainstream media, the punditocracy, and others who make their living in Washington.

Here is the paragraph in question and the first part of the first sentence of the next paragraph:

In 2006, Daily Show alum Steven Colbert was the featured comic at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the annual gathering of D.C. journalists where the president is expected to show up and be a good sport by putting up with some gentle ribbing. Colbert wasn’t gentle. In character as the moronic right-wing talk-show host he plays on the Daily Show spinoff The Colbert Report, Colbert compared the Bush administration with the Hindenburg disaster, sarcastically applauded our “success” in Iraq, and suggested that the president was an ignoramus who refused to seek accurate information because “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” A former top administration aide who attended the dinner commented that the president was furious: he had “that look [like] he’s ready to blow.” Colbert’s performance was open, in-your-face disrespect for the presidency, and many people didn’t care for it. Many didn’t like it 10 years earlier at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, when President Clinton had to sit uncomfortably while shock jock Don Imus cracked jokes about Clinton’s marital infidelities (though, then as now, how offended one was largely depended on one’s party affiliation).

Despite the vestiges of hero-worship on display in the press and in popular entertainment . . . . [Citation omitted.]

Now, my recollection is that the live audience at the dinner didn’t laugh at Colbert’s humor, but that he was thought hysterically funny by a large number of people in the TV audience or who saw parts of his performance later replayed on TV (if this occurred, as I think it did). I know that I thought him hysterical, and you can see why from Healy’s paragraph. But for the Washington hotshots in the live audience who were celebrating their big dealism, Colbert’s humor hit too close to home, including, if I remember rightly, remarks he made about the Washington press corps sometimes failing in its duty to do nothing but transcribe and print what the President says. (Let me know if I remember incorrectly.)

But that word “moronic,” as in “moronic right-wing talk-show host,” set off thoughts in my mind about the names of the Washington sports teams. They are called the Redskins (football), the Wizards (basketball), the Nationals (baseball), the Capitals, or Caps (hockey). Now Nationals and Capitals are names that at least have something to do with Washington, DC, since it is the national capital. But Redskins? Wizards? What have they got to do with Washington? Indian-slaughterers and Bumblers would be far more apt names for teams from Washington.

But the word “moronic” really provides the key, I think. And that key unlocks the thought that all the Washington teams should be given the same name, a name that fully represents the city and the quality of what it says and does. They should all be named “The Washington Morons.”

This could, of course, cause some confusion. When writers write or speakers speak of The Washington Morons, how would we know which team they are referring to? Are they referring to the football team, the baseball team, one of the other teams? That is an easy problem to solve, however. Back in the day when New York, for over three decades, had both a baseball team and a football team named the Giants, the football team was often referred to as the New York Football Giants to distinguish it from the teams of Mel Ott, Bill Terry, Carl Hubbell and Willie Mays. For a very few years in the late 1940s and perhaps even into the earliest 1950s, there were also a New York professional football team called the Yankees and a Brooklyn professional football team called the Dodgers. Maybe they too were referred to as the football Yankees or the football Dodgers to distinguish them from the baseball teams. I really don’t know, but I am sure about the New York Football Giants.

So there is an obvious answer to the problem of confusion if all the Washington teams were called The Morons. We would be able to distinguish among the teams called The Washington Morons by calling them, respectively, The Washington Baseball Morons, The Washington Football Morons, The Washington Basketball Morons, and The Washington Hockey Morons. Or, for short, they could be referred to as follows in headlines (or speech). “Baseball Morons Lose Eight Straight; Emulate Senators (the baseball ones).” Or “Football Morons Hire New Coach; New Moron Leader Says Will Emulate Success of Joe Gibbs By Winning Three Super Bowls -- Without A Quarterback.”

So there would be no problem distinguishing among teams. The only problem left is a human one that could affect the players or the fans. It could be suggested that, if asked who he plays for, a player would have to say “I’m a Moron,” or “I’m a baseball Moron.” Or, when traded to Washington, he would have to say “Oh, I’m a Moron now.” That would be an unfair burden to put on players. But it too is a problem that could be easily solved. If asked who he plays for, a player could say, “I play for the Washington Baseball Morons.” Or, in speaking of a trade, he could say, “I’ve been traded to the Washington Football Morons.” Similarly, a diehard Washington football fan, like one who waited 30 years to get a season ticket and fondly remembers the Hogs, would not have to say “I’m a Moron fan,” but could instead say, more elegantly, “I’m a fan of the Washington Football Morons.” (Of course, maybe someone like that should say “I’m a Moron fan.)

These answers would impose the horrid burden of saying a few more words than otherwise, but they would do the job. Everyone would know what the player or fan meant, and nobody would think him moronic. For he would not, after all, be a member of the group that can rightly be called “The Washington Political Morons” or “The Washington Media Morons.” And calling all the sports teams “The Morons” would be superbly representative of the major “industries” of the city. It’s just so perfect, isn’t it?*



R:\My Files\Blogspot\Blogltr.NamesWashingtonSportsTeams.doc
* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@mslaw.edu.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

The New York Times, Cable TV, And McCain

February 21, 2008

Re: The New York Times, Cable TV, And McCain.


This is probably my shortest posting ever. It relates to The New York Times’ story about John McCain and the lobbyist.

The disgrace called cable news is trying to pretend that this story is really about a possible illicit romantic relationship. That is news media spin. It is cable television bovine defecation. What the story is all about, in reality, is (semi regular) hypocrisy, some involving Ms. Iseman and some -- much -- involving other people and events. Read it and see for yourself.

Yes, the story discusses the Iseman situation. Yes, that situation is covered fully. But the story nonetheless is fundamentally a story illustrating the gross hypocrisy we now have come to expect from politicians, rather than a story about a sex scandal. And as for the McCain campaign’s high-flown-language response about serving the country, never violating the public trust and never doing favors for special interests or lobbyists (right -- the campaign said this, if you can believe it), and that the story is a mere smear campaign, this response just more political bovine defecation, more of the political style obnoxiousness of using fancy talk to evade, secrete, hide or lie.*


* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@mslaw.edu.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

Re: Clarence Thomas, His Autobiography, And Related Matters Pertaining To America And The Supreme Court.

February 20, 2008

Re: Clarence Thomas, His Autobiography, And Related Matters Pertaining To America And The Supreme Court.



Recently, I read Clarence Thomas’ autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son, which covers his life up to the time he joined the Supreme Court. The book was widely condemned by reviewers, though some praised it. A few, a very few, even hit the nail on the head with regard to crucial aspects of Thomas’ life and thought discussed in the book.

One might begin here by saying that this is the angriest book -- by far the angriest book -- that one has ever read. If Thomas were not a Justice, his book would be called a polemic, or a screed. To have written such a book sixteen years into the continuing honor of being a Justice of the Supreme Court is more than the word “amazing” can signify. There are, roughly speaking, about one million lawyers in this country. Nine of them, or one in about every 111,000 are on the Supreme Court. That’s less than one one-thousandth of one percent of them, if my arithmetic is right. There are 300 million people in this country, and only the same nine of them are Supreme Court Justices. That’s less than one three hundred thousandths of one percent, if my arithmetic is right. With an accomplishment like this, Thomas is angry? One thinks there must be something fundamentally wrong with this guy.

One understands, of course, that anger cannot necessarily be measured this way. Events can have such an impact on a person that no success, however great, can fully dissipate it -- although for most people great success will mitigate it, a fact not irrelevant to the saying that “living well is the best revenge.” One also fears that the kind of anger still borne and now disclosed by Thomas despite huge success may not be totally irrelevant to the psychological profile of George W. Bush, a man whose psychological problems -- coupled, to be sure, with mental inadequacy, unlike Thomas -- are widely believed to have had more than a little to do with the disasters of the last eight years. Perhaps Thomas has done us a favor after the fact in this regard, the favor being greater knowledge that, in picking leaders, we ought to try to be sure they are not persons of unlimited psychological anger and consequent high aggression. But be all as it may, it remains true that Clarence Thomas is a very angry man despite an extraordinary level of success, and does not even have the grace to hide the anger although he has risen to a level that the vast, vast run of lawyers, and the even vaster run of people, cannot aspire to.

The irony, of course, is that if there had been grace, there would have been no book. There is a book only because there was no grace.

Yet one cannot help wondering whether, at least in part, Thomas wrote the book not just to get even, but also for the money. In the book itself, he talks a lot about not having any money, and I’m pretty confident he would deeply resent and take offense at someone questioning how this could have happened despite salaries that most Americans would die for (e.g., as head of a federal agency in Washington). He would point out his prior background of poverty, his need to repay educational loans, his family responsibilities, especially after a divorce. Yet lots of unfortunate people have these problems on far lower salaries. Nor am I the only person to suspect that maybe the lack of money he so often mentions stems from a lack of competence in handling it. In any event, he does complain, often and bitterly, about lack of money, and he received a nice piece of change as an advance for writing the book: $1.5 million still buys a few things even though this is 2008.

Let me now disabuse the reader of the idea that this is to be a one sided, anti-Thomas posting: Thomas says some things that resonate deeply with this writer, things I agree with, are sympathetic to, and understand. Less than a handful of his book’s many reviewers seem to have realized or cared about these things.

To begin with, Thomas is an avatar of hard work, discipline in one’s work and heavy reliance on one’s self and one’s own efforts, as the road to success. Amen, brother. That may be the 1950s talking, particularly now when we know any bum can be successful if his Daddy was rich or president (or both). Yet, for most of us, hard work, discipline in doing one’s work, and heavy reliance on self remain the only road. They are not the royal road once portrayed. They do not guarantee one will escape failure. But for most they are the only avenue, other than cheating and dishonesty, that leads to success. It was the road followed by Thomas -- nobody seems to deny that, by the way -- and he deserves all credit for it.

If he caught a break here or there rather than relying wholly on self, well, everyone should and most do catch at least some good breaks in a world filled with bad ones.

Forgive me for telling a story that supports Thomas’ view, a braggadocious story about our school, the Massachusetts School of Law (MSL), that happened just a few days ago and that Thomas might well appreciate. Our law school is one that for years has spurned American Bar Association accreditation because the elitist, money-oriented rules of that accreditation body mean law schools, and therefore the legal profession, have ever increasingly been the preserve of the white and wealthy. Under the ABA’s rules, a school cannot effectively carry out the mission of our school, which is to provide opportunity for the less fortunate economically, including minorities. We offer opportunity to people who are capable but are excluded from ABA schools by financially or academically exclusivist standards, and lots of our students are persons who could not get into ABA schools though they are capable, hardworking and will be excellent lawyers.

We have a chapter at MSL of BLSA, the Black Law Students Association. The chapter is open to persons of any race, color, etc., but is primarily comprised of African Americans. Every year the national BLSA puts on a trial competition among BLSA Chapters. There are six regional competitions, and the top two teams in each region go to the national finals held a few weeks later. MSL competes in the Northeast Regional Competition. This year there were a total of 15 teams in the Northeast Regionals, with MSL sending four separate teams. We do not know all of the other schools, because of “secrecy” maintained to insure against bias in judging, but we nonetheless know that other schools included one of the country’s most prestigious schools, Harvard, and still others were well thought-of ABA schools like St. Johns, Rutgers, Syracuse, Albany, Pace and Touro. It is no secret that ABA schools, especially ones like Harvard, enroll African Americans who have the very best academic records and aptitude test scores of any black students.

So what happened at the Northeast Regionals a few days ago? Well, in the first round of matches every team has two trials. After these two trials, the number of competing teams is reduced from 15 to 8. By the luck of the draw, none of the four MSL teams played each other, and all won, so that all four advanced to the quarterfinal round of eight. Again by the luck of the draw, none of MSL’s four teams played each other -- but again all won, so that all advanced, and only MSL teams advanced, to the semifinals, where the four MSL teams necessarily played each other because no team was left from any other school. And from the semifinals, of course, two of the MSL teams advanced to play each other in the finals of the Northeast Regionals.

As far as we know, this has not happened before. And, especially because the luck of the draw is needed so that teams from a given school do not play each other, with one knocking out another at or before the quarterfinals, it is not likely to happen again. But how and why did it happen this time? Why did teams from the non ABA MSL sweep the competition -- competition which apparently included nothing but teams from ABA schools, including one of the country’s most prestigious law schools that gets African American students with the best previous grades and test scores? The answer is not complicated, and should make someone with Thomas’ views as pleased as punch. MSL’s coaches and team members worked very hard to prepare for the competition. Hard work was the only secret.

Now, this does lead to two other ruminations. One knows from experience that other teams did not fail to work hard: some schools make such competitions one of the focal points of their academic programs and do well year after year. So MSL did not succeed because of sloth elsewhere. As well, it goes without saying that the students from MSL are smart and talented. Without intelligence and talent, even hard work could not suffice to defeat teams from schools that select the crème de la crème of students -- white, black, brown, yellow, red or green -- as judged by higher education’s ordinary, if deeply incomplete, measuring stick of prior grades and purported aptitude test scores.

So this little story, which happened only last week, is more living proof of the rightness of Thomas’ view of the importance of hard work and discipline in one’s work.

Then, too, there is another matter as to which Thomas’ views, are very understandable. Beyond question his views stem from, were shaped by, the life he led. With a grandfather (who raised him) whom the words “stern disciplinarian” do not begin to describe, and living in a southern society that made life hell for him, Thomas had to rely on himself, on his own talent, work and discipline. Little wonder that he came to see these traits as the route to success, and to think that what a lot of liberals said about help that government should give minorities was simply a snare and a delusion for the minorities. Equally little wonder, as one or two reviewers have noted, that his background informs his constitutional views, even ones regarded as incredibly harsh, and even though he himself believes, one gathers, that a judge’s personal views should not inform his judging. Backgrounds have been informing judging since at least the days of John Marshall, so Thomas’ actions accord with this even if they are harsh and even if his view of the role of background is wrong.

Then, too, there is the question of Thomas’ bitterness -- bitterness hardly describes it -- over the fact that he has been savaged for his views, he feels, by liberals and by lots of fellow African Americans. One sympathizes with this. It is very difficult when people whom you expect would be your friends, or at least to disagree amicably rather than viciously, instead turn on you and either fail to support you or, even worse, savage you. Such, unhappily, too often seems the tale of those who are ahead of the conventional wisdom or, at least, are out of step with it. One gets a strong whiff of this every now and again in the writings of the estimable Paul Krugman. Ibsen wrote of it in An Enemy of the People, a play which somehow or other made a lasting impression when I read it as a freshman in college. This writer himself has written in a memoir of what it is like to be out of step with conventional wisdom. So one understands and sympathizes with Thomas’ deep unhappiness at having been ill treated, at least as he sees it, just because his views are different than those of other African Americans and white liberals.

Yet, notwithstanding that there are important ways in which Thomas deserves understanding and at least empathy if not actual sympathy, there remain a couple of points that one wishes were not so, but plainly are so. One is that Thomas is narcissistic, is solipsistic, is self involved to a degree that is astounding: he sees himself as the center of a life long drama. One could say once again that all this is due in no small part to the travail-filled life he led, yet one would once again also have to say this does not seem adequate when a man has risen as high as he has. At that level it’s time to give it up and to focus on other things instead of engaging in such an extensive, almost exclusive, narcissistic focus on all the hurts and slights and travails one went through.

The other point is Thomas’ relationship to accuracy or truth. I will not speak of the Anita Hill matter, as to which each side has its partisans and its proofs, with some marveling at the idea that either of these two people might be lying. I shall speak, rather, of two other matters that Thomas himself brings up in his book. In one, Thomas went to the Bush compound at Kennebunkport to be told of his impending nomination to the Supreme Court and to appear at a press conference announcing it. Thomas describes the Bush compound thusly: “As we drove through the gate, I looked with surprise at the modest wooden buildings. I’d gotten the impression from the news stories I’d read about Kennebunkport that it was a lavish private resort, but it was obviously a comfortable, unassuming retreat meant for family and friends.” Well, a few years ago I was in Kennebunkport with some friends for a few days and, like lots of touristas, I went to see the compound; you of course cannot enter it but you can stare at it from the road. This compound is “modest”? This compound is “unassuming?” Boy, we should all have such modest and unassuming places by the ocean. One cannot say Thomas’ description is a falsehood, since the nature of the compound could be thought a matter of opinion rather than fact. And yet, to tell readers all over the country that the Bush compound is modest and unassuming certainly does raise questions. Is Thomas simply an inaccurate person, which if true, has its ramifications? Was he possibly being disingenuous, conceivably even somewhat dishonest, in order to give a patron family the appearance to the public of being regular guys rather than avatars of wealth, of position, of the American aristocracy? Who can say? I only know that one finds it impossible to share his view of the compound.

The other event is far more damning with regard to truth. During the pendency of the hearings on his nomination, Thomas was being evaluated by the American Bar Association, and was being interviewed by two ABA types, one of whom, an African American, he obviously did not trust. To let Thomas speak in his own words about what happened would be best:

I was simultaneously being evaluated by the American Bar Association, and early on I had lunch with the two lawyers in charge of the ABA’s investigation. Judah Best struck me as a professional whom I could trust to be fair, but I was suspicious of Robert Watkins, a black attorney from a large law firm, Williams & Connolly. Although Watkins was polite enough, his manner was guarded and distant, and he later abstained from voting on my nomination on the grounds that he sat on the board of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, a group that was adamantly opposed to me. Needless to say, he hadn’t found it necessary to mention this conflict of interest until he’d finished investigating me.

Watkins asked whether I’d ever used illegal drugs, the same question that had ostensibly short-circuited Doug Ginsburg’s confirmation in 1987. I said that I didn’t recall ever having done so. It was an uncharacteristic reply, but I’d been a heavy drinker in college and had often been around people who smoked marijuana and hashish. I was telling the truth: I didn’t remember using such drugs. I’d been afraid of them. For me illegal drugs were yet another problem I didn’t need to add to my already long list. On the other hand, it occurred to me that I might possibly have tried them once or twice while I was drunk, and I knew that a flat denial might put me at risk of being contradicted, so in the end, in order to put the issue to rest, I said that I had experimented with marijuana. [Emphasis in original.]

What Thomas is telling us is that he told a falsehood to avoid a possible problem. He really didn’t think he had done drugs, but “in the end,” in order to avoid a possible problem, he falsely said he “had experimented with marijuana.” It is ironic that someone would avoid a problem by falsely saying he had experimented with marijuana, but, irony or no, he told a lie to avoid difficulty. And, amazingly, just like the lie Jack Goldsmith admitted he told to avoid trouble in his book, The Terror Presidency (which is discussed in a posting dated October 12, 2007), Thomas seems oblivious to the possibility someone might think badly of him for lying. So justified is the lie in his own mind that there is not the slightest conception that someone else could think badly of it.

This Thomas/Goldsmith syndrome of not being in the slightest degree cognizant that others might look askance at a lie reflects, of course, the Washington syndrome, where each spent time in the upper echelons. (Thomas spent much time there and Goldsmith some time there.) This syndrome, which might sarcastically be termed “never tell the truth when a lie will do just as well,” is devastating the country and, as I occasionally write in these blogs, the lack of concern for truth is regularly corrupting the Supreme Court, on which Thomas now sits. The failure of truth --at least of unvarnished, straightforward truth -- has even completely taken over the nominating and confirmation process itself in regard to Supreme Court Justices. (If I heard them correctly -- two on television and one in person -- three of the country’s most well known journalistic commentators on the Supreme Court, Linda Greenhouse, Jeffrey Toobin and Jan Greenburg, all agreed recently that the nominating and confirmation process has become a farce.) Rather than giving unrehearsed, honest answers to questions, nominees are prepped to the nines (as Thomas was) on possible questions and desirable answers at the Senate hearings by administration lawyers and allies for weeks and months in advance. The nominees undergo practice runs, called murderboards. They are trained to use up Senators’ time by giving long answers to innocuous questions, or to questions which have innocuous, bland or unrevealing answers, while refusing to give any answers whatever to other questions on the totally phony ground -- which unbelievably has come to be widely accepted by the pols and large elements of the stupid media -- that nominees can say nothing on a particular subject because a case involving it could one day come before them. The Senators -- blowhards to a man and woman, right? -- are completely overmatched substantively because they are mere (long winded) pols who cannot begin to compete on relevant subjects with the long time federal litigators and/or judges who appear before them (e.g., Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, Alito), some of whose confirmation processes have gone on extensively. The Senators, instead of asking short sharp questions specifically designed to elicit information, make lengthy speeches for the camera and the public, speeches availing nothing for the confirmation process but sometimes so long as to use up all of the blowhard’s own time for asking questions and getting answers. The whole process has become farce, with little or nothing in common with a procedure dedicated to discovering truth.

It can hardly be a surprise that a procedure so at odds with truth seeking, in a town where truth is minimal currency, results in a Supreme Court which often shows little concern for truth. As said, I occasionally write about this, and am moved to say that the latest major example, a societally very important example, occurred just six weeks or so ago, in the Stoneridge opinion handed down on January 15th. Without getting into the details of the business and accounting specifics, the essence of that case was that a cable TV company, Charter Communications, conspired with two suppliers, Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta, to engage in phony transactions that would make Charter’s accounting statements look better, that in service of this goal would fool Charter’s own accountants (the late Arthur Andersen and Company), and that in consequence would have a beneficial effect on the price of Charter’s stock. (Were there stock options for executives who would thereby benefit? -- I don’t know.) The Court’s majority admitted that it was claimed Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta knew of the illicit, stock-price-affecting goal of the false transactions to which they agreed, the dissent took it as a given that Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta knew, and, frankly, if you look at the specifics, it seems impossible for sophisticated companies -- Motorola, for God’s sake -- not to have understood that the purpose of the phony deals was to fraudulently make Charter’s accounting statements look better than they actually were and to make its stock rise accordingly. I reiterate: it was impossible not to have understood this.

Investors who had bought Charter’s fraudulently propped up stock, and who had been cheated by dishonest conduct, brought a case seeking monetary damages under the federal securities laws. The Court’s majority said there was no remedy for them. The dissent disagreed. Why is one not surprised that the majority was comprised of the Reagan, Bush I, Bush II five: Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito -- the five appointed to do in the small guy in favor of big business, big government, and the pols. The three dissenters were liberals, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. (Breyer did not participate in the case.)

As is always true in Supreme Court cases, the majority gave a host of purported technical and policy reasons for its decision, and the dissent countered those reasons with opposing ones. The plethora of reasons so often given one way or another is one of the things that make Supreme Court decisions so often so boring to read. The Justices usually seem unable to cut to the heart of matters, and never is this more true, one supposes, than when the heart eviscerates their position, so that they must instead focus on matters of lesser import that, often by mere speculation, are thought to support them. Here the crucial point, the heart of the matter point, whose total absence from the majority opinion fairly screams from the page, is this: The reactionary five did not give a damn that the conduct at issue was completely dishonest, completely fraudulent, designed to fraudulently fool stock buyers, alleged to have been known by Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta to be a fraudulent sham used to fool people, and must have been known by them to be of this character.

As is true so widely in America today, especially in business and politics even if not among the ever shrinking circle of decent people (to borrow from a remark about George Pickett’s “ever shrinking circle of friends” in the movie Gettysburg), the Supreme court’s majority simply was not moved by the dishonesty or its effect on others.

Nor is Stoneridge a case without possibly crucial ramifications in a much larger context. There is at this point no doubt -- none whatever -- that a wide variety of actors played major roles contributing to the subprime mortgage mess, in which investors in securities comprised of such mortgages, or portions of such mortgages, that were bundled together into and were sold as securities are among those who are left holding the bag. The actors who facilitated the deals included huge commercial banks and huge investment banks, some of which, like Goldman Sachs, made a bundle, probably billions, on these mortgages. There is equally no doubt whatever at this point that, virtually from top to bottom, the whole business often involved the use of undue, unfair influence and outright fraud, and that this, and the securities’ lack of the claimed value, often were known to those who made a bundle from the deals and who took extensive steps to facilitate them in order to make fortunes.

Investors are going to be bringing lots of lawsuits under the securities laws based on the pervasive misconduct, and there is real concern among some of the cognoscenti that those who participated knowingly and selfishly in misconduct that now threatens to wreck ours and even the world’s economy will be able to avoid liability because of the Stoneridge decision rendered by the reactionary, screw-the-small-guy five. There are others who hope the decision will not be extended that far and who point to reasons why it might not be, but that it could be so extended is beyond doubt. In fact, perhaps “extended” is not even an apropos word: perhaps the opinion already gives succor to lots of the dishonest, blameworthy characters in the subprime mess without any need to extend it, but only to apply it as written.

Of course, you probably have read and heard very little about Stoneridge or its possible effects in the venal mainstream media. For, with few exceptions (such as David Cay Johnston of the New York Times), reporters don’t know about, don’t want to learn about, and don’t want to write about business or economics. This is too dull, too complex, and very uninteresting to people who make their living talking and writing for months on end about the trivia of horse race aspects of politics, which is all they know about or are competent to write or speak about. But Stoneridge, and certainly the lack of concern for honesty shown by the screw-the-small-guy five (plus the less central arguments which they actually made and that are not canvassed here), could nonetheless have crucial ramifications. And the lack of concern for honesty shown in Stoneridge does relate, of course, to views expressed in and actions discussed in Clarence Thomas’ autobiography.*


R:\My Files\Blogspot\Blogltr.ClarenceThomas.doc
* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@mslaw.edu.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.