Despite being wired for doubt, I believed Ford; Kavanaugh is unfit to be on the Supreme Court

Before I get to the main event, I just want to express my satisfaction that my on-again, off-again fandom of the Milwaukee Brewers—the team I grew-up rooting for when Bob Uecker was just starting out as the play-by-play announcer—was rewarded this season by a surprise final push to overtake the Chicago Cubs for the NL Central crown and the league’s best overall record. Christian Yelich became the first Brewer to win a batting title and the closest to win the triple crown. Even oft-injured, PED-less Ryan Braun—who was supposed to be the first “face” of the franchise since Robin Yount retired—was instrumental in the final stretch, hitting five homeruns and driving in 11 runs during the season closing 8-game winning streak. The Brewers haven’t been to the World Series since 1982, so here’s to hoping. 

Now to the less feel-good stories. On the Metro bus I ride on to and from work there is a poster plastered at the front of the bus that shows three females and a male, all stony-faced. We are told to “Report it to stop it.” Stop what? In smaller print we find “Sexual misconduct—comments, gestures and behavior—is off limits on Metro.” This is the kind of thing that really gives the “MeToo” movement a bad name, because this poster assumes wrongly that sexual harassment is a frequent “problem” on Metro buses, and invites false or exaggerated accusations by females suddenly “alerted” to its existence. I contacted Metro and expressed my anger that in over 25 years of riding Metro buses I have never seen or heard even once anything qualifying as “sexual harassment,” and that the broad “definition” it provided could encompass anything a self-pitying or vindictive person can imagine. 

On the other hand, I have complained dozens of times about incidents of discrimination by drivers against me because of my “ethnicity,” and nothing ever changes about it, even involving the same driver (on more than one occasion a driver told me “go ahead, I don’t care” when I threatened to contact Metro about their discriminatory or rude behavior). Just this past day I observed a driver lie to a man who appeared to be Hispanic who asked if the bus stopped at a certain location, and left him out on the street; I informed the driver that I knew he was lying and he probably did so because he was prejudiced against the man. And I’m not the only one filing complaints; I once checked Metro’s own online data base, and there had been 4,000 complaints against drivers in the previous 12 months. Of course, an even more common occurrence is loud and thoughtless-of-others behavior by some riders, especially females who have a cell phone in their hands. 

Nevertheless, I am capable of revising my thinking when evidence of credibility is in hand.  After two days of Donald Trump embarrassing himself (even if he is too much the narcissist for self-reflection to realize it) and the country during his UN speech  last week (not surprisingly co-written by that toad Stephen Miller), followed by a press conference in which he “only” added another 500 lies to his resumé in one sitting, I was ready for anything. On the third day came Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over three decades ago when they were high school students. I have to admit that I had no clue what to expect from her, especially given the lack of corroborating evidence or testimony. But I listened to her testimony on the radio and I believed her; she came across as a person who had come reluctantly and had little to gain except to tell the truth. There was still a tiny chance that her performance was all a front to gain maximum sympathy to exact revenge, but if that was the case she couldn’t have played it better. 

Other women have come forward with their stories, also as yet uncorroborated, but then again, Bill Cosby was recently convicted almost solely on the “credible” testimony by one alleged victim of sexual assault (he was a television star—why did he have to resort to drugging women?) and accusations by others; why should Kavanaugh be immune from the same? Let us not also forget that Al Franken--who started out as a writer for Saturday Night Live--was compelled to resign his Senate seat for far less, mainly for the kind of "pranks" you would see in a typical late Seventies or Eighties teen comedy. And it took just one peep from a female Democratic senator.

When he spoke in response to Ford’s testimony, I felt nothing but revulsion for Kavanaugh. Again just listening to the tone of his voice turned me against him almost immediately. It seemed to me that he realized that Ford’s testimony was credible enough that he had to do something to turn the public mood back in his favor, but the method he chose clearly backfired for anyone who wasn’t part of the Republican “base.” The arrogance, the condescension, the obvious obfuscation of the truth in regard to his past, the ridiculous resort to right-wing conspiracy theories was bad enough, but even worse was the evidence that this man was temperamentally unfit to be on the U.S. Supreme Court; we already have someone like that on the Court, Clarence Thomas, whose judgments seem to be vindictive in nature after Anita Hill’s considerably less serious testimony against him. But even worse than his words was the actually viewing of Kavanaugh’s facial contortions later on; I saw a man whose very countenance was a look of evil, and if he gets on the Court, there is no telling what kind of malicious mischief he is capable of. Not that he didn’t have his defenders in the media; Megan Kelly showed her true far-right colors defending Kavanaugh and belittling Ford on her NBC morning show the day after.

Republicans are still desirous of ramming him home, but since at least one Republican senator cannot square his vote with his conscience, the FBI is currently doing a redo if its background investigation of Kavanaugh. It is already plain as day that Kavanaugh was lying about his past drinking and carousing, his belligerence when drunk and even getting into fights while drunk. Let’s not forget the old dictum that “drink” doesn’t change a person, but only makes his or her true nature more plain. Listening to Sen, Lindsay Graham’s vicious, hypocritical attack on the “unfair” accusations against Kavanaugh, I wondered if he had come to the hearings after a little too much imbibing himself. The greater truth is that it is far more unfair that the greater portion of this country would be "judged" by this individual.

Trump's USMCA is NAFTA with a name change--keeping in place U.S. agricultural abuses in Mexico, but now targetting the industry that unemployed small farmers sought to survive in

The new North American “trade agreement” forced on Canada and Mexico comes under the unwieldy moniker “United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement,” now to be referred to as the USMCA, which sounds more like a military acronym, which probably suits its intent. Trump’s new trade deal is not a “done” deal yet since the legislatures of all three countries are still to approve it, and with the anti-Trump mood in Mexico and its next legislature likely to be a hostile one along with the likelihood the Democrats will win at least one house of Congress in November, it remains just an “agreement.” 

But let’s not be kidded by all the Trumpian and media praise: as CNBC notes, the principle difference between NAFTA and the USMCA is the name change: U.S. farmers—already long harming Mexican small farmers—will get just slightly more access to Canadian markets; 12.5 percent more auto parts must be built in North America (not necessarily in the U.S.) to sell to the U.S.—meaning fewer (cheaper) parts from Asia; 40 percent of auto labor must pay $16-an-hour by 2023, not indexed to inflation; and 70 percent of steel parts for automobiles must also be purchased from North American suppliers. That’s it.  The U.S. did cave slightly to charges that it was out to destroy the economies of Mexico and Canada. According to Reuters, 

“Mexico and Canada would each get a tariff-free passenger vehicle quota of 2.6 million passenger vehicles exported to the United States annually. Pickup trucks built in both countries will be exempted entirely, the side-letter said. Mexico will get an auto parts quota of $108 billion annually, while Canada will get a parts quota of $32.4 billion annually in the event of U.S. autos tariffs. The quotas are significantly above existing production volumes in each country, allowing for some export growth.” 

In fact, the most “significant” impact of Trump’s latest “triumph” deals almost exclusively with automobile production, and it isn’t exactly certain what that impact will actually be—whether “helping” domestic production or harming consumers with higher prices; the former may only be a short-term “plus” if the latter nullifies it in the long term. According to the Washington Post, “Economists and auto experts think USMCA is going to cause car prices in the United States to rise and the selection to go down, especially on small cars that used to be produced in Mexico but may not be able to be brought across the border duty-free anymore. It’s unclear how much prices could rise (estimates vary), but automakers can’t rely as heavily on cheap Mexican labor now and there will probably be higher compliance costs.” Not only that, but small cars may be no longer be cost effective to build in North America at all, particularly to export to, say, China. Instead, such cars will simply be made by cheaper labor in Asia—just as in the apparel and consumer electronics businesses that the U.S. once dominated. 

Unfortunately, all of this could have been if not avoided, made even more miniscule. As the Eurasian Review noted,

Critics of the Mexican government’s strategy thus consider that, given President Trump’s time constraints and key Republican districts’ dependence on continued trade with Mexico, negotiators surrendered the advantages of multilateralism and submitted to pressure all too quickly. While the counterfactual is difficult to establish, Mexico may have indeed missed an opportunity to call President Trump’s bluff and reach a more balanced deal…Thus, the North American auto sector, now reliant on less-demanding requirements and frictionless cross-border flows that allow for intra-industry efficiencies, risks losing competitiveness at a global scale—and thus market share and jobs, making President Trump’s victory pyrrhic, at least in economic terms.

Of course, “populists” on the left like Sen. Bernie Sanders will praise the parts of the agreement that compels higher wages for Mexican workers and the ability to unionize. That’s all well and good—except who is fooling who here? They are not “cheering” for Mexican workers’ rights; they couldn’t give a shit about that. They just want whatever they foolishly think will help themselves. Note also that in Deep South states, automotive workers are not only not unionized, but largely prevented from doing so, thanks to Republicans and their lackeys on the Supreme Court. What racist hypocrisy!

The hypocrisy runs deep. Trump claimed that NAFTA “hurt” American workers despite the fact that U.S. unemployment is at “historic” lows. American workers are actually hurt more by continuing and growing income disparities perpetrated by economic “elites” and desk jockeys who are given phony ego-inflating job titles, and are vastly over-paid for what they do on any given day (watching their computer screens, talking to other people watching their computer screens, snacking, eating, and snacking again). Trump’s claims that NAFTA “hurt” the U.S. is based solely on trade deficit numbers; but the absurdity of this is quickly revealed when one examines the relative size of  Mexico and Canada’s consumer purchasing power compared to the U.S.’. Mexico takes in far more U.S. goods per capita than American consumers take in from Mexico.

 Thus this new “deal” will not increase exports to Mexico, in fact may reverse it if Mexican auto workers and parts suppliers find themselves out of work—which of course opens another can of worms.  According to a recent article in the New Republic by Erik Loomis, only 20 percent of Mexicans believe NAFTA helped them, and two-thirds believed it was more beneficial to the U.S.—not just for U.S. agriculture exporting to Mexico, but for  U.S. consumers of automobiles imported from Mexico. Loomis noted that changing NAFTA to make it even more beneficial to the U.S. (or more specifically, U.S. economic elites) “creates a trade system by which Americans reap all the benefits while bottling up all the problems that system causes south of the border. If history is any indication, that would have long-term negative consequences for both the United States and Mexico.” What he is saying, of course, is that hurting the Mexican economy only creates a greater impulse to leave the country for greener pastures—mainly to the U.S. 

Loomis went to note that while U.S. farmers already received special protection that contravened the “free trade” dictum, NAFTA’s impact “was horrible for Mexican farmers, driving them over the border into the United States. Immigration historians have long noted that there are push-and-pull factors that send migrants to the U.S. and other nations, and the biggest push factor for these farmers was that they simply could not survive on their farms any longer. NAFTA rules facilitating land privatization allowed American agricultural companies to create U.S.-style agribusiness operations in Mexico. The U.S. then pulled these people across the border because of the availability of low-wage jobs here.” 

Loomis also pointed out that the flooding of U.S.-produced corn and other food products into Mexico led to the loss of more than 2 million agricultural jobs in Mexico. In 1995, pork imports to Mexico totaled 30,000 tons; in 2010 the U.S. exported over 800,000 tons of pork to Mexico. Then, “Mexican hog farmers, undermined by NAFTA’s trade provisions, had to leave their farms to make a living. Many migrated north. Some of the very farmers displaced in Veracruz were recruited to work at a North Carolina Smithfield hog-processing plant. When they tried to unionize in 2007, Smithfield had the undocumented union members deported, willing to pay the fine for immigration violations rather than have a unionized plant.”

U.S. abuses of corn exports, which is a national staple in Mexico, especially for the country’s poorest, was a travesty of the cruelest kind. The price of American corn that flooded Mexican markets was at first relatively cheap, driving an untold number of Mexican small farmers out of business. But then the price of corn shot up when U.S. agribusinesses based in Mexico began converting corn into other uses (ethanol, corn syrup), and the price of corn for food consumption tripled in price, causing a national crisis that most Americans were  blithely unaware of. 

Now, while Trump’s trade “triumph” has mostly cosmetic differences to the previous trade agreement, it targets the very avenue that Mexico’s farmers who were driven off their land by U.S. agricultural trade abuses had sought to survive—in the automobile industry. The new trade deal does nothing to curb U.S. abuses of NAFTA, in fact not only keeping them in place but forcing Canadian agricultural markets to be abused, although to a much lesser extent. With Trump’s intent to drive jobs out of Mexico when the U.S. is reveling in “historic” employment levels, only a fool cannot see why people naturally go to where the jobs are.

Packers "dominate" Bills, sort of

Is it possible that a decidedly lopsided game could still be a concern for the winning team? The Green Bay Packers out-gained the Buffalo Bills 423 to 145, forcing three turnovers and sacking Bills quarterback Josh Allen seven times for losses of 64 yards despite the fact that high-priced free agent DL Muhammad Wilkerson is out for the season in a 22-0 victory. What, just 22 measly points you say? Just two touchdowns scored and three field goals? Maybe the offense was just taking it easy, just to keep Aaron Rodgers upright? Rodgers played the entire game—I mean played the entire game. You would think that Rodgers just needed to throw high-percentage passes all day and it would all be just an easy day at the office. But it wasn’t; during one point in the second half, Rodgers was clearly laboring, completing just 1 of 9 and  finishing the game 22 of 40 for 298 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT to go along with a lost fumble for a un-Rodgers-like 76 QB rating. It seemed like he just kept throwing the ball hoping to hit a “hot streak” to make the memory of it all go away. 

So while the Bears Mitchell Trubisky was throwing for 354 yards and six-count-them-six touchdown passes against Tampa Bay (as Ryan Fitzpatrick landed like a thud back down to Earth), Rodgers with his injured knee continues to look not only just human, but distressingly so. It is a matter of his brace-enhanced knee actually gets better—or worse, worse. In the last couple of games Rodgers clearly digressed as time went on, and one can only surmise that he is a hard hit from being done for the season. After last season, it is easy for a Packer fan to be somewhat pessimistic. If there was a solid, reliable alternative at quarterback, then maybe there would be less concern that Rodgers would have to play to the point of near paralysis for the team to have any chance of winning a game. This is the fault of team management and the decisions they have made in terms of personnel. Neither Rodgers, the team or the fans have been done any favors.

Even if an injured Aaron Rodgers becomes a "liabilty" on the field, the "alternative" is worse

As a  Packer fan who has stood by the team from the beginning—meaning since the bad old post-Lombardi years—there were only the rare moments of civic pride: the unforgettable 48-47 MNF win over the Redskins in 1983 that I viewed a week before I was shipped off to another 2-year “tour” of Germany when I was in the Army (it’s the only non-Favre game in the Packers’ Greatest Games DVD set), and kicker Chester Marcol catching and running in his own blocked field goal attempt for the winning touchdown against the Bears in 1980 (although coach Bart Starr was so incensed that he missed the chip-shot attempt that Marcol—who admitted he was high on cocaine on that play—was cut by the team four weeks later). But there was little else other than “hope”; Lynn Dickey was exciting to watch (if only because he was an even more high anxiety-inducing gunslinger than Favre ever was—or at least when he was ambulatory, which was rare), and Don Majkowski had that one “majic” season.  

But since 1992 the Packers have been expected to be at least playoff contenders every year, and anything less is considered a failed season. This season, like all the previous seasons figured to be a successful season behind a healthy Aaron Rodgers, reunited with the offensive coordinator (Joe Philbin) during the team’s most successful seasons in the Mike McCarthy/Rodgers era. The preseason betting line favored the Packers in 12 of 16 games this season, and three of their four projected losses (on the road against the Vikings, Seahawks and Rams) were close enough to be “pick-ems.” But the Packers have a problem that for some reason they have refused to solve since 2014: what to do if Rodgers is injured or only functioning 75 percent or less as he has been in the past two games. It was clear in this week’s loss to the Redskins’ that his mobility and overall play was getting worse as the game went on. After falling behind 28-10 at halftime in a game they were “projected” to win, there was no comeback special in the works, despite a touchdown drive in the first series of the second half and the Redskins offense doing little; Alex Smith threw for only six yards in the second half as the Redskins were held to just 3 points, yet the Packers could muster just that one score. 

According to my count, only 5 of Rodgers almost 30 pass attempts in the second half covered at least 10 yards of forward progress (not including a pass play that was actually a net loss due to a penalty). But if Rodgers is not playing, then what? He can still keep the team in the game as a pocket passer when he’s at least as ambulatory as the latter-day George Foreman, who could stand in one place and still knock unconscious George Cooney. But what if he doesn’t have a puncher’s chance to stay in the game? The Packers are still incomprehensibly relying on a backup quarterback whose “experience” does not inspire confidence. Yeah, Terry Bradshaw was awful for years and then quarterbacked four Super Bowl teams, and Jim Plunkett quarterbacked two Super Bowl-winning teams for the Raiders. But would anyone even put Deshone Kizer in the same “league” as Plunkett? Who was the last quarterback produced by Notre Dame who made a dent in the NFL? Some guy named Montana? While Matt Flynn at least had the pedigree of a national championship quarterbacking LSU, McCarthy decided to dump him in favor of a prospect (Brett Hundley) whose NFL-readiness draft experts were universally skeptical of, and as we saw last season, McCarthy could do little to mitigate the flaws in Hundley’s “game.” Why-oh-why didn’t the Packers bring in a veteran with proven ability—or keep the one they had?  With Rodgers becoming close to a liability on the field, the alternative is, unfortunately, much worse.

A tie game feels like a loss for the Packers

Blowing opportunity after opportunity to put a game away does not bode well for the Packers this season, particularly given the fact that on any given play Aaron Rodgers could be out for the season given his present knee condition. It was obvious that Rodgers playing “coy” given this condition was a major reason why the Packers failed to convert four red zone opportunities into touchdowns in their 29-29 overtime tie with the Vikings; four sacks and nine quarterback hits also played into this mentality. In the fourth quarter, after the Vikings were gifted with a freak  quarterback hit penalty against Clay Mathews that turned a game-ending interception into a game-tying touchdown drive, Rodgers did show a little of his voodoo magic with only thirty seconds to play in regulation, in which newly-acquired Jimmy Graham actually caught a clutch pass--heroics all of which again would have been unnecessary if the Packers had converted just one of their three fourth quarter red zone opportunities into a touchdown. But Mason Crosby missed a 52-yard game-winning attempt after kicking through his first five. Not that the Vikings didn’t contribute to the muddled outcome: Rookie kicker Daniel Carlson missed three field goal attempts, including two in overtime. His 35-yard attempt on the last play of the game was about as bad a miss as a Packer fan in prayer posture can hope for—and an enraged Viking fan can imagine. The Packers blew their own opportunity in OT when in near field goal range, a fumble and sack forced a punt still inside Viking territory, leading to Carlson’s final miss. 

The Packers supposedly have the toughest schedule in the NFL this season, and they still have to play the Vikings, Patriots and Seahawks on the road; this game was supposed to be one of their expected victories. They couldn’t afford to give this one away. 

Anyways, while Rodgers was playing like he was trying to navigate a minefield, there we have journeyman Ryan Fitzpatrick have another fool me start to the season, this time for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. After “upsetting” the defending Super Bowl champion Eagles on Sunday with another sensational performance, Fitzpatrick after two games is now 48 of 61 for 819 yards and 8 touchdowns, which must be one of the hottest starts in NFL history. Of course other teams have seen this only to be let down by Fitzpatrick’s tendency to give-up the ball in untimely situations, but for now if he  has another uber-performance next week, just how much “forgiveness” is the team and fans going to afford Jameis Winston when he comes off suspension for allegedly assaulting an Uber driver two years ago?