Did Trump say to Kill all the Lawyers?!

I am a registered Republican and a former Republican precinct chair here in Utah. I'm also a Never-Trumper. After graduating from Duke Law School, my first job was at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP in 2007. Yes, that Giuliani. The firm was previously known as Bracewell & Patterson. In 2005, the managing partner of Bracewell & Patterson, Pat Oxford, was a major player in the Texas Republican party and a close confidant of George W. Bush. Bracewell & Patterson wanted to open a New York City office, and Giuliani wanted access to the Texas Republican elite. So that year Bracewell & Patterson became Bracewell & Giuliani.

During my first week at Bracewell, Senior partner Kelly Frels met with all the new associates. Mr. Frels had recently been the President of the Texas Bar Association. He spoke to us about a line from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, which reads “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” The speaker, a killer named Dick the Butcher, was planning to overthrow the King of England. Mr. Frels explained that many commentators have noted that for good or ill, lawyers protect the government. Bad lawyers protect bad government and good lawyers protect good government. He went on to teach us of the importance of the judicial branch of our government and of the role of attorneys and judges to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. He explained that judges are an important check on both the executive and legislative branches and implored us as new attorneys to commit to truth and justice. He said that justice begins with attorneys, and is not only the responsibility of judges. Frankly, his words were inspiring, and also completely at odds with the behavior exhibited by Rudy Giuliani in the last several months. Incidentally, Giuliani and the firm parted ways in 2016.

It has been almost fourteen years since my early days at Bracewell, and over eight since I have run my own practice. But the lesson I learned from Kelly Frels has stuck with me. It is why I have watched with great sadness as Trump has defied the entire judicial branch in the past few weeks. Trump is not just defying random judges, but the very judges he himself appointed. No president has appointed more federal judges since Jimmy Carter. According to Wikipedia, “As of January 3, 2021, the United States Senate has confirmed 234 Article III judges nominated by Trump: three associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 54 judges for the United States courts of appeals, 174 judges for the United States district courts, and three judges for the United States Court of International Trade.”

Among those 54 appellate judges is a friend of mine from law school, Allison Jones Rushing. Allison was an exemplary student and wonderful, Christian friend. I should not have to mention she is Christian, but it is wrong that "Christian" should equate "Trump supporter" and indeed it does not and must not. If Allison's goodness and legal acumen is representative of the judges appointed by Trump, we have no reason to doubt that the Trump appointed judges are both honest and knowledgeable defenders of democracy, no matter their religion. Yet Trump has ignored not just his own appointed judges, but the entire judicial branch of government. Repeatedly, these judges have found no evidence of widespread fraud in the election.

Many argue the judges turned away these cases on procedural grounds, but that is inaccurate. As a friend of mine wrote, “It is false to say that dismissals for lack of evidence or failure to state a cognizable claim are not tried on the merits. It means that Trump’s legal counsel was unable or unwilling (perjury is a felony) to meet the bare minimum evidentiary burden [necessary to obtain] relief in the court system.” All of these legal challenges were filed seeking emergency relief, time is of the essence when challenging an election and courts move such challenges to the front of the line. All the evidence is made available right from the start, as shown by the now famous C-Span footage of Giuliani sitting next to the aspiring adult actress. That case was not thrown out on procedural grounds, the witnesses were heard. As in the vast majority of the cases brought by Trump, all the evidence was submitted, and members of the judicial branch found it unpersuasive. Frequently, they found the evidence baseless and even frivolous. These same judges take election fraud as seriously as you and I. They know that fair elections are one of America’s greatest inventions and exports. They also know there is nothing more American than a peaceful transfer of power.

So who are we to believe? Trump or the judges he appointed? Trump or the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, half of whom he nominated himself? A choice to respect our judicial branch is not a rejection of conservative principles or an endorsement of Biden. Instead, it is a choice for democracy and a commitment to live and fight another day. Just as Trump won a fair election after eight years of President Obama, I am confident that another Republican can win a fair election after Biden. The purpose of this post is to persuade others not to place all their trust in one man, but rather to trust the hundreds in our judicial branch. I encourage all of us to vote for Republicans who will not ignore the rule of law, who will not ignore his or her own judges, who will not ignore an entire branch of our government.

The day may come that the entire judicial branch of our government cannot be trusted, but today is not that day. So, no, Trump didn't say to kill all the lawyers, only to ignore them.

How China Hijacks U.S. Comment Boards

Early in his 2020 campaign, Michael Bloomberg took heat for paying 500 "deputy digital organizers" $2,500 a month to promote him through social media posts and texts to friends and family.  Hillary Clinton was accused of something similar four years ago, and when Bernie Sanders cried foul, it soon became clear he had engaged in similar activity.  This kind of social media manipulation has been standard operating procedure for quite some time among political campaigns.

When I started at Duke Law in 2004, several of my classmates were recently departed employees of different presidential campaigns.  I learned from them that it was common for campaigns to hire college students to post comments on online news articles that spun the bad press of their candidate/employer while highlighting the good.  It's not hard to detect these comments if you know what to look for.  They always come across as eminently reasonable, and completely emotionless.  There is a cut-copy-paste feel to these comments, which is understandable considering their authors are adapting their candidate's talking points across as many articles as they can.  

While teaching college writing for five years, I used to train my students in the art of writing letters to the editor.  Just as there is a formula to effective letters to the editor, there is a formula to comment-board spin.  Political campaigns are expert in training their young acolytes in this language, for the purpose of protecting and promoting their candidate.

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure how damaging such comments are.  I don't think there's much evidence Trump ever employed hired guns to soften his critics with calm, reasonable talking points.  That's not really his style.  On the whole, my experience is that most of these paid commenters use actual data and arguments to back up their candidates, leaving the readers to grapple with different versions of the facts on their own.  Usually (but not always), these paid commenters are not lying, pretending, or inventing, they are just making sure no article against their candidate is allowed an uncontested slam dunk.  Insidiousness level: Moderate.

A much bigger problem is China's government hijacking of our comment boards for their own propaganda and purposes.  Let me be clear, China's people are wonderful, their government is not.  Using thousands of fake online handles that lead back to no one and nowhere, the Chinese government's army of English-trained writers scour the news around the world for articles on China, and then inject the comment boards with thinly-veiled Chinese propaganda under the guise of sympathetic westerners.

China's government has been engaging in cross-border propaganda on a more official level for years.  In 2018, the Chinese government paid for a 4 page insert in the Des Moines Register intended to turn Iowan farmers against Trump's tariffs.  In calling out China's actions, an article in The Diplomat noted, "In trying to influence Iowans, the Chinese government has shown that it lacks any meaningful understanding of the deepest of American traditions, those of independent thought, action, and allegiance."  The Chinese government's formal efforts to spread its propaganda in America and abroad are also discussed here and here.  This article doesn't address those issues, but rather their hidden army of spin doctors.  I have been studying China and North Korea for the past two years, and I was shocked to discover that most, if not all, online articles related to China have several commenters who appear to be paid Chinese government employees.  Unfortunately, they make the political campaign part-timers seem like  naive novices.  Insidiousness level: Extreme.

These Chinese government manipulators always pretend to be westerners sympathetic to China, and always hit the same talking points.  They talk about the U.S. murder rate, drug use, and homelessness.  They talk about U.S. incarceration levels, and they talk about imperialism.  Again and again, these points are drilled into their comments.  They manipulate data and spin everything China's direction.  They often attempt to seem reasonable, but even their concessions typically end up being backhanded compliments to Communist China.  The Chinese government has used paid hacks to do this inside of China for years, where they are referred to as "Wumao."  One of their biggest tells is that these commenters mistakenly conflate U.S. support for socialist policies with support for China.    

Many conservatives often make the same mistake as these Chinese commenters.  The vast majority of Millennials who support Bernie Sanders and other democratic socialists look only to the model of northern Europe.  They support democracy and free markets, they just think the government should cover things like health care and education, as in some northern European countries.  Anyone using China and Venezuela to argue against these Millennials is sure to encounter glazed eyes and dismissiveness.  Few Sanders supporters admire China's iron-fisted policies.  Now, whether more socialist policies are a slippery slope to an authoritarian regime, or whether Denmark's lack of a minimum wage should be adopted along with its universal healthcare, are discussions for another day.  The point here is that Chinese spin doctors make the same mistake as many right wing conservatives: assuming that someone who wants universal health care is also willing to give up their freedom of speech and religion to an authoritarian regime.

So, what do we do about this onslaught from the Chinese government's hired guns?  First, call them out.  My experience is that whenever I cheerfully call them out, rather than defend themselves or provide proof of a real western existence, they just disappear.  Next, take advantage of an opportunity to educate the individuals behind the masks about how we really feel about China.  

Tell them that we love China's people, we just don't trust their government. We believe China's government should trust its wonderful people, and until their government does, we can't possibly trust China's government.  Remind these hired commenters that since China claims to be earth's oldest civilization, that means no civilization has distrusted its own citizens longer than Chinese rulers.  Ask them to free Chen Qiushi, a citizen journalist and lawyer who was recently put on house arrest for trying to report truthfully on the Coronavirus.  Remind them that no country on earth ever trusted its own citizens faster than America.  When they talk about western imperialism, remind them of all the free, democratic nations spun off by the UK and the U.S., and ask them to encourage their government to do the same for its own citizens.
   

We Americans may be imperfect, but at least here we get to try and fail and try again and do our best and improve and be ourselves, without the constant threat of house arrest.  Here, people don't go to jail just for speaking their mind.  Remind them that one of America's greatest innovations and exports is the ability to vehemently disagree with the leader of your own country without the threat of being punished.  The Chinese government considers such ideas "western indoctrination," which is like saying the west brainwashes everyone to think for themselves.  I'm pretty sure that is the exact opposite of "indoctrination."  Invite these Chinese apparatchiks to imagine a world where they are free to think for themselves.  How amazing would China be if its government empowered its wonderful people with free speech and free religion?!

A China like that would be incredible.  And I for one am rooting for the Chinese people, and against Chinese president-for-life Xi Jinping.  #WeAreAllRockets

Should we Fast on Thanksgiving?

Before you start a riot the week of Thanksgiving, the answer is “No,” we should NOT fast on Thanksgiving! However, we can and should fast IN thanksgiving. This means periodically dedicating a fast to show gratitude for the blessings we or others close to us have received. While fasting in gratitude is less common today, it was very common in the Book of Mormon.

After Captain Moroni’s first battle, where he defeated Zerahemnah on the banks of the river Sidon, he and his men returned to the capital city as heroes. While the Nephites were accustomed to defeating the Lamanites in battle, they were shocked at the lopsidedness of this victory. Captain Moroni’s use of armor had worked better than anyone hoped, and everyone was even more impressed that the Lamanites had entered into a covenant of peace. The record states, “Behold, now it came to pass that the people of Nephi were exceedingly rejoiced, because the Lord had again delivered them out of the hands of their enemies; therefore they gave thanks unto the Lord their God; yea, and they did fast much and pray much, and they did worship God with exceedingly great joy.” (Alma 45:1).

Did you know we can fast in gratitude? Usually, we fast for special blessings on behalf of ourselves or others, but if you think about it, a fast is like a day-long prayer. According to the Bible Dictionary, prayer is a form of work, an exercise in faith. The whole time we are not eating, we are essentially exercising faith that God can and will provide the blessings we seek as part of a meaningful fast. Because of the additional sacrifice of food and drink, fasting can make available blessings that may not come by prayer alone. (Matthew 17:21). When we pray, we give thanks for our blessings, and request blessings. In a way, fasting is like a supercharged prayer. God has commanded us to “seek” and “ask” and “knock,” we are supposed to pray for blessings and fast for blessings. Nevertheless, occasional prayers expressing only gratitude are both appropriate and meaningful. Fasting is no different. We can give thanks as well as ask for blessings in our fasts, but too often we only ask for blessings as part of our fast. In our defense, it may not have occurred to many of us that we can also fast in gratitude—not because we are bad people, but because we didn’t realize it was an option.

So, I’m not suggesting we fast on Thanksgiving, that beautiful, delicious holiday we get to enjoy every November, I’m just saying that, like the Nephites, sometimes when we fast we can begin with a prayer as usual and tell Heavenly Father that we are so thankful for a particular blessing or blessings we or others close to us have received, that we aren’t even asking for anything during our fast, but only fasting in thanksgiving.

In addition to fasting for blessings and in gratitude, we can also fast in mourning. The Nephites often fasted when their loved ones had been killed in battle. (Alma 30:2). Fasting brings us closer to the Spirit, and nothing is better than the Spirit at comforting those who are mourning.

Learning about the power and importance of the fast is one of the great blessings of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Most of us have already seen the blessings that come into our lives through fasting. In accordance with the Book of Mormon, these blessings become even richer if we also fast in thanksgiving and in mourning. So, no, don’t skip Thanksgiving dinner this week. But, as you consider the richness of your blessings during this holiday of thankfulness, you just may decide to skip a couple of meals in gratitude this next Fast Sunday. Because sometimes, after some blessings, even sincere, heartfelt prayers of gratitude don't feel like enough to show God how thankful we truly are.

The above is adapted from an excerpt in my recently published book, Shake the Powers of Evil with Captain Moroni, published by Cedar Fort, and now available at Deseret Book.

On Helping Children Love to Read

My four sons would readily agree that I am no paragon of parenthood. However, some of those same sons might actually know what the word “paragon” means, because each of them loves to read. My goal here is not to explain a process for teaching children HOW to read, but rather describe one way that has helped our children learn to LOVE reading. You see, I am a firm believer that anyone who doesn’t love to read has simply not yet read the right books.

My wife worked very hard to teach our sons how to read, I can’t take any credit for that. However, she and I together have done our best to help each of our four sons learn to love reading, and the key was to follow a simple progression of particular books at particular times, as outlined below:

1. First, lay the foundation by reading out loud to your children long before they learn to read. Using the many wonderful picture books that are available, help your young children learn to associate books with happiness and family and time. Learning how to sit, quietly absorbed in a book, is as important as learning to run through the neighborhood playing with friends. Great picture books such as Who Will Tuck Me In Tonight?, When Dinosaurs Came With Everything, Counting Crocodiles, Pout Pout Fish, Click Clack Moo, Weslandia, and so many more, are as fun for parents as they are for children. Take the time to find your own family favorites.

2. Once your child learns to read well enough to struggle through very simple sentences, give them the first Calvin & Hobbes treasury. Calvin & Hobbes has been key to helping our sons learn to love reading. Young children are fascinated by Calvin’s antics and with Hobbes’ constant transition between reality and fantasy. Many of the jokes initially go over their heads, but many more land in the most delightful way. Your children will work and struggle to understand Calvin & Hobbes to a degree that will surprise you. They will not realize that they are “reading” in that process, only that they want to know so badly what crazy thing Calvin is up to today. Bill Watterson’s humor hits on so many levels, and he scatters vocabulary that will push your children not just from one level of reading to the next, but along and through and around multiple levels of reading at the same time.  My four sons range from ages 8-16, and they all circle back to Calvin & Hobbes at least two or three times a year.  Calvin & Hobbes is what they read when they want a break from reading—how awesome is that?  They treat it like an old friend they can visit anytime, who demands nothing of them but a smile. And, they find new things to laugh about at each new age.

3. After your child is fully ensconced in Calvin’s world, you should begin reading low level chapter books to them, such as the Magic Tree House series. My wife discovered this wonderful series and has read them to our children for many years. They follow a very predictable format, are written for young children, and can be read out loud quickly. Once you have read a handful of them out loud, you can confidently hand the next Magic Tree House book to your child and watch them take off from there. You may also use the Elephant & Piggy books by Mo Willems during this phase (which are incredible) and the always-awesome Berenstain Bears series.

4. After Magic Tree House, the next step is Beverly Cleary and Roald Dahl. These books are not gender specific, and are just a blast. You can start them with Fantastic Mr. Fox or Ramona & Beezus. Both authors have between 10-15 books and there isn’t a bad apple in the bunch. Also, each author has a very different style, so it exposes your child to a broad range of writing. Beverly Cleary is real and insightful about the most common daily occurrences, her writing is timeless. Roald Dahl is real in a very different way, and also so fantastical and crazy that he keeps your child guessing on every page. Frankly, if you haven't read these yourself, you're missing out.

5. Depending on how quickly your child moves through Roald Dahl and Beverly Cleary, you can move on to the next step, or just linger here for awhile. There are many wonderful authors in this same category as Cleary and Dahl, such as Edward Eager, Jean Craighead George, Scott O’Dell, Lynne Reid Banks, Betty MacDonald, John D. Fitzgerald, Gary Paulsen, E.B. White, Brian Jacques, and many more.

6. The series that will seal the deal on your child’s love for reading is nothing less than Harry Potter. There will be no going back. Fourth or Fifth grade is typically a good time to start the series, but you may decide to make them wait until they are a bit older before reading the later books. These are individual, parent/child decisions. If you do decide to delay them for a time in the middle of the series, there are plenty of other books to fill the gap, such as Narnia, Michael Vey, Rangers Apprentice, anything by Madeleine L’Engle, and many more.

One of the reasons my wife and I worked so hard to help each child develop a love for reading is faith-based. We both felt that it is difficult to obtain a love for the scriptures without first developing a love for reading. We felt that children who are accustomed to spending hours with a beloved book may be more willing and able to spend meaningful time in the scriptures. My wife and I both love the scriptures, and in addition to regular family scripture study, we make sure our children often see us reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  

In addition to the process described above, there are some religious books that can help you reinforce scripture study and a love for reading at the same time. The Who’s Your Hero? series by David Bowman is a great resource to help your elementary-school aged children relate to the scriptures. For teenagers, there is the Work and the Glory series by Gerald N. Lund. Give your teenager the first book in the Work and the Glory series and watch them go off on their own and have beautiful, personal, and powerful spiritual experiences centered around the Restoration of the Gospel that have nothing to do with you.

I cannot emphasize enough the powerful boost to your child’s testimony learning church history through The Work and the Glory can be. By placing your child “in” the story, they are able to "see" early church history figures as regular human beings who did their best to follow Christ, but were not perfect.  As a result, your children will be much less susceptible to concerns about the fallibility of leaders, because they will feel like they know them, and their weaknesses, personally. The Work and the Glory will help your children become more like Lorenzo Snow, who remarked in his journal, “I saw the imperfections in [Joseph Smith].  I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him ... for I knew that I myself had weaknesses, and I thought there was a chance for me. ... I thanked God that I saw these imperfections.”  The new Saints series is also a great follow up. I believe that scripture study and significant time spent reading about church history go hand in hand.  And such exposure is much easier if you have first helped your children to gain a love of reading.

Great books fill in the gaps of life to overflowing. A love of reading will help your children emotionally, academically, religiously, and on and on. Children who read for pleasure are often better able to finish their reading assignments in school, but if a child doesn’t already have a love for reading before their academic reading requirements increase significantly, they will associate reading with negative thoughts and feelings.  This negative association is hard to undo.

I don’t pretend the above process will work with every child, but I do believe it will help many more children learn to love to read than otherwise.  Now, if I could only figure out how to help my sons make the jump to reading literature like Dickens, Austen, Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Twain, Jewett and so many others.  I even tried meaningfully targeted incentivization with my oldest, but to no avail.  

There are so many wonderful books out there, I would love to hear about the titles and authors that have helped your kids learn to love reading.

A favorite bookshelf I built

Is it Robbery to be like God?

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”  Phillippians 2:5-7

The above New Testament scripture seems to be a clear invitation to become like God.  In fact, it expressly states that doing so is no robbery, or diminishing, of God. How can this be?  Can we actually become like God? Does He even want us to?

This post assumes God is both omniscient (all knowing) and ominopotent (all powerful).  Additionally, I argue there is a third component to God’s perfection: He is all generous.  I rely on Matthew 7:9-11 for proof of God’s perfect generosity:

“Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him.”

I have four sons, and I never let them win at anything.  With very few exceptions, whenever I play any kind of game with any or all of my sons, I try to win.  And, since I am bigger and older, I usually do. One exception is when my youngest was 6, and we often played Chutes & Ladders. Notwithstanding my best efforts, he won something like 25 games in a row.  As a result, I am convinced there is no skill involved in that game, and that the Universe loves that sweet boy.  I don’t blame the Universe for preferring him, he's a wonderful kid.  

I’ve always wanted my children to look forward to the day they beat me at anything, to reach for it, to work for it.  You see, I want each of them to be better than me, and my playing small doesn’t get them there. I hope that each of my sons exceed me in goodness, in wisdom, in judgment, in honesty, in achievement, in work ethic, and on and on.  Frankly, I don't pretend I've set the bar all that high, and I also don’t think I'm unique. I believe the vast majority of parents truly want their children to become better human beings in every way than we ourselves have been.

So, returning to Matthew 7:9-11, why would we expect any less of God?  If we, being evil, desire that our children become better than ourselves, how much more so God?

To say that God does not want us to become like him seems a logical conundrum.  Has He blessed us with a generosity toward our own children that He Himself does not possess? I don’t think so.  Does He not know how to help us become like Him, even though he is omniscient? I don’t think so. Is He incapable of helping us to become like Him, even though He is omnipotent? I don’t think so.  

No doubt there are some among you blanching at this very conversation.  It’s blasphemy, is it not? To seek the attributes of deity? I’m not sure the New Testament agrees.  

Romans 8:16-17 says "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

It's important to note that Christ was unceasingly accused of blasphemy for believing that he was the son of God.  It is also important to note that there is a difference between Christ, who was already perfect, and ourselves, who are clearly not close to perfection.  There is no doubt that we are not like God currently, this post is only discussing whether it is possible to eventually become so, and whether it is God’s will.

I argue yes and yes.

Christ argued much the same when in John 10:34, to support His own claim to godhood he quoted Psalms 82:6 and said "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

Many people see the idea of becoming like God as a selfish wish for power and dominion. Since when was that ever what it meant to become like Christ? God’s power flows from and through His perfect attributes.  A desire to become like God is merely a wish to be that kind, that generous, that honest, that much of a blessing to others.

I believe that God does what He does because of those rare moments when we are overcome by gratitude for his goodness, and look up in pure, heartfelt thankfulness.  God is the ultimate fixer upper. He loves leaving the ninety and nine and going after the one. I have a thing for revitalization.  I love seeing a rundown area of town go through its own renaissance. I once considered a career as a City Planner. Figuring out ways to encourage and invigorate the forgotten and discarded is not only the bread and butter of HGTV, but also a God-like attribute.  Among the great joys in this life is truly helping another child of God to believe in God, to believe in themselves, and in their ability to improve their life.

Isn’t that what parenthood is all about? Doesn’t it seem like family life is just a practicum for what happens after this life?  If God gives us life (in part) for the gratitude we show and the joy it brings him to see us progress, and if we can all share in that same joy here on earth by helping others, why would he deprive us of the opportunity to continue to do so after this life?  

If you don’t believe that God wants us to be like Him, why not?  Either you are denying His omniscience, His omnipotence, or His goodness (referred to as omnibenevolence).  Or maybe you just don’t think that is part of His plan for us. Perhaps you conceive an existence for us in heaven that is so different than our current consciousness as to make our current desires and interests obsolete and irrelevant.  Personally, I believe that the Christ who came back and cooked fish over coals for Peter was essentially the same person and personality as He was prior to His resurrection. And I believe we will be as well.  

Desiring to become like God is not a selfish wish, but rather a recognition of our own imperfect, fallen state, and of a soul-deep desire to cast off the natural man and carry on God's work and glory: the immortality and eternal life of man and woman. God doesn't glory in His greatness, He glories in us, our progress, our growing goodness. I believe in a continuation of the joy I feel when I catch one of my sons being kind to another son when he thinks no one is watching. 

I don't know how God makes us like Him, I only know nothing is impossible with Him.  Christ doesn't seem to think it's impossible either, because he commanded, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”  Matthew 5:48. I don't believe God has unreal expectations for us.

Perfect today? No. But someday, long after this earthly life, and with Christ's help?

Yes.

Getting the Most out of March Madness

Virginia: From chumps to champs

Virginia winning the national championship one year after becoming the first #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed has to be one of the greatest sports stories of the decade.  In fact, March Madness has always been about stories, and the Tournament Selection Committee knows it.  March Madness is even more enjoyable if we let these stories become part of our own.

There is abundant evidence that the Selection Committee considers the stories of teams and players when creating the annual bracket.  Was it coincidence the Committee positioned UCF to play Duke in Round 2 this year?  UCF coach Johnny Dawkins was the player who started it all for Coach K.  He was Coach K's first blue chip recruit.

Coach K and Johnny Dawkins

After leaving Duke, Dawkins enjoyed a long NBA career before becoming Coach K's top assistant.  Dawkins then took the head job at Stanford, only to return to Duke for several more years, before moving on to UCF.  Coach Dawkins' star player this year was his son, Aubrey Hawkins, a sensational player who cut his teeth as a boy running around Cameron Indoor Stadium while his father assisted Coach K.

No, there are no coincidences with the Selection Committee.  They knew exactly what they were doing matching up Duke and UCF.  Another example from this year is the first round matchup between Louisville and Minnesota.  Until the recent pay for play scandal, Louisville's coach was Rick Pitino. Some coaches always seem able to help their teams perform in the tournament, no matter their regular season.  Pitino was one of these, along with guys like Tom Izzo at Michigan St. and Bob Huggins at Cincinnati and then West Virginia.  These coaches' teams consistently go deep in the tourney, no matter their seeding.

Richard (left) & Rick (right)

This year Louisville faced it's first tourney Pitino-less, so the Selection Committee decided to make amends by pitting them against Minnesota . . . who is coached by none other than Richard Pitino, son of Rick.  Another coincidence?  Unlikely.  Minnesota won a very emotionally charged game. 

In 2010 Duke won the national championship with a collection of role players.  No one from that group made an impact in the NBA.  Although Duke was a #1 seed, they were not expected to win the tournament that year.  Back then I ran my brackets like a hedge fund manager.  I had 6-8 brackets entered on ESPN and almost every game saw me rooting for and against both teams.  I was a basketball schizophrenic.   Even though I graduated from Duke Law School and was a big Duke fan, since conventional wisdom had Duke losing in 2010, none of my brackets had Duke making the Final Four.  When Duke won it all, several people congratulated me and commented on how well my bracket must have performed.  When I sheepishly informed them that I had not chosen Duke, they couldn't hide their surprise and disappointment.  I was considered a sellout for not having supported my school.

It was time to rethink my basketball world.  When March 2011 rolled around, I made some changes.  First, I decided to choose Duke to win every year.  Duke had won four times in 20 years, so odds were that about every five years I was going to be very, very happy.  I figured I had no hope of accurately guessing which particular year Duke would win, but that I could take comfort knowing eventually Duke would win.  Sure enough, when they won in 2015 I ended up in the 99.8 percentile on ESPN's Tournament Challenge.  More importantly, I had a blast riding their winning streak.

The second change I made was to create only one bracket.  No more hedging.  Since I didn't participate in paid pools anyway, I realized I wasn't hedging my bets, I was just hedging my happiness.  I decided to stand by my choices and invest in every game.  I wanted to feel the full joy of victory; therefore, I had to accept the full agony of defeat.

Third, I decided to look for stars and for stories.  I realized that every so often a star was able to impose his will on March Madness.  Carmelo Anthony, Stephen Curry, Kemba Walker etc.  These players each took over the tournament, bringing us along for the ride.  I decided to hitch my wagon to players like these, knowing that every few years I could look forward to riding a star's wave of success.  For example, this year I picked Murray State to win as a #12 seed because I believed Ja Morant was going to rise to the occasion.  He was spectacular in his two games.

As far as stories go, I think the best example is Wichita State.  The Wichita State Shockers are not historically a basketball powerhouse, a distinction that belongs to their in-state neighbors, Kansas.  I write in-state neighbors instead of in-state rivals for a reason.  Wichita State and Kansas are not rivals.  Kansas, the blue bloods of the Big 12, would not condescend to play the local state school from the podunk Missouri Valley Conference.  In fact, Kansas hadn't agreed to play WSU since 1993.

In 2007, Wichita State Coach Gregg Marshall took over a middling team with little basketball tradition and soon had the Shockers winning 30 games a year.  Tournament wins followed and in 2013 they lost in the finals to Louisville.  Marshall turned Wichita State into a Final Four team, but Kansas still wouldn't play them.  Chris Webber even said on national television that Kansas was scared to play Wichita State.  Finally, the Selection Committee took matters into their own hands, because that's what they do.

Kansas, are you listening?

In the 2015 tournament, Kansas and Wichita State were positioned just like Duke and UCF in 2019--if they both won their first round matchups, they would play each other.  When they each won, the state of Kansas went crazy.  Most of America had no idea what was going on behind the scenes of this game.  Because I happened upon an article about the bad blood between the schools and saw a story, I picked Wichita State to win.  I was sure Wichita State would be looking for vengeance.  Sure enough, it was a 78-65 shellacking that was far worse than the score shows.  Kansas didn't have a chance.  And even though WSU lost their next game to Notre Dame, Shocker Nation didn't care.  They had beat Kansas.

So what's the point?  I think we can get more out of March Madness.  Of course, you can continue filling out multiple brackets in an effort to hedge your way to the top.  Or, considering my 7 year old beat 95% of ESPN talking heads both of the last two years, you can fill out your bracket to maximize your tournament enjoyment.  Create one bracket, look for players you want to root for, teams with a chip on their shoulder, and coaches who know how to squeeze out tournament success.

This year I felt Virginia's story demanded my attention.  I picked them to go to the final against my beloved Blue Devils, then I stared at that matchup for quite awhile.  I knew Duke gave Virginia two of their three losses on the season, and I also knew Duke had a transcendent star in Zion Williamson.  But I feared Duke couldn't beat Virginia three times in one year, and I also saw Tom Izzo's MSU team standing in Duke's way.  Izzo just knows how to hit the kill button in March.

I was at an impasse.

In the end, I stuck with my rule to choose Duke, knowing I would never forgive myself if Zion cut down the nets in April.  Duke was my team, and Zion was this year's star.  Surely that was more significant than Virginia's story.

This confluence of storylines, stars, and coaches made this year's tournament especially enjoyable.  Johnny and Aubrey Dawkins vs. Coach K and Zion; Pitino/Pitino and Izzo; Duke and Virginia.  In the end, Virginia's story was just too strong, their desire for redemption too great.  It's stories like theirs that makes March Madness so magical, we just need to look for them.  I promise the Selection Committee is doing just that.  March Madness is much more fun if we stop seeing our brackets as applications to Goldman Sachs and start incorporating its stories into our own.

Long live March Madness, and three cheers for an eight team College Football Playoff!

Literature Professors Unleashed

I believe Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables to be a modern, updated, french epic in the model of The Iliad, The Aeneid, and Paradise Lost.  I also contend that Dostoyevsky intended the same with The Brothers Karamazov.  Their chief innovation, of course, was to write in prose rather than in poetic form.  But it doesn't end there.  While The Aenied and The Iliad captured the deeds of some hero past in order to exalt and establish a national identity, Hugo and Dostoyevsky wrote aspirationally.  They created modern heroes Jean Valjean and Alyosha Karamazov to embody the principles each author believed France and Russia respectively needed in order to promote and protect national interests and identity going forward.  Both authors hit their target, for few characters have moved me more than Valjean and Alyosha.

I believe Hugo and Dostoyevsky patterned their epic novels after epic poems purposefully, not incidentally.  For example, some argue that myth theory exists because we all come divinely pre-programmed with the essential elements of myth, and that each of our filaments, à la T.S. Eliot, require no outside training or influence to drum the beats of myth.  It's just part of us.  Others argue that we are all exposed to so much myth theory at such an early age that we are all just parroting it.  While I personally subscribe to the divine interpretation of myth theory, I believe that both Hugo and Dostoyevsky deliberately mined the epic poems for themes, patterns, and constructions to model in their signature novels.  How many pages did Hugo spend in the Paris sewers again?  That's an underworld montage if we've ever seen one.  

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

My best evidence is that Crime and Punishment, as well as The Hunchback of Notre Dame can both be considered modern approximations of a Greek tragedy (especially Hunchback, where every character of worth dies, and every wretch wins).  Dostoyevsky and Hugo each wrote their tragedy, and they each wrote their epic.  I believe there is significant intrinsic evidence within the texts, as well as extrinsic evidence from the authors' lives, to support my thesis, but frankly I don't have the time or expertise to find them all.  Someone who speaks Greek, Latin, French, Russian, or some combination of the same, is far better qualified to make these arguments.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to engage in such an endeavor, unless you are a Comp Lit professor stuck in the messed-up world of academic publishing in literary departments.  So, in truth this post is part "punt" and part critique.  

I've never understood the point of academic writing by Lit professors.  Why aren't they all writing novels and poetry?  As an English major, I read fabulous novels from great minds, only to pick them apart in essays that were completely different in style and purpose from the books they vivisected.  Writing about novels is not necessarily good training for writing novels.  People who are good at writing about novels are not necessarily good at writing novels.  Therefore, Lit professors are not generally novelists.  What a waste.  At its highest level, Literature departments reward regurgitative research instead of creation.  Currently, Lit professors must publish rarely-read scholarly articles to remain employed.

"Publish or perish" is a popular saying in academia.  Natural science professors write papers about ideas and discoveries that actually move scientific thought forward.  Social science professors write articles that can and do effect public policy.  English professors write about how a particular author's childhood experiences manifest in his or her writing.  *Yawn*  How does that move society forward?  No doubt there are Lit professors who disagree and can marshall points in support of such articles, but the simple truth is: Their articles do not get read, even within the field.

The Inklings was the name of the writing club J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis belonged to while on the faculty at Oxford.  Western civilization owes a lot to the Inklings—especially Orlando Bloom.  Why aren't humanities departments modeled after the Inklings?  I can only think of two English academic papers that have significantly contributed to society.  One was about Jane Austen's early life and led to the movie Becoming Jane.  The other was about Beatrix Potter and led to the movie Miss Potter.  Both are great films and both no doubt owe their existence to some Lit professor's academic paper. Thank you, wherever you are.  But how many trees had to die for humanities academic journals so that the world could enjoy these two movies?  Does anyone else read these articles besides aspiring screenwriters?  

I believe every Literature department should be like the Inklings, savage feedback and all.  Unfortunately, such change is unlikely to come from within.  Lit department heads were granted advance degrees not based on their creative works, but rather based on their textual analysis.  Why are we applying the scientific method to Literature?  Even Descartes would be offended.  My English degree was fabulous preparation . . . for my law degree.  Law journals are an entirely different animal from academic Lit publishing.  Attorneys (and even judges) routinely cite legal articles by law professors.  Even published legal articles by law students (called "notes") find their way into the holdings of legal opinions.  Every student in every law school is trained to research legal articles by law professors as a way to discover innovative arguments to support their clients' claims and defenses.  Like scientific journals, legal journals can and do change the world. 

Great novels change the world as well, one beautiful life at a time.  Literature departments should be petri dishes of creativity, fomenting great writing through local, regional, national, and university presses.  What benefit to a university does all the current academic Lit froth create?  Every university president should covet the benefits of even one marginally successful novel every five years from the university's literature faculty.  Publicity like that is a game changer.  Universities should not only encourage creative works, but also receive a (fair) share of the profits created thereby.

Obviously, this turns the academic Lit world on its head.  How would universities determine tenure?  Each university Inklings group would peer review the works of its faculty, and perhaps that of other university faculties.  Short story magazines and journals would proliferate, to the benefit of all (if you haven't read E.B. White's short stories, you are really missing out).   Submissions granted publication would carry significant weight, of course.  As it stands, Lit professor contracts are tied only to academic publishing.  In most instances, these contracts expressly state that creative works, submissions, and even publications will not impact tenure determination.  That is scandalous and soul crushing.

There is, of course, benefit to learning how to write and defend a thesis based on textual analysis.  Every scientist learns how to do this first in high school English before using those skills to immortalize their proven scientific hypotheses.  This instruction should be available and enforced in general, required writing courses, not beaten to death in the world of humanities academia.  Effective writing can and should be taught as part of every discipline, but there is no real-world need for the hyper-trained literary analysts that Lit professors become.        

From Blankets by Craig Thompson

The world's Literature professors, they who have the great works of the western world distilled upon their minds like the dews of Milton's highest heaven, are today sitting in their offices straining at gnats.  We should not tolerate this waste of the human spirit.  Universities should encourage and incentivize Literature professors to contribute to the body of creative works they have spent their lives studying.  Sometimes, those who teach can also do.  

Let's give them a shot.