January 31, 2018--Mr. Ludwig

For decades I have been attempting unsuccessfully to locate my 7th grade teacher, Mr. Ludwig. I was a student in his English class at PS 244 in Brooklyn in 1950, nearly 70 years ago.

More than any other teacher, in fact more than almost any other person, he changed the course of my life.

From time to time I googled him but to no avail.

But then on Friday there was his obituary in the New York Times. 

I knew more about Mr. Ludwig than was usual (it was rare in that era to know even a teacher's' first name) as he shared stories from his life, which I soaked up, seeking models of adulthood to emulate. 

Obituary from the New York Times-- 

Bert R. Ludwig was born July 25, 1920, passed away January 25, 2018. He was predeceased by his adored wife Phyllis of 60 years and his brother Bob. He is survived by his sister-in-law Claire and brother-in-law Paul and nieces Joan and Karen and their husbands Warren and Jay and their children and grandchildren.  

Bert graduated from Columbia University where he was accepted at age 14. He was extremely bright and talented. He sang and played the violin, accompanied by his brother on the piano. They played many gigs together in the Borscht Belt.  

Bert was a lieutenant in the United States Coast Guard during World War II. He was the Chief Communications Officer on a flotilla of LC1 Landing Craft during the invasion of Normandy, Omaha Beach and Utah Beach on June 6, 1944. He was also in the North African Campaign and the invasion of Sicily and Salerno.  

After the war Bert was honorably discharged and he worked for the FBI; but finally decided that education was his first love. He became a teacher, Assistant Principal and principal for the New York City school system. Bert and Phyllis enjoyed 40 wonderful summers in their home in Montauk, Long Island where they entertained their many friends and relatives. 

They loved living in Manhattan and were true New Yorkers enjoying all that Manhattan had to offer. They will be missed by those of us who knew and loved them. 

Part of Mr. Ludwig's appeal was that he was so culturally different from my father that it is fair to say he became a surrogate for me. 

He was the kind of man I was wanting to become--adventurous; worldly; heroic; well read; emotionally expressive; playful; though soft, a "real man" with a touch of class. And since most of my classmates and I who came under his spell had one or more immigrant parents ("old fashioned" was the way I thought about that), he was fully American and thus doubly attractive.

He not only taught English but also coached the school's basketball and softball teams. So I had academic lessons from him during the day and life lessons after school in the gym or on the baseball diamond.

He told us about his service in the Second World War and how he had been part of the D-Day landing. He shared dramatic photos of himself and his comrades storming Omaha Beach.

And he told us that before becoming a teacher he had been an FBI agent and recounted vivid stories about his training and some of the cases on which he worked. This was very different from what I heard at home from my father and uncles, which was either criticism or silence.

I entered his class as a virtual non-reader. I am embarrassed to admit I had more interest in Batman and Superman comics than Two Years Before the Mast. To motivate those of us lagging behind in our cultural education he created a chart on which our names were listed in alphabetical order--with me thus at the exposed bottom of the list--on which he would paste a star for every book we checked out of the library and read to completion.

While many of my classmates quickly filled the chart with enough stars to rival those in the Hayden Planetarium, I was the only one who remained starless.  Then one morning, when I arrived at his classroom and slid into my chair, on top of my desk was a new, non-library book of Sherlock Holmes stories. Puzzled, I looked toward Mr. Ludwig, who with nods and winks gestured that there was no mistake, the book was for me. Not just to read but to read and then keep.

I slipped it surreptitiously (a word he taught us) into my schoolbag and once back home put it on the shelf above the table on which I did my homework. It sat there untouched for more than two weeks until, feeling guilty and pressured, I finally picked it up and read the first story, "The Hound of the Baskervilles," and then, swept along by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's narrative magic, I read a second and after that a third. 

I stayed up all night reading the book, hiding excitedly under my blanket with the pages illuminated by my Boy Scout flashlight. 

I hid beneath the covers because to my father, reading books led to men becoming effeminate and after that . . . they would turn into men like his brother Ben, who lived a closeted life surrounded by stacks of magazines and books.

In school the next day, with Mr. Ludwig standing by the chart with his box of stars at the ready, when he asked if any of us had completed a new book, after the usual two girls waved their raised hands to report that they had finished Little Women, avoiding eye contact, in a whisper I revealed that I had finally read something other than a comic book.

Without fuss or comment, Mr. Ludwig affixed a star next to my name. And after that, through the rest of the school year I not only filled my space but my personal firmament of stars spilled over to occupy the unallocated space below my name.

I devoured anything by O'Henry or Robert Louis Stevenson or Richard Henry Dana, Mark Twain, and of course more, always more Sherlock Holmes. 

To this day,  I am an voracious reader with a personal library of read books numbering in the thousands, filling every available shelf I can fit on our crowded walls.

In 1950 I also was a non-writer. As a poor speller I was inhibited when I needed to complete written assignments. Noting this, early in the term, Mr. Ludwig asked me to remain in class after the bell.  Knowing how I admired him, he told me that Winston Churchill, when he was a young student, also could not write because of spelling problems. "And," he said, "look how well he now writes. What you need to do is just to write, to let the words flow and worry about the spelling later. That's what editors are for--to correct your grammer and speling."

He continued, "And don't forget that Einstein also had problems as a boy with both reading and writing. Not that you're a Churchill or an Einstein," he winked with a smile--he wanted to make sure I wouldn't become too full of myself, "But you can do better."

And I did: Later in life I wrote and published widely. I am the author of dozens of articles and stories and five books. All traceable to the affect Mr. Ludwig had on me at that delicate time.

Then there was what to do about my graceless, overgrown body. At the tender age of 12, I was already six-feet-five inches tall. I had fears I would grow until the only hope for me would be to join the bearded lady in the circus.

But as PS 244's basketball coach, Mr. Ludwig saw past my slumping posture and awkwardness, instead sensing the makings of a potential center for the school's basketball team. 

To help me become viable as the possible pivot for the Rugby Rockets, in those days a team's tallest player would position himself directly under the basket where he would hopefully block a few shots, do some rebounding, and score some easy layups, Mr. Ludwig spent long afternoon hours encouraging me (he believed in my potential more than I) and teaching me the moves I would need to excel in inter-school competition.

Somehow, after a few months in the gym I literally stood taller, had filled out a bit, and became one of the team's most reliable scorers. The Rockets then, with a team made up of players more talented than I, became perennial challengers for the Brooklyn borough championship. 

And finally, there was my singing. Or rather, my inability to carry a tune.

When Mr. Ludwig had the class prepare a musical "production" for PS 244's annual showcase, he had two pieces of advice, which to this day, metaphorically, have stood me in good stead--If you can't carry a tune, move your lips, lip-sync. In other words, if you are unable do something well, pretend you can. 

And, seek a role, if necessary--more metaphors--that lets you, if necessary, lay low. In this case behind a scrim lit-from-behind, as he had me do when one year's show was about tribal South Africa where I, again the overgrown me, stomped behind a suspended bed sheet so that only my attenuated shadow was projected to the audience while the rest of the class, in harmony, sang--

See him there,
The Zulu warrior.
See him there,
The Zulu chief, chief, chief, chief.

Mr Ludwig found a way to transform this frog into a prince of a chief!

For me, that is his legacy. Helping me aquire the skills and confidence to become anything my talents and hard work would permit.

For decades I have been searching for him to thank him with words that I, as an adult, finally acquired.

I failed to find him until now when I read he had died and that his funeral service last Sunday would be in New York City.

I went, hoping I would be welcome at what I suspected would be an intimate family affair. Though I was the only former student able to attend, I felt I was there representing the many others upon whom Mr. Ludwig had had such a profound effect.

I also realized I had been searching for him in all the wrong places. 

He was closer to me than I had imagined. I didn't need the Internet or Google to locate him. He had always been close at hand. Right here, within me, where has has been since 1950 and will be until I finally join him.

January 30, 2018--November 6, 2018

It's not too early to mark this date on your calendar. 

It's midterm Election Day and on that date there is one thing, actually the only thing we can do to begin the process to remove Donald Trump from the presidency. 

And thus it is the most important day in decades. 

Forget fantasies that the Robert Mueller investigation and eventual report will bring that about. No matter what he finds Republicans until January 1, 2019 will control the House of Representatives where Impeachment must originate and there is no way, even if Mueller has Trump on tape and plays the tape of Trump directing Michael Flynn and his sons to lie to the FBI and Congress, it will not matter to Trump's followers or GOP lawmakers. They will see those tapes as fabricated by the FBI just the way they believe TV feeds of the landing on the moon were shot on a Hollywood sound stage.

They will claim it is fake news, that a conspiracy within the FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice is responsible for the findings and thus should not to be taken seriously. 

Democrats will attempt to keep the process going, so will most of the media, but at most it will be a 10-day story with business returning to usual as the public quickly becomes bored with the whole thing. It will be right in the middle of the football season and what can one expect.

Only Trump's rock-solid 30 percent of the population will remain on the alert. These are the most conspiratorial-minded of Americans, the least informed, the most paranoid. As crazy as they may be, combined with the billionaire GOP donors they control the Republican party and House members especially are in thrall to them.

But unless Republican House members are trounced in November, which at the moment seems possible--but just possible--we will not have just two more years of Trump but a total of six more.

So we need to get activated right now. 

We need to volunteer to work for our local Democratic committees. Especially in the purple or swing states. We need to pay particular attention to House members, all of whom are up for reelection with the exception of the growing number, mainly Republicans, who have already announced they will not be seeking reelection. 

And it is essential that we contribute and raise money to fund the cost of campaigns for Congress. Someone, all of us, need to chip in to offset the tens of millions the Koch Brothers are already making available to GOP candidates. And who, as a result, after the election, will be owned by the Kochs.

There is the cliche that an occasional election is the most consequential of our lifetimes. Most times it isn't. This time it may be true.

Koch Brothers

January 29, 2018--Reiterating

With the Mueller investigation at full boil, with so many moving parts, it is again time to step back and look for a big picture that links most if not all the seemingly disconnected pieces.

Previously, I've turned to Ockham's Razor, employing that ancient philosophical tool that seeks the simplest but most comprehensive explanation when confronted with seemingly unrelated, even contradictory elements.

In Trump's case we have just this week seen the White House and the Trump enablers at Fox News and Republicans in Congress in almost complete disarray.

There has been a sustained campaign in general to undermine the credibility of the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigation in particular. There has been the absurd charge attributed to the president that the reason Mueller is incapable of being fair is because of a dispute about membership fees at one of Trump's golf courses! And we have been hearing about a secret Illuminati society within the FBI leading efforts to depose Trump and his administration.

And of course there is the revelation that back in June Trump ordered the White House counsel, Donald McGhan, to fire Mueller, even though he does not have the power to do so. He in turn threatened to resign (in a rare burst of integrity from among the Trump people) if forced to proceed.

There is more, much more. All of it, though, made coherent with the help of the 14th century Franciscan friar--

Trump's desperate behavior is because ONLY HE KNOWS THE FULL TRUTH AND EXTENT OF HIS OWN INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIA-GATE, and because that truth is so devastating, he is frantically grasping at anything that he feels can rescue him from this self-made crisis.

Trump alone knows the full and truthful story of his and his minions' involvement in colluding with and encouraging the Russian government to intervene on his behalf in the 2016 election.

Only Trump knows fully what he and his acolytes have done to cover up, to obstruct their malfeasance. What he and they have done to obstruct justice.

Trump is the only one who knows all the details of Trump, Inc's business involvements with Russia, including the massive sums of money that were likely laundered in the process.

Trump alone knows the truth about what is included in the infamous dossier. Not the Clinton campaign's minimal involvement, which they have attempted to generalize, but Trump's business dealings in Russia as well as his possible involvement with Russian prostitutes.

Only Trump knows what his children and son-in-law have been up to in regard to everything from conspiratorial activities to money laundering to attempts to subvert justice.

Only he knows the full story of his adulterous affair with pornstar "Stormy Daniels" and what appears to be Melania understandably leaving his side.

Again, the panicky behavior we are witnessing is the result of the truth about Trump's involvements, the full extent of which he and only he knows.

It's enough to make one crazy. And that is what we are seeing. But the end is near. Quite near.

January 26, 2018--Trump vs. Obama

Donald Trump launched his political career by savaging Barack Obama, beginning with the birther racism to accusing him of being a stealth Muslim to doing all he could first as a candidate and now as president to discredit and dismantle everything that was accomplished during the Obama eight years in the White House. 

It is as if Trump wants to nullify Obama's presidency (more racism) and delete his name from history. To make it as if Obama was not president. Forget that--to make it so that he never existed. 

For Trump's most ardent followers this is the definition of how to make America great again: Purge the country of people of color and anyone who is not Christian. Actually, not a Protestant. 

If one is looking for the Trump policy agenda all that is needed is to take out a list of Obama's achievements and invert them. Voilà, the Trump agenda is revealed. For example, most recently, most dramatically Obama-annihilating, Trump allowing all states bordered by our oceans to license oil companies the unfettered right to drill.

Try as Trump might to pull off this campaign to overturn Obama's record and place in history, the facts, assuming anyone is interested in them, present a very different picture.

Case in point, a recent Joe Scarborough op-ed column in the Washington Post, "The Damage Trump Has Done, Documented."

Drawing on data about the state of the economy from a January article in Forbes Magazine, not exactly a Bernie Sanders endorsed publication, "Trump's Economic Scorecard: One Year Since Inauguration," Scarborough compares how the economy fared during each presidency.

Most self-vaunted is the run up of the stock market. Trump claims there is no better evidence that his economic policies are working and that this is in contrast with the "failed" Obama record. During the first year of the Trump presidency the run-up in the Standard & Poor's average was a noteworthy 19.4%. But, though he never fails to reject the idea that he inherited a heating-up economy from Obama, the market did even better during Obama's first year--rising on the S&P an astonishing 23.5%.

In regard to jobs created Trump's numbers were lower in 2017 than in any of the first six years of Obama's presidency. And the unemployment rate declined faster under Obama than during Trump's first year in office.

The budget deficit last year was $666 billion, whereas it was a declining $585 a year earlier under Obama. And the national debt, a favorite target of conservatives, is now accruing at a more rapid rate than during the years of the Obama administration.

Then the trade deficit, an important indicator of economic health, was worse last year than in any of Obama's eight years.

There are things to criticize when it comes to the Obama record about the economy (for example the unrelenting growth in the gap between the wealthy and middle class), but things with Trump in regard to the economy, acknowledging its early achievements, are for the most part not as noteworthy as during the Obama years. 

One thing is certain, President Obama's record, which, in spite of Trump's obsessive assault on it, continues to endure while we may soon see the dismantling of the Trump presidency itself. And over time we will also see how history regards each of them. The outline of that, regardless of the Trump posturing, is already clear.

January 25, 2018--Mueller's "Whitewash"

I have a Facebook friend who has been consistently pessimistic about everything involving Donald Trump and the fate of the world. Among other things he expects to see nuclear war with North Korea breaking out this year.

He is very angry and may be right on all counts as he is smart, successful, and well informed.

Here's a recent, slightly edited example from his postings--

I'm now worried that Mueller is going to do a whitewash. I cannot understand why he hasn't brought in Trump's lying son or Kushner and his wife. At first I thought it was because he knew if he did Trump would fire him. But now I don't know. They all need to go to jail if not for lying than for money laundering and tax evasion. They must be deterred from ever seeking public office. I'm worried.

Thinking about this and the list of witnesses Mueller has interviewed and is planning to seek testimony from, it is curious that the Kusners and Trump's sons are not on the list. Trump himself, though, clearly appears to be.

Traditionally with investigations and prosecutions of this kind, where there may be collusion, obstruction of justice, and conspiratorial behavior, prosecutors work their way up the witness food chain. From, in this case, the likes of George (Coffee Boy) Papadopoulos to Paul Manafort to Michael Flynn to Jeff Sessions to Steve Bannon and then on to members of Trump's inner-inner circle, including ultimately the president and his potentially implicatable family members.

So what is Mueller's logic of seemingly not seeking testimony from Trump's sons, daughter, and beloved son-in-law?

I've been struggling to make sense of these curious omissions and have finally come to what I now see to be very clever. This should have been apparent to me sooner as Mueller is nothing if not clever.

The special counsel is intentionally not planning to include the children in his investigation and thus will not charge them in his ultimate findings.

Keeping his eye on the big picture--Donald Trump and what he did that is potentially indictable or impeachable in order to cleanse the system, Mueller does not want to incite Trump even more than he is fulminating at present.

Mueller suspects that if he moves against any of the children, Trump will go off the rails and immediately pardon them, disband Mueller's team, and fire Attorney General Sessions and Mueller himself, precipitating a constitutional crises that will make Watergate look no more troubling than a parking ticket.

As a backup to a version of likely mass firings reminiscent of the Watergate Saturday Night Massacre, in addition, the main thing from a Mueller perspective, is to get enough work completed, enough evidence double and triple checked, enough of the mosaic of evidence pulled together into a coherent and convincing narrative, and to insure enough channels are in place to leak all of this to the public and Congress if it hits the fan before he completes his work. 

Mueller wants to make it certain that Americans get the full report of his findings. To, if necessary, leak them so no matter what Trump does to him and his staff, the truth will out.

The bottom line for the investigation and for us is what Trump knew and then did. If our democracy is to survive we need to know the peril in which we have been so that we can recover what has already been lost. Everything Mueller does should be viewed in this critical light.

January 24, 2018--Losers & Winners

For days after Congress couldn't agree to a short term budget fix, which resulted in the government going dark, and then after three days it's reopening, if you spent any time watching cable news virtually all the talk was about who won and who lost.

Was the "Schumer-Shutdown," as the Republicans derisively referred to it, evidence that Democrats in the Senate "blinked" when they realized they had overstepped when they refused to make a budget deal?

Or was President Trump the political loser (no equivalent alliterative epithet for this) when he agreed to include six years of child healthcare, CHIP funding in exchange for a three-week continuing resolution?

Losers and winners is the way so much of our public life has come to be construed. Not what gets done but who's up and, especially, who's down.

But with their reporters scurrying around the halls of Congress to take the minute-to-minute pulse--especially of the dozen or so Democratic senators who are already running for president in 2020--these news sources missed the big picture--who actually won and what it may mean going forward. May mean.

The deal finally hammered out more than anything else was the result of a bipartisan group of about two dozen senators working together 10, 12 hours a day on something they and their colleagues could live with.

They met in semi-secrecy in Maine Republican senator Susan Collin's "safe office," her "sanctuary office," talking to each other about substantive issues for the first time in their senatorial lives, some reported, largely because they felt they couldn't depend upon their leaders--Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell--to come up with a deal as they were so immeshed in posturing and spinning the truth before the waiting microphones and CSPAN cameras.

Many of the participants in the "gang or 25" said that they were so fed up by being excluded from the sausage-making process of crafting legislation and so disgusted by the equivocation and mixed messages emanating from the president and his White House, where many felt Trump was being "led around by the nose," as Joe Scarborough put it, by "a 32-year-old kid," presidential advisor Stephen Miller, who looks like a picture of evil right out of central casting, that they took matters into their own hands and for a change earned their $174,00-a-year salaries (which, incidentally continued during the shutdown).

Some, after the agreement was struck, said that the experience of working together across party lines to "get things done" was the reason they originally sought public office--and here's the potential big headline--that not only did they feel good about what they accomplished (though the full story about that will not be known for some weeks as the centripetal political forces struggle to reassert themselves as the 2020 campaign heats ups), they said this is how they plan to work going forward. 

They claimed they will stick together and deal themselves in when it comes to what to do about the so-called "DACA kids," hurricane disaster relief, Obamacare fixes, infrastructure, and border security. Some "big stuff."

Are we at last witnessing an outbreak of comity and moderation?

As my grandmother used to say when any of us brought a new girlfriend home to meet her and perhaps (unlikely) pass her special muster, "We'll see."

Every once in awhile she revealed that she could actually smile. That's what I am planning to hope for now--that we are at a pivotal moment and it will take hold.

We'll see.

January 23, 2018--The Statuette Please . . .

At last night's Screen Actors Guild awards ceremony, after an evening of political correctness by an all female corps of presenters and thank-you speeches by winners, when receiving SAG's lifetime achievement award, Morgan Freeman commented about the statuette given to recipients--

"I wasn't going to do this," Freeman said at the end of his remarks, "I'm going to tell you what's wrong with this statue. It works from the back; but from the front it's gender-specific."

The audience laughed and cheered.

The SAG statuette, known as "The Actor," depicts a nude male figure holding two masks--one of comedy, the other of tragedy.

The gender specificness, however, isn't all that specific. The male genitalia is more a PG-13 sort of a lump than anything full-frontal R-rated.

Not all that unlike the Oscar whose maleness is less apparent since all the specifics appear to have been surgically removed. He does, though, hold a nearly body-length Crusader sword that also serves as a fig leaf. The symbolism speaks for itself.

The Golden Globe statuette, on the other hand, is totally non-gendered. Unless one wants to view the spherical "globe" as somehow female.

But there is a simple solution when it comes to Oscar and The Actor--give winners a choice of statues.

There should be male and female versions. And while we're at it, African American as well as Caucasian ones. Maybe even an Asian  choice. Clothed and unclothed. And thinking ahead to the possibility of a Muslim winner, the Islamic female statuette should of course veiled. On the other hand that won't work since Muslims do not permit paintings and sculpture that represent humans.

So maybe my solution isn't so simple after all.

Left to right: Oscar, Golden Globe, "The Actor"

January 22, 2018--The March

Saturday's Women's March was again extraordinary. Hundreds of thousands of largely young people, mainly women, turned out in the United States and around the world in all kinds of weather.

Not intentionally, Rona and I got swept into the periphery of it in New York City. We were in the vicinity of Times Square for another purpose and found ourselves . . . marching.

It was a powerful, emotional experience. I know that there has been some backbiting among the organizers who planned and carried out last year's version, held the day after Donald Trump's inauguration-- the size of that march eclipsing the much smaller crowd that showed up for his swearing in, nasty speech, and his still ongoing smarting that his inaugural turnout was by far the largest in history--but no matter. 

It was remarkable, amazing. So much energy, a palpable feeling of empowerment, which of course is the real goal of these marches--women taking more control of their political lives and destiny. 

Speaker after speaker took note of the fact that thousands of women nationwide, at all levels, are signing up to run for office. This suggests that November may be shaping up to be an historical comeuppance for Trump and his cult of followers. 

Say goodbye, Republicans, to your current majority in the House and I suspect the Senate. That would bring about a new day. That would truly be what is most historic about the current situation--new voters and newly activated citizens taking back their country. In perfect irony, they, we will make America great again. 

But besid the possibility that we will be engaged in a major war in Korea come November which will cause many Americans to rally to a president that they otherwise despise, there is another danger--

With the march itself. 

Rather an unanticipated consequence from its very nature--that it is a women's march. 

Though men are welcome to participate, the vast majority of those who marched were women.

If this becomes the electoral face of those who oppose Trump, with Hollywood stars pushing their way into the spotlight, there is the danger of a backlash among moderate, politically independent men who may come to feel excluded by the movement that the march represents. 

These men are needed as part of the coalition that has the potential in November, for all intents and purposes, to end the Trump presidency. To turn him into an instant lame duck. Domestically at least--powerless. 

These are some of the same men, not Trump acolytes, who could not bring themselves to pull the lever and vote for Hillary Clinton. Next time around, we cannot let this happen. They have to feel welcomed, comfortable being lead by women and willing to vote for women for Congress as well as at the state and municipal levels.

We have to write off Trump's 35-40 percent. They are the ones who would support him even if he murdered someone on Fifth Avenue, as he said with insight during the campaign. But to win and thereby rescue ourselves we need the active support of the persuadables. Some of them the old Reagan Democrats. Or their descendants. There are still plenty of them who are swing voters who live in swing states.

So what to do?

For the next march attention should be paid to the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of these men who must become political allies. In the next march they should have some public role to play. The themes to emphasize need to include a portion that are gender neutral--like inequality and our plummeting position in the world. These themes should not be so much about so-called "women's issues." It would be wise to include more that cross genders and are universal.

I understand that these suggestions will not go down well among some or even many, especially coming from a not-quite-dead-yet white male. But if we want to win--and we desperately should--I put these thoughts forward in the spirit of wanting to help.

January 19, 2018--Rx Trump: GirthGate

Donald Trump finally had a physical and the results are more or less known. More or less because there is already chatter that he and his doctor are not telling the truth about the results. 

Two things--

In spite of what the doctor said, his LDL, "bad cholesterol" numbers are sky high and suggest he has not insignificant heart disease.

And he is borderline obese, which is not good for the health of his heart, especially in combination with the LDL numbers and lack of exercise. Riding around in a golf cart doesn't qualify as exercise.

Take a look at this picture from two weeks ago. Does it suggest that Trump is only, as White House doctor Ronny Jackson claims, 10 to 15 pounds overweight? I'd say, it's more likely 50 pounds. Some are criticizing the doctor for fibbing about the president's actual weight. Skeptics are calling it Girthism or, I prefer my name for this--GirthGate.

In other words the president could be a ticking time bomb. Maybe in a bipartisan gesture presidential candidate Oprah Winfrey could help him out with a gift membership to Weight Watchers. 

In the meantime, what's one-heartbeat-away-from-the-presidency Mike Pence up to these days? In addition to standing behind Trump, nodding and smiling. That should tell us something about his boss's true medical condition. 

I hear he's staying away from carbs and working out.

Then there is the senility test. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Trump took. It takes 15 minutes to administer, not the half hour they claimed. Unless Trump needed the extra time in pursuit of a perfect score--30 out of 30.

Speaking of mental tests, we had a wonderful Aunt Madeline who was a great character, but during the last years of her life was in and out of hospitals. Occasionally, to take a brief break from the rest of her life.

One time when helping her check into Beth Israel in New York City they gave her a cognitive test to see, at her age, if she was showing signs of dementia. Among other things they asked her to repeat "Car, cat, tree."

She was great at that and everything else. She more than had all her marbles.

"Car, cat, tree," she said over and over again. Not because she was senile and thus repeating herself, but to show them and Rona and me how good her mind still was.

They also asked her to reverse it--"Tree, cat, car." 

"No problem," she said before rattling it off. Again repeatedly, grinning proudly. 

That became a mantra. Whenever one of us would forget a name or an event from years ago, rather than being frustrated we'd chant, "Car, cat, tree" to show we were OK. Still do even though she's no longer with us.

This reminded me of the test Trump asked to take to counter the assertion in the Michael Wolff book, Fire and Fury, that Trump is losing it. Or, has already lost it.

They also asked Trump to repeat car, cat, tree as well as take a paper and pencil test. Below is a sample. It's self explanatory.

What do you think? Is this the kind of test to use to see if our commander-in-chief is fit for office? That he should be trusted with the nuclear codes?

Or is it more appropriate to see if a first grader is fit for promotion to the second grade?

On the other hand, I do want my president to know his hippos.

January 18, 2018--Ab-Normalizing

A number of friends have been accusing me of "normalizing" Donald Trump and thereby enhancing his legitimacy both as a person and president. By doing this, they say, I am tacitly accepting his election.

Though I am not quite sure I understand all that they mean, I do know they are angry with me because they feel I am treating him as if he were a normal person, rather than the embodiment of evil. That by doing so I am elevating his status as a human being and thereby contributing to enhancing his power. They would rather me consider him abnormal, an aberration not worthy of serious regard much less acknowledging his humanity.

I am sure there is some truth in these friends' disappointment in me.

But I also know there is significant danger in not acknowledging  Donald Trump's connection to the human race. To not have to deal with who he in all his maddening complexity. Dehumanizing him makes it easier to reject his very being. To be able to simply write him off. And thus delegitimatize him as president and as a human being in ways similar to how he attempted to denigrate Barak Obama.

I think we know enough about human nature to agree that few of us live in a pure state. We are all a mix of contradictions that coexist within us. Most of us, under the right conditions, are capable of acts of self-sacrifice as well as unspeakable violence. There is a struggle within us, Lincoln noted, between "the better angels of our nature" and the dark forces that pull us in the opposite direction

Aeschylus and Shakespeare would be eager to chime in. 

To bring us to a better place, to move beyond dealing in caricatures, we would do well to resist inappropriate normalizing while equally avoiding the impulse to ab-normalize. To impute evil motives to those with whom we disagree and against whom we struggle. To do the opposite of normalization.  

In the current political climate, this will require setting aside some of our anger and fear so we can better understand, with all their own human contradictions, why those who support of Donald Trump are so fervent. 

By now many of my friends feel they understand enough. Even too much. But to them it's simple--he and his supporters are racists and misogynists. Ask no more. Say no more.

I get that but think there is more to consider, including perhaps things about which we can find ways to talk. This is urgent as our fate as a democracy may depend on being able to do that.

Lincoln's First Inauguration 

January 17, 2018--Brain Dead

But I expect to be back tomorrow with some thoughts about what I will be calling ab-normalization. 

January 16, 2018--Hitler

When I get an email from a friend who mentions Hitler in the subject line or makes reference to him in the first paragraph, I invoke Godwin's Law.

This is not classic Godwin's Law--an Internet adage that asserts that as a discussion grows longer the probability that someone will invoke Hitler becomes virtually certain--but a version of it: invoking it at the beginning of a hot interchange for the sake of preserving tender relationships.

The Law is not that evidence-based but still it has the ring of truth. 

In fact, nowadays, with autocratic Trump as president, in many encounters that involve him it is virtually certain that Hitler will be invoked by any or all parties early in the conversation. Or, more appropriately, since Trump resembles him in posture, behavior, and policies, he is compared to Benito Mussolini.

The latest example--

With a subject line--"Bring Him Down!"--a friend wrote just this to me:

"I think again--like Hitler he may be nearly indestructible until it is ALMOST too late."  

People most frequently invoke Hitler when backed into a corner and their argument begins to run out of gas. It's as if when evidence and logic fail, to have the last word they nuke the discussion, claiming Trump is just like Hitler or it's the same here as it was in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy.

In my view, when this occurs, since I do not see Trump (yet) to be our homegrown version of Hitler or Mussolini we are so irreconcilably not on the same page it's better to cite Godwin's Law and change the subject, log out, or ring off.

Tempted to say little in return, since this came from a close friend, I wrote back--

It will be about how self-correcting our system is. Trump's not quite Hitler (just a pathetic racist, which is bad enough) and conditions there and then versus here are not comparable.  

Among other things Germany had a collapsed economy and ours for most now is doing well for many. Then there are the critical differences between our histories and commitment to democracy as well as the structure of our traditions, institutions, and governing bodies. 

Our system of checks and balances should (hopefully) work to confine anyone with strong authoritarian tendencies or aspirations. 

On the other hand, there is also the thick centuries-long underlay of national racism and unfettered, predatory capitalism. And we have a disturbing history of know-nothingness, mass miseducation, and a saturated and banal popular culture that includes experiencing news as entertainment.

Halfway through I assume my friend nodded off but I thought, reprised here, he might like to read the whole thing.

January 15, 2018--Davos

Donald Trump is going next week to the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 

This is to say the least a little surprising because the people who attend are for the most part the kind of "globalists" he and his base of supporters abhor.

But treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin has his boss's back. He claims those who show up are not elitists but, according to a report in the New York Times, more akin to "Average Joes."

They quote him--"I didn't realize that it was the global elite. I don't think it's a hangout for globalists." 

On that basis alone, if he is sincere and thus that ignorant about some of the forces that shape the world's and America's economy, he should be summarily fired. How can a U.S. secretary of the treasury be so, how to put this, out to lunch? Or, out shopping with his wife?

For example, though neither Trump nor Mnuchin will have to reach into there own pockets to pay the $70,000 for a ticket--we the taxpayers will--this smacks of elite to me.

It does allow participants to hobnob with the likes of Bill Gates and the IMF's Christine Lagarde (assuming she's not in jail) and of course other pundits such as Bono, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Shakira.

Here, though, is my favorite part of the Davos schedule--

To help people keep their heads screwed on straight, to have the semblance of an authentic experience, to quote the Times, "for more interactive entertainment, one popular event is the simulation of a refugee's experience [where] attendees crawl on their hands and knees to better understand what it's like to evade an advancing army."

When I read this to Rona, she cried, "NOOOO. Please, tell me it isn't true!"

Sorry girl, but I checked other sources and it appears to be true, though I doubt Mnuchin and Trump will get down for that.   

January 12, 2018--Trump 2018 Removal Act

Earlier this week, Donald Trump flew to Nashville to visit Andrew Jackson's nearby home, the Hermitage, to honor him by, among other things, placing a wreath on his tomb.

Though Trump doesn't read and knows nothing verifiable about American history, including the American presidency, a large portrait of the 7th president is currently on prominent display in the Oval Office.

Why might that be? Not because Jackson owned about 200 slaves (though that per se would not repel Trump) but because he was the first president to be widely regarded by "ordinary" people. Trump views himself that way. There is his base that he spends all day pandering to, which was on vivid display yesterday.

It began in the morning. The House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on an extension of the FISA act, legislation that was first approved in 1978 to allow intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on foreign nationals as well as American citizens who might represent terrorist threats. 

Libertarians such as Senator Rand Paul had proposed an amendment that would require that a FISA court, more than at present, be required to authorize in advance any domestic spying.

Paul was on Morning Joe a few hours before the vote, seemingly to explain his amendment but, as it turned out, to seek and secure Trump's support. Seemingly as a non sequitur, unprompted, he went into a passionate attack on the FBI who, he falsely claimed, was working to "bring down" the president.

When I wondered out loud why the senator switched subjects, Rona patted me on the arm and as if to humor me and with a sigh, said, "Of course to suck up to Trump in order to secure his support."

"Rand Paul?" I asked, still naively, "The same person Trump mocked and destroyed during the 2016 Republican primary season?"

Rona just looked over at me as if I were born yesterday.

Needless to say, waffling back and forth all day, Trump came down to oppose the Paul amendment after an hour earlier endorsing it.

So much for attempting to suck up to and relate transactually to our president.

More of Trump playing to his base was on disgraceful display later in the day.

At a bipartisan meeting in the Oval Office about legislation that would provide some additional support for the Wall along the border with Mexico in trade for Congress's approval for a path to citizenship for 800,000 stateless DACA young people, Trump met with six congressional leaders, seemingly to wrap up final details.

Appearing to be unmotivated, almost like a non sequitur of his own, Trump began to ruminate about immigration writ larger, asking why we accept immigrants and refugees from places such as Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa. 

From "shithole countries" like these.

After this outrageousness, Republicans offered their usual tepid response, mainly mild forms of faux incredulity (they too worry about the power of Trump's base--perhaps 30 percent of America's adults) while most others expressed genuine outrage.

Has Trump finally crossed the line that many of us have been waiting for for more than two years, a line that will finally bring him down? 

Even in my hopeful naïvety, I was skeptical. Trump critics were not surprised by his ignorance and racism. We have come to expect it and have been rendered exhausted by it. Perhaps even inured.  

As someone yesterday evening was quoted as saying, it was another example of Trump seeking to "make America white again."

That caused me to think more about Trump's visit to Andrew Jackson's home and grave. 

Among other disturbing things that Jackson was responsible for was the infamous Indian Removal Act of 1830 that required native people, to leave our then western territories and relocate west of the Mississippi. Some tribes did so "voluntarily," others needed to be "removed" forcefully along the Trail of Tears.

This is what Trump is up to and why he admires Jackson so much--Trump too wants to see the removal of millions of Americans along a contemporary trail of tears. El Saladorians back to El Salvador, Hatians back to their island, Africans back to Africa, Muslims back to their countries.

One thing they have in common--they are all people of color. "What can't we admit more Norwegians, white-supremacist Trump opined wistfully.

If he didn't cross the line yesterday maybe he inched closer to it. Mueller is thankfully lurking while cravenly GOP members in Congress aren't.

January 11, 2018--In A Matter of Minutes

After three excruciating hours of trying to stay awake during the Golden Globes--the pervasive feeling of self-congratulations exhausting my willingness or ability to endure--suddenly on screen there was Oprah! 

She was wearing serious eyeglasses so I assumed we were in for a treat. She wasn't about to announce cars for everyone but something better: Hope.

An immediate feeling of hope that she was not running for president but was about to be inaugurated and thereby release us from our long national nightmare.

Immediately, except for the Fox News channel, all of media lit up. They were already talking about what a Trump-Oprah contest would look like and, since they assumed Oprah would win, who she would name to key positions in her administration.  

Forget getting down to measuring the drapes in the Oval Office, would Dr. Oz become Surgeon General? What about Dr. Phil and best friend Gayle King? A new cabinet position, Secretary of Mental Health, for the doctor and maybe chief of staff for her pal? What about Stedman? First Escort?

These feelings of deliverance persist so I should try to calm down and take this seriously. Unlike Trump Ms. Winfrey is an accomplished and self-made billionaire. A real billionaire. And she could have the right personal qualities to be a healing president. Most important, she could actually win. Which, considering the alternative, is a very big deal. During her presidency I could hold my nose for all the self-esteem building preaching. Over my political lifetime I've held my nose for a lot worse.

It took all of eight minutes for this wave of enthusiasm to build during an otherwise dreary awards show. Going viral doesn't begin to tell the story. We almost elected a president in those few minutes.

Then on Tuesday, on live TV, direct from the Cabinet Room in the White House, there was that bipartisan 55-minute meeting about immigration President Trump held with Republican and Democratic members of Congress. 

During meetings of this kind the press is usually allowed to be in the room for a few minutes of innocuous schmoozing. They are then dismissed and the meeting occurs behind closed doors. Tuesday was different.

The purpose of allowing the press to send out a video feed of the meeting was not to showcase transparency but to allow the country and world to see that Trump was in control of his mental faculties. That he was capable of acting like an adult--in this case talking and listening--not the nine-year-old he was represented as being in Michael Wolff's new book, Fire and Fury. With Trump embodying both the fury and the fire.

The subject was DACA, the move to allow a path to citizenship for the 800,000 young people who, through no fault of their own, were brought to America illegally. This should not be too controversial an issue since many Republicans in Congress favor it. Nonetheless, most of the GOP base of voters resist agreeing to even this commonsensical compromise. So it was actually refreshing to see Trump, who has demagogued the subject of "illegals," mostly coherent and seemingly on board for a quick and just fix. 

And, beyond that, more surprisingly, Trump, who wants to build the Wall and deport pretty much anyone here either illegally or without having undergone what he calls "extreme vetting," Trump appeared open to an even more ambitious solution to the problem--a possible path to legal status for all10 million illegal residents. He spoke about "taking the heat," the political heat for such a tricky issue.

Was this simply telling whoever's in the room what he thinks they want to hear? Perhaps. But, then, maybe not, since a version of amnesty is not any Republican's favorite subject.

So, what's going on with this?

It could be that the "liberal," New-York Trump some people thought they were electing has finally appeared. Perhaps made easier for him with the decline and fall of his Svengali, Steve Bannon. If so, for moderates of all persuasions, this could be a rare dose of good news.

Minimally, he once again managed to change the subject when seemingly cornered--no one was talking about the Wolff book, most of the chatter about the dossier and Mueller was on the back burner, he dispelled some of the talk about the need to get ready to roll out the 25th Amendment, and even Oprah was pushed from the headlines. Minimally, as a tactic, this performance was politically adept. 

Rona suggested that perhaps Trump was able to put on such a good show because he was on camera. His favorite place to be. 

If so, let's set up cameras in the Oval Office, Cabinet Room, and in the room in the residence where he watches TV. In other words, have him on camera 24/7.

The first year of his presidency, or in TV terms, the first season, which ends in 10 days has been Steve Bannon & Friends. This coming season, let's hope it will be Oprah. 

January 10, 2018--Factotum

Late in the day on Sunday I heard from a number of progressive friends who called all excited about what they saw to be a takedown by Jake Tapper of CNN of Stephen Miller, White House senior advisor.

"I missed that," I said.

"It was on Jake's Sunday show, State of the Nation. Watch it on YouTube. You'll love it.

I did watch it and did sort of love it. At least until I gave it more thought.

In case you, like I, missed it, it was an interview largely about Michael Wolff's Trump tell-all, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Miller was clearly offered around to the Sunday talkshows as a counterweight to the Wolff tome. He was the perfect choice to send out on a retaliatory mission since he had been Steve Bannon's protégé; and Bannon, the main source of the most damaging reporting about Trump--how he is like a nine-year-old child and that Donald Jr. committed "treason" when he agreed to talk with the Russians about the "dirt" they claimed to have about Hillary Clinton--needed to be put down.

As my friend surmised, I did love it. To me Trump and everyone he touches are compromised. Very much including Miller. But what I didn't love was how Tapper, in his pose as a journalist, treated Miller who was his guest.  

Here are some selections from what turned out to be a brief interview--

Miller: "The president is a political genius . . . who took down the Bush dynasty, who took down the Clinton dynasty, who took down the entire media complex."

He went on to reup Trump's claim that he is "like, really smart," a veritable "very stable genius." He called Wolff the "garbage author of a garbage book" but Miller's real transgression, was accusing Tapper of being "condescending," and claiming that CNN promulgates "very fake news."

Tapper: Miller's calling him "condescending" clearly got under Tapper's skin--"I get it. There's one viewer that you care about right now, and you're being obsequious [servile, ingratiating], and you're being a factotum [lackey] in order to please him."

With that, he cut Miller off, saying he had nothing worthwhile to say and while Miller continued to rant, Tapper looked into the camera and introduced the next guest. It appears that Miller (off camera now) refused to leave and had to be physically removed by CNN security.

Miller's audience of one tweeted--

Jake Tapper of Fake News CNN just got destroyed in his interview with Stephen Miller of the Trump Administration. Watch the hatred and unfairness of this CNN flunky!

Tapper feigned surprise. But what was he expecting? Rational discourse about the strengths and weaknesses of the Wolff book? He knew in advance what Miller was sent out to do and rather than booking him, saying I don't allow shills and factotums on my show, he signed him up as he knew it would turn out to be a dogfight and go viral in less than a couple of hours. All turned out to be true.

This is not journalism to me but rather talkshow mud wrestling designed to increase ratings, which the struggling Tapper and State of the Union could use.

Monday morning, again on CNN's New Day, cohosts Alisyn Camerota and Chris Cuomo had New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman as a guest. Camerotta pressed her about an interesting subject--

Unlike Michael Wolff who does not have to maintain good relations with the Trump administration--his book is out and he is already making millions in royalties--because she has "to go back to the White House" every day after writing articles that frequently are critical of Trump and his people, does this place her in a compromised position as she needs to remain in the White House's good graces to do her job? Does she have to pull her punches, so to speak, in order to retain access?

Not at all, she in effect said, I report it as I see it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Do you believe that? I'm skeptical.

And then there are my Morning Joe friends, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski who a year and a half ago were cozied up to candidate Donald Trump. When he appeared on their show--it seemed almost daily--their ratings went off the charts. They were even eager to have a close social relationship to their friend "Donald." Wolff reports about their visits, as a closeted couple, to Mar-a-Lago. Apparently during one visit last January, a week after Trump was inaugurated, Jared Kushner and The Donald playfully spatted about who would marry them once they fessed up publicly to their on-going romance.

But things have gone south in their off-camera relationship. Cut off from access, they have been merciless in their attacks on Trump and his inner circle. So much so that Monday morning when Michael Wolff was on their show hustling Fire and Fury, they brought up some of the inaccuracies in his reporting, including those about them! 

But then, rather, than pressing to hold Wolff responsible for his inaccuracies and carelessness, they made excuses for him, saying, the book is less about the accuracy of incidents but about the overall impression that it offers of Trump and his presidency.

In these three examples it is clear why so many Americans are fed up with the media. They see the leading opinion writers and reporters to lack integrity and objectivity. Those who have personal agendas (Joe and Mika) or ideological interests (Tapper and Cuomo) or who are just trying to promote a book (Wolff) or publicize their reporting (Haberman) are most prone to professional self-righteousness and loss of objectivity.  

We progressives, especially, need to clean up our acts since we should not want to give media-bashers additional reasons and evidence with which to attack our credibility. 

January 9, 2018--Jack: One Helluva Book

"I've been watching MSNBC non-stop . . ."

I interrupted, "What? MSNBC? I thought you hated them."

"I do, but I wanted to get a taste of where you and your friends get your news. Or should I say, your opinions."  I hadn't heard from Jack in a few weeks and wasn't unhappy about that. He can get under my skin and cause me agita. "And what a week it's been!"

He's not a drinker but sounded intoxicated. I said, "I'll bet you've had your fill about that book." I didn't think I needed to identify it further.

"It's one helluva book, that I'll give you. But of course it's mainly based on fake news." He chuckled at that.

"In a moment I'll want you to give me examples of where it's fake. I'm sure the Fox News people, who I know you watch, have filled you with their talking points. Amazing, isn't it, that all the Fox people sound the same. From that really mindless show in the morning, Fox & Friends, all the way through the day until Trump's brain has his show--Sean Hannity. At least they dumped that sexual predator, Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention Rojer Ailes."

"You mean like with your guys--Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, and Charlie Rose? I could go on."

"You got me there," I admitted. 

"And are you trying to deny that everyone on MSNBC has the same opinions? Is there any daylight between the views of Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachael Maddow, and Lawrence O'Brien?"

"I agree about that and its not my favorite thing. But you're distracting me. I thought we were talking about the Wolff book and comparing our opinions. Not Fox's, not MSNBC's."

"You're the one who started this by slamming Fox News and their alleged talking points."

"Enough about that," I said, "Let's move on. I want your overall opinion of the book. Assuming you've read it. Even many Trumpers are admitting that though there are lots of specific errors and examples of sloppiness--they rushed to publish it and didn't do a great job of fact checking and editing--they don't detract from the overall story: that everyone agrees that Trump is like a nine-year-old child who needs constant attention and adulation. And, it would appear, is not too smart. Doesn't read, doesn't listen."

"Again, you guys are missing the bigger point."

"I'm listening," I said without intended irony.

"How this book is actually helping Trump."

"This I have to hear."

"Simple. First, who loves this book?" Without waiting Jack added, "The mainstream media. On MSNBC and even CNN it's Michael Wolff nearly 24/7. He was just on Morning Joe for a patty-cake interview that went on uninterrupted for about half an hour. He didn't have to defend himself about factual errors since Joe and Mika did it for him, including sloughing over things he wrote about them and the show that were errors."

"I saw that and that's true. But, again, you're missing the bigger picture--that even with errors of this kind Wolff got the larger story essentially correct. It's in the nature of books of this kind. They live in the world between day-to-day news reporting and more reflective histories."

"Trump's people don't think in these professorial-type terms. What they know is that their boy is being unfairly hounded by the media--of course except by Fox--and they are rising to protect him from them. Wait for his next favorability numbers. I'm betting they'll be up five points."

"That would be pathetic," I said. "How sad that these people still are oblivious to the truth."

"You're deluding yourself," Jack said, "But OK, let's move on to others who are helping Trump shrug off the book."

"Shrug off? That's not what I'm hearing. That Trump's ranting and raving. Especially about Wolff saying Don Junior committed treason. Even you have to admit that's a serious charge."

"Actually, it was Wolff quoting Steve Bannon. And about the charge, not necessarily. If Don Junior was involved in helping the Russians undermine our presidential election, what would you call it? Collusion? Collusion, by the way, is not a legal term or potential crime."

Ignoring my point Jack moved to redirect the conversation. He said, "And then the GOP establishment also loves the book. It may be that they'll pay for that by getting shellacked in the November midterm elections, but for the moment they like the idea that it pulls Trump closer to them and further under their influence. Wounded and vulnerable he needs their endorsement and protective cover. In other words, he's weaker and therefore more pliable. He'll sign anything Congress passes. And he already indicated he'll support all Republican incumbents and not go up against them by campaigning for anti-establishment insurgents as Bannon had him doing."

"That may be true," I acknowledged. "But that's pretty pathetic too."

"Speaking of Bannon," Jack said, "There's also benefit to Trump by the book bringing down Bannon. Nothing else has been able to do that but all the anti-Trump quotes from Bannon will be like driving a stake through his heart. Minimally, it will drive him back to drink. 

"I'm not sure I'm following your point. Nor that when he's desperate Trump will not seek Bannon out."

"It's again a simple point--Trump is better off without Bannon hovering around than he is with him always whispering in his ear. Bannonlessness makes Trump seem more independent, more his own person. His base will eat that up. They like macho."

"Boy, you've gotten cynical."

"That's what hanging around with the likes of you does to me," Jack guffawed. "But, seriously, the bottom line is that to Trump followers the book looks like a hatchet job written by the kind of people they despise, including east coast snobs who think they're smarter than everyone. The see them to be hypocrites who, when on their high horses, criticize conservatives for not telling the whole truth but rationalize it when their people--like Wolff--engage in fake news."

I was reluctant to admit it, but he had some good points. He managed to get under my skin again, but I felt, to be credible, I needed to have my views checked out and challenged. Even by the likes of Jack. If there's something to learn, the source shouldn't matter. Though I sure feel like not answering when I see it's Jack calling!