Month: September 2018

KAVANAUGH RIDES THE RAPIDS ON TRUMP’S RIVER OF DENIAL

As Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny his way to the Supreme Court, we are witnessing the nauseating effects of Trumpian Justice, a bizarre jurisprudential model in which the vigor of denial obliterates any search for the truth.

There’s an amazing passage in Bob Woodward’s just-released book that perfectly captures the Republican game plan to beat back sexual misconduct accusations against the judge. The author recounts a conversation in which Trump offered advice to a friend who had acknowledged some “bad behavior toward women.” According to Woodward (Page 175), the president told his buddy never to show weakness.

“You’ve got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women,” Trump is quoted as saying. “If you admit to anything and any culpability, then you’re dead. You didn’t come out guns blazing and just challenge them. You showed weakness. You’ve got to be strong. You’ve got to be aggressive. You’ve got to push back hard. You’ve got to deny everything that’s said about you. Never admit.”

This is the closest thing Trump has to a moral code. At least 16 women accused him of sexual misconduct. He called each one of them a liar. Then he was elected president. Denial worked well for him, and he has been championing it ever since. He was the only major Republican leader to stand by Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore in the face of credible accusations that Moore molested young teenagers years ago. “He totally denies it,” said Trump in his endorsement of Moore. “You have to listen to him.” Even after former aide Rob Porter resigned over domestic abuse allegations from two ex-wives, the president stood by his man. “He said very strongly that he’s innocent,” Trump told reporters. “. . .you have to remember that.”

The Donald even carried his denial creed into foreign policy. Remember the Helsinki summit? Discarding his own intelligence agencies’ compelling evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president stood with the Kremlin, saying: “President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.” He’ll take a good strong denial over facts any day, particularly if it advances his interests.

Right now, Brett Kavanaugh could not have a better denial mentor than Donald Trump. In pursuing his personal manifest destiny of a lifetime Supreme Court seat, the judge has stuck steadfastly to the Trumpian script. Responding to allegations of an attempted rape in high school and an incident a year later when he allegedly flashed his penis in front of a fellow Yale student, Kavanaugh used phrases like, “completely false allegation”, “this never happened”, and “a smear, plain and simple”.

No wishy-washy, plain vanilla denials for this guy. No, these were Trump-trademarked denials, filled with righteous indignation of steroidal strength. The judge didn’t merely deny the allegations, he “categorically and unequivocally” denied them. So strong were the denials that news organizations exhausted a thesaurus of adverbs expressing strength. Fox News had Kavanaugh “vigorously” denying the claims. In USA Today, he “forcefully” denied them. He “strongly pushed back” on NPR, “fiercely denied” the accusations in The Hill, and “strenuously” denied them in The Daily Beast.

Leave it to conservative Republicans to throw cold water on this culture-changing #MeToo moment. In their desperate rush to stack the court before the midterms, they have brought a year’s worth of momentum to a grinding halt. Prior to this sorry episode, we seemed to be on our way to changing the protocol for sexual misconduct claims. The accusers were to be taken seriously, respected and listened to. Thorough investigations were to be conducted. And any unwanted sexual contact was absolutely wrong.

For virtually every man so accused during the reckoning, there were thorough investigations that lasted weeks, if not months (examples: Leslie Moonves, Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Matt Lauer, Jeffrey Tambor). Many of the men accused of inappropriate behavior issued apologetic responses and went out of their way to respect their accusers, a huge cultural shift in tone from days gone by (examples: Lauer, former New Republic editor Leon Wieseltier, Geraldo Rivera, James Franco and Richard Dreyfuss). Compare, for example, Kavanaugh’s fortified denials to Charlie Rose’s response to multiple sexual misconduct allegations: “It is essential these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior.”

It is now throw-back September – in an election year – and the retro-Republicans of the United States Senate appear hell-bent on ignoring sexual misconduct claims against Kavanaugh while bullying and disparaging the women who made them. It’s altogether proper to thoroughly investigate sexual impropriety accusations against a celebrity chef before letting him back into the kitchen, but if we’re talking about a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, don’t waste time looking at the facts, just measure the guy for his robe and get him on the bench before the base heads to the polls.

Unless at least two Republican senators decide to put process above politics, Brett Kavanaugh will soon take his place on the bench of the nation’s highest court. There will be no FBI investigation into the accusations against him. Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell will take their victory laps. It will be left to the rest of us to sort through the ashes of this disaster. We must find a way to make sure that our values of gender equality, fairness and decency are never again torched in the public square, and that even the strongest of denials never trump an honest search for the truth. The first step in that journey begins on election day.

A SCRIPT FOR THE KAVANAUGH FINALE

Here’s a modest proposal for ending the Brett Kavanaugh melodrama: Strap down the judge with polygraph equipment and ask him about Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusations. If he fails the lie detector test – the same one Blasey Ford has already passed – his nomination is off the table. If he passes? Then he joins Clarence Thomas as the shamed-but-confirmed male caucus of the United States Supreme Court. Put the whole thing on pay-per-view and give the proceeds to a #MeToo organization, just like CBS is doing with Les Moonves’ severance pay.

Okay, as Jonathan Swift did with his Modest Proposal, I jest. Still, there is more poetic justice in that scenario than we are apt to see from Chairperson Charles Grassley and his 10 fellow white male Republican elves who control the Senate Judiciary Committee. Oh, to see the gnashing of all those pearly white conservative teeth over the sight of an originalist judge wired to a lie detector machine! Would the American Civil Liberties Union come to his rescue? The ACLU has long led the legal battle against polygraph testing in employment situations. On the other side? You got it: the conservative, originalist bar, including Kavanaugh and his Federalist Society buddies.

The far right has long adored lie detectors. Just ask Vice President Mike Pence. Only days ago, he offered to be polygraphed in order to prove that he did not write the anonymous New York Times op-ed that labeled Donald Trump amoral and unhinged. (Do we live in interesting times, or what?) Kavanaugh himself has waxed eloquently on the usefulness of lie detectors “to screen applicants for critical law enforcement, defense and intelligence collection roles”. Writing the decision in a 2016 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case, Kavanaugh called polygraph testing “an important tool” to keep undesirables out of significant jobs.

It may be an important tool to Judge Kavanaugh in the abstract, but now that it affects him personally, don’t expect to see him in a blood pressure cuff and skin sensors anytime soon. The polygraph is not going to resolve this issue. The question before the Senate is not about truth. It’s about votes. As long as the Republicans hold together, they can push the nominee over the finish line, and lock in a conservative majority on the court for a generation or more. As soon as two Republican senators jump ship, however, Kavanaugh is finished and Trump pulls out his Federalist Society list of reasonable facsimiles.

Meanwhile, this Capitol Hill political crisis has brought out hardball tactics eerily reminiscent of the ugliness that surrounded the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill fiasco 27 years ago. The focus inside the beltway is much more about counting votes than addressing the meta issue of what happens to women who accuse powerful men of sexual assault.

The Republican boys club in the Senate has attacked Blasey Ford’s veracity and “suspicious” timing every day since the California research psychologist went public with her accusation. Overcome with their hunger to get their man on the court, this aging Senate fraternity of old white guys wants to know why these women wait so long to make their accusations. How many television appearances, books and op-eds by sexual assault survivors will it take for us to learn that women who speak up subject themselves to a whole new round of abuse that, in many cases, is worse than the original assault?

Last week at this time, Christine Blasey Ford was in the middle of her life: doing research, teaching classes, raising children. Following a torrent of death threats after her name was revealed, she and her family had to flee their home. She is unable to work. She and her husband are in an undisclosed location and the children are being cared for elsewhere. Why, indeed, don’t women speak up more often about this stuff?

Meanwhile, Grassley and his crew are busy planning the stagecraft of a Senate hearing, should Blasey Ford decide to appear. Mindful of the horrendous optics from the Anita Hill hearing, where the young law school professor was grilled by a gaggle of old white men, Grassley suddenly noticed that all of the Republicans on his committee are men. He said earlier this week that they may bring in a woman to interrogate Blasey Ford. Borrowing from their own rhetoric, the Republicans have had 27 years to put women on that committee. Why wait until the last minute?

Over at the White House, Kavanaugh is being thoroughly prepped for his testimony. I get the importantance of preparing a judicial candidate for testifying about various legal nuances, like saying, “Roe v Wade” is “settled law”, but declining to call it “correct law” so he can vote later to unsettle it. But how many more ways are there to say that he did not, in a moment of drunken abandon at the age of 17, throw himself on Blasey Ford, grope her, cover her mouth to stifle her screams and try to undress her?

It’s important to remember that this moment in time is not just about the political composition of the Supreme Court. It’s also about how we view sexual assault and harassment, and how we treat the perpetrators and the accusers. We are, after all, in the middle of a reckoning on that subject. Giving Christine Blasey Ford, in 2018, the Anita Hill Bum’s Rush Treatment of 1991 is a perverse reversal of moral thought in this post-Harvey Weinstein world.

Here’s how this story should end: Without making a factual determination on the sexual assault allegation, the Senate should reject Kavanaugh’s nomination. Such a decision does not “convict” the judge of anything. But it acknowledges the reality that Blasey Ford could be right. Why take the risk of putting a man who attempted to rape her – and then lied about it – on the country’s highest court? It’s not as if he is facing jail time. He remains on the country’s second highest court. He can commiserate with fellow Judge Merrick Garland, who was denied a Supreme Court seat by Senate Republicans without so much as a whisper of bad behavior.

Such an endgame doesn’t alter Republican dreams of a conservative Supreme Court. The bull pen is packed with like-minded ideologues just waiting to take a seat on the bench. What it does do, however, is send a clear message that we have entered a new era, a time when we take accusations of sexual assault seriously, a time when one brave woman coming forward can change the face of history, and not ruin her life. Sadly, I strongly suspect we have not yet reached that time.

CLARENCE THOMAS AND ANITA HILL REDUX

Right smack in the middle of an optimistic #metoo reckoning comes a revolting development, casting serious doubt over whether our misogynistic culture has changed at all in the past 30 years. Welcome to the Anita Hill Story – The Sequel.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Christine Blasey Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist, said she was sexually assaulted at the age of 15 by then 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, who is a Senate vote away from becoming a Supreme Court justice. She told the newspaper that Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk” when he threw her down on a bed during a party. While his equally intoxicated friend watched, Ford said, Kavanaugh pinned her down on her back and groped her while attempting to remove her clothes. She said she tried to scream but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth. She said she was able to escape only when Kavanaugh’s friend jumped on top of them, momentarily freeing her assailant’s hold. She said she then ran into a bathroom and locked the door. Ford did not report the attempted rape at that time, but says she has been traumatized by it throughout her adult life and has undergone therapy to deal with it. She provided The Post with notes taken by her therapist detailing the assault.

So, does that change anything with respect to Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination? “No way, not even a hint of it,” says a lawyer close to the Trump Administration. “If anything, it’s the opposite,” said the attorney. “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried. We can all be accused of something.”

Roll the clock back 27 years. Anita Hill, a young law school professor, accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment when she worked for him at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency charged with the policing of such workplace conduct. With Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination hanging in the balance, Hill told how her boss made repeated advances to her, talked about the size of his penis and described vivid scenes from pornographic movies. None of that kept Thomas off the court. Hill was excoriated by an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee, with a seemingly bipartisan mission to get past the discomfort of Hill’s testimony in order to put Thomas on the bench. Said one of the senators back then, “If that’s sexual harassment, half the senators on Capitol Hill could be accused.”

As a measurement of just how far we haven’t come in nearly three decades, compare that unintended condemnation of the male gender to today’s utterance from the White House. At least the 1991 version exonerated half of the men in Congress. The Trump lawyer put the entire gender at risk of a sexual assault accusation.

Let’s get something straight here. This is not about the politics of a Supreme Court nomination. As noted earlier in this space, there is an overflowing pipeline of ultra-right-wing judicial candidates waiting to replace Kavanaugh. Surely they aren’t all attempted rapists. This is about coming to grips with a critically deep cultural divide over the way men use sex as a cudgel of power over women.

Even after a year of growing #metoo awareness and conversation, there is abundant evidence that we have not fully apprehended the depths of our divide. There remains a painfully enormous lack of symmetry between the accusers and the accused, or – in 99 percent of the cases – between the women harassed or assaulted and the men responsible.

Finally-fallen CBS CEO Leslie Moonves whines about “ancient” accusations from more than 12 women who he sees as destroying his career. One of those women, Phyllis Golden-Gottlieb, is now in her 80s. According to Ronan Farrow’s reporting for the New Yorker, Golden-Gottlieb has been tormented for half her life by memories of Moonves forcing her to perform oral sex. To her perpetrator, it was just another day in the office. To her, it was jarring her soul and traumatizing her life.

Then there is Tom Brokaw, former NBC news anchor and a revered journalist. Multiple women came forward to recount, in the kind of detail that seemed etched in their minds forever, how he forced himself on them. Here’s how Brokaw described his reactions to those accusations: “I was ambushed and then perp walked across the pages of The Washington Post and Variety as an avatar of male misogyny, taken to the guillotine and stripped of any honor and achievement I had earned in more than a half century of journalism and citizenship.” What his accusers lacked in eloquence, they made up for in detail, a result of painful memories of being forcibly kissed and/or groped by a man far more powerful and respected than themselves, as long as 50 years ago.

The examples go on and on. Some of the men are simply slimeballs, incorrigible serial abusers. Others, however, have led decent, respectable, productive lives. Their transgressions – big or small, multiple or single – share a common thread. They all crossed the same line by abusing power to obtain some form of nonconsensual intimacy. In many cases, those moments of transgression may have long been erased from the perpetrator’s memory bank, by way of an alcoholic backout, or the redundancy of similar behavior. Meanwhile, their actions were deeply seared into the psyches of the women they hurt, leaving lifetimes of deep scar tissue.

The days ahead offer a poignant moment in dealing with this cultural divide. If Christine Ford ends up ridiculed and shamed like Anita Hill was, the damage will be far, far worse than simply seating Justice Kavanaugh next to Justice Thomas. It will mean we need a complete resetting of our moral compass. It will mean that even an enlightening #metoo movement is insufficient to make us grasp the difference between right and wrong. And to understand that when it comes to this type of wrong, there is no statute of limitations.

FOR RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY, IT’S OUT OF THE SHADOWS AND ONTO THE BENCH

As a proud member of the Liberal Geezerhood, I have lowered my imaginary flag to half-mast in the melancholic recognition that, for the rest of my life, America’s federal judiciary will be in the hands of a right-wing cabal. The Supreme Court is on the cusp of having a rock solid conservative majority, which based on actuarial tables, will keep growing long before it dissipates. Two appellate circuits have already flipped to the right, and another two are on the verge of doing so.

Yet, as a life-long student of the political process, I can’t help being impressed with the skill, chutzpah and dogged determination behind a quiet, 36-year revolution that very few of us saw coming – until it was too late. When it comes to effective organizing principles, this amazing coup d’état could teach the left a thing or two.

We baby boomers grew up taking for granted that the role of the Supreme Court was to give life to the Constitution’s noble-but-ambiguous aspirations, core values like “equal protection”, “due process”, and “right to counsel”. Through those principles, we saw the court put an end to school desegregation, allow women to have access to contraceptives and abortion, require states to provide attorneys for low-income criminal defendants and prohibit police interrogations without advising suspects of their right to remain silent.

Meanwhile, a handful of ultra conservative lawyers and law students stewed quietly over what they saw as an overly activist judiciary and a liberal bent in most law schools. In 1982, that angst gave rise to something called the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, a name far more elegant than either its origins or mission warrant. According to most histories of what is now known simply as the Federalist Society, the germination began with small chapters of disaffected and extremely conservative law students at Yale, Harvard and the University of Chicago. They felt disenfranchised by what they saw as an overly liberal legal profession and gathered together to share in that bond. With the help of some of the right’s most well-known attorneys, including Edwin Meese and Robert Bork, the movement quietly evolved into a pipeline aimed at mainstreaming conservative legal thought and producing an army of Federalist Society judges that could turn American jurisprudence on its head.

Today, the Federalist Society has 70,000 members, chapters at more than 200 law schools and over $25 million in net assets. Their patron saint is the late Justice Anton Scalia, revered by the society for his “originalist” approach to interpreting the Constitution. Once an outlier in judicial thought, originalism endeavors to freeze the Constitution at whatever strictly constructed meaning it had back in 1787. Since the founders back then were not thinking about things like abortion, racial segregation or gay marriage, then today’s courts should stay clear of all such current controversies. Or so the Federalist Society believes.

The truth, however, is that originalism is a cheap intellectual illusion intended to mask the brazen political goals of right-wing ideologues. After all, it was Scalia himself who, in a landmark gun rights case, found a private right to own a pistol in Second Amendment language that speaks of bearing arms in the context of a “well-regulated militia”. A credible argument perhaps, but one that stabs a dagger through the heart of originalist purism.

Here’s how fast the Federalist Society and originalism have evolved: When George W. Bush nominated now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, the White House insisted that the nominee “was not now and never has been” a member of the Federalist Society. It was as if mere association with this group posed a threat to his confirmation. Roberts is now proudly out of the closet as a card-carrying Federalist, along with his fellow society brethren Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

If you are counting, that makes four Federalist Society members on the nine-member court. Number five is just a Senate vote away. Brett Kavanaugh has been a Federalist activist for more than 20 years. In fact, when he worked for Bush, he was the one who persuaded his boss to nominate the then-closeted John Roberts. That is precisely how this once obscure organization works. It jams an extensive pipeline with well-groomed right-wing thinkers and sends them through a labyrinth of channels, from clerkships to partnerships to judgeships.

How did all that happen? Enter Leonard Leo, a quiet, far right ideologue and a brilliant organizer. Leo is a member of the secretive, reactionary Knights of Malta, a Catholic order founded in the 12th Century that is to the extreme right of the Vatican. According to close associates, Leo declared 20 years ago that conservatives had lost the culture wars – abortion, gay rights, contraception and diversity. He said the only solution was to “stack the courts”. He signed on with the Federalist Society as its fulltime paid operative and the stacking was quickly underway.

Roberts and Alito – and a couple of circuit appellate judges – were big wins for Leo during the George W. Bush years. But the floodgates opened wide for him when he joined forces with one of the most ideologically impure politicians in American political history. According to the New York Times, Leo repeatedly refused to meet with candidate Donald Trump in 2015 and early 2016. Eventually, however, he was persuaded to take a meeting. To Leo’s astonishment, Trump told him to come up with a list of Supreme Court candidates, and that he would publicly promise to fill the Scalia vacancy from that list. Months later, Neil Gorsuch moved from Leo’s list to the United States Supreme Court, soon to be followed by Brett Kavanaugh. Court watchers have estimated that by the end of the year, 26 percent of the federal appellate bench will have come through the Federalist Society pipeline. How amazing. How frightening. The selection of lifetime judgeships has been subcontracted to an outfit that the last Republican administration disavowed as too dark and shadowy.

Sadly, at this moment, there is nothing for liberals to do but grit our teeth and shake our heads. We have been outmaneuvered by a skilled right-wing court stacker. As the moment passes, however, we need to learn from him. We need to build our own pipeline of brilliant young lawyers willing to don judicial robes and apply the constitutional values and principles set forth by the founders to our current lives. Yes, it’s enormously sad to see the death of the judicial thinking we grew up with. But, as the late, great Joe Hill said in a different context, “Don’t mourn, organize.”

FORGET GOOD AND BAD, WE’RE ALL PACKAGE DEALS

A week of eulogies and retrospectives on the life of John McCain gave us a long-overdue lesson on how to evaluate our leaders. What we saw, with apologies to Charles Dickens, was a Tale of Two Senators. John McCain was our best of times, and our worst of times. He represented the age of wisdom, and the age of foolishness, the epoch of belief, and the epoch of incredulity. His was the season of Light, and the season of Darkness, the spring of hope, the winter of despair.

In less Dickensian prose, the late Arizona senator was, like all of us, a package deal, a complicated amalgam of good and bad, of decency and chicanery, of success and failure. He was a man of honor and principle. He was also a man of political expediency. He had moments of greatness and moments of shame.

Death has a way of triggering a contemplative introspection in the living. It’s an opportunity to hold a mirror to our lives and thought processes, with an eye toward making necessary adjustments. An adjustment is precisely what we need right now. We are living in a pathologically polarized moment, right smack in the middle of a highly charged civil war of deeply held values. It’s us against them, and we’re playing for keeps. As many noted psychologists (here and here) have observed, that kind of tribalism gives way to rigid, binary thinking. We see people as good or bad, either with us or against us. It’s a deeply skewed and destructive perception. To build and sustain the kind of political movement that can take us to a better place, we need to look beyond what we want to see in order to know what is really there.

Minutes after McCain died, my Facebook feed was filled with reactions. He was described with words like: honorable, brave, decent, compassionate and honest. He was praised for being against discrimination and reasonable on immigration Within an hour, the rebuttals appeared. They were from those who came to bury the senator, not to praise him. Their counterpoints? McCain cheated on his first wife, was deeply involved in an influence peddling scandal, opposed to making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday, cast a deciding vote upholding a presidential veto of the 1990 Civil Rights Act, and referred to his North Vietnamese captors as “gooks”.

What appeared as two factions fighting over an epitaph was an illusion. They were both right. John McCain was good and bad. Or, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet told Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, “. . . nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” And “thinking” can be distorted by passionately held beliefs that filter people and events so that we see what we want to see.

McCain was the posterchild of the package deal approach to evaluating people. More than any of his contemporaries, he both owned his mistakes and had no problem abandoning fealty to partisan dogma when it suited his purposes. His death – as well as our reaction to it – offers a reminder that binary, black-or-white, either-or thinking, as tempting as it might be, is not a helpful way of understanding our world. Our desire to label people as heroes and villains, although understandable, is a fool’s errand.

Take Pope Francis, for example. Until last week, even I, as a recovering Methodist, was ready to nominate him for sainthood. “Who am I to judge”, he said of the Church’s position on gays. He focused on problems like poverty, climate change and corporate wrongdoing with an abiding intensity. He advocated for women’s equality and expressed an openness to allowing priests to marry. Then came the seemingly credible accusation that Francis had covered up a cardinal’s history of sexual abuse and pedophilia, triggering calls for his resignation. Do we move him from the good column into the bad? No. The amazing gifts this pope brought to his believers – and the rest of us – coexist with his human fallibility, one that may well have succumbed to a malignancy that seems to have permeated the culture of his church’s hierarchy. It’s a package deal. It’s important to see the entire package.

Every historical figure we’ve ever placed on a pedestal is a mere Google search removed from their warts. Mother Teresa, who became a saint last year, was accused of gross mismanagement and providing negligent medical care. Martin Luther King was found to have plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation. Mohandas Gandhi is said to have been openly racist toward blacks in South Africa and frequently shared a bed with his 17-year-old great-niece. The great emancipator himself, Abe Lincoln, was responsible for the country’s largest mass execution. In 1862, he ordered the hanging of 38 Dakota Sioux tribal members in Minnesota. Package deals, all of them.

The moral of this story is that we need to look at the whole package, and see all of its parts, in order to have anything close to an accurate understanding. The alternative is what organizational communication experts call a “frozen evaluation”. That means we lock in our assessment of someone – or something – and see only that which is consistent with our frozen evaluation. To ignore the fact that we are all complicated works-in-progress is to miss opportunities for meaningful, constructive connection.

Our current toxic environment of dark, deeply divided and angry discourse will not last forever. The McCain memorials laid bare our longing for harmony, or at least decency, in our politics. Our behavior can take us there. We can begin that journey by not writing everybody off who disagrees with us. As the late senator said in his farewell letter, “We weaken (America’s greatness) when we hide behind walls rather than tear them down. . .” There are many kinds of walls, including the ones we build around others who don’t share our views. To escape our current quagmire, we need to replace those walls with bridges. We will not reach everyone, but somewhere in all those package deals out there lies an opportunity to connect. Real change will not happen until we seize that opportunity.