July 31, 2018--A Fixer Scorned

To paraphrase a line from The Mourning Bride, a play by English author of the late 17th century, William Congreve, Hell hath no fury like a fixer scorned.

The fixer in this case is Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's longtime flunky and factotum who, to save his skin, seems to be singing like a canary to special counsel Robert Mueller and various DAs in New York City.

Last week we had a taste of the beans he is likely spilling since, being no fool, Cohen is able to corroborate some of their dirty dealings through dozens of tapes he made of their larcenous conversations.

The first recording to be leaked was just a morsel, an appetizer. In a two-minute tidbit we heard Trump and his personal lawyer talking about how to pay off Playboy model, Karen McDougal, with whom Trump had an 10-month-long affair. This was two weeks before the 2016 election and the last thing Trump needed was yet another, as they, forgive me, referred to these matters during Bill Clinton's randy time, a "bimbo eruption."

I am certain that Cohen's very clever lawyer and Clinton intimate, Lanny Davis, dangled this before prosecutors as part of a potential plea bargain arrangement with Mueller and the federal attorneys in the Southern District who raided Cohen's various offices and dwellings in April to get the goods on him so he in turn, to avoid spending the rest of his life in jail (Trump will not be able to pardon him from non-federal crimes he assuredly committed in New York) Davis previewed what his client would share as part of the deal--the rest of the tapes and everything else Cohen wisely squirreled away as he knew in his heart that eventually it would come to this: to save himself Trump would throw him under the bus. 

The very same Trump loyalist who proudly said on many occasions that he "would take a bullet" for the big guy.

If there was so much that could be implicating in only these two minutes what more would the dozens of other tapes reveal? One can only imagine. But one can imagine that before signing a get-out-of-jail-free card for the fixer in chief the various prosecutors will insist on hearing all the dirt Cohen has to dish. 

Get ready for a banquet of dish.

For the literary-minded, here is the larger context for the Congreve quote--

"Heav'n has no Rage like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd."

This connection between love and hatred is instructive to a full understanding of the Cohen-Trump bromance.

First a little background--

Cohen grew up in Lawrence, a middle class suburb on Long Island. A place adjacent to Kennedy Airport where jumbo jets thundered over the Cohen house every minute or two, seven days a week, day and night, shaking the building's foundation. But from Lawrence high ground (there isn't much of it) on a clear day little Michael could catch a glimpse of the New York City skyline, 20 long miles away. Sort of like Gatsby peering at the green light at the end of Daisy's dock that symbolizes his hopes and dreams of breaking free from his origins. And sort of like the similar view that the adolescent Donald could strain to see from his Queens, outer-borough childhood home.

Cohen's mother was a nurse and his father a surgeon.

Cohen earned a bachelors degree from American University and, as a less then stellar student, a law degree from Thomas M. Cooley Law School, a diploma mill that came close to losing its accreditation in 2017 and 2018.  After attending a place such as Cooley, no white shoe-law firms in Manhattan were recruiting Cohen and so he had little choice but to began his law career as a personal injury attorney, as an "ambulance chaser," the bottom rung of the plaintiff food chain.

When some years later Trump laid eyes on him he saw a desperate striver, someone hungry to move on and up, but without equivalent street smarts. Someone to use and from whom he could expect unquestioning fealty. Someone if needed who would take a bullet for him.

Cohen was not difficult to reel in. He deluded himself, thinking Trump viewed him as a colleague and kindred spirit, a surrogate son, coming from similar places, having similar aspirations (to get out) but he should have known the truth about the nature of their relationship when Cohen had literally to plead with Trump to get him to come to his son's 2012 bar mitzvah.

Trump came so late, the Wall Street Journal reported, that the blessings were delayed. The future president then gave a speech in which he said he hadn't planned on attending but opted to come after Cohen "begged him to" by repeatedly badgering him, his secretary, and his children. The WSJ said the guests laughed at this, finding it believable, considering what they knew about the one-direction nature of the Trump-Cohen relationship.

And so we now have a sense of the depth and causes of scorned Cohen's feelings and how that unrequited love has turned to hate. 

Cohen thought he was a member of the Trump family but came to discover he was merely hired help.

And we can understand why Trump is again unhinged when he contemplates what Cohen has to share with prosecutors and where as a result the Mueller investigation is heading. 

Over the weekend in a tweet storm Trump (and current flunky, Rudy Giuliani) turned once again to personally excoriating the special counsel, claiming he should step aside because of his having numerous "conflicts of interest," including one I find most bizarre--that Mueller is pursuing Trump because in 2011, when Mueller was F.B.I. director, he had complaints  about membership fees at one of his golf courses. I assume overcharging as he did with Trump University.

Bottom line--Congreve got it right.

Trump National Golf Course

July 30, 2018--The Willing Suspension of Disbelief

I continue struggle to understand more fully why so many Americans believe Donald Trump when so much of what he says is blatantly false. What causes them to suspend the ability to think clearly and instead simply believe.

One explanation put forth by some is that there is a belief gene, a wired human propensity to believe bold narratives and follow without questioning charismatic leaders and non-verifiable doctrines. This would be one reason all peoples through all of history appear to have powerful belief systems that they eagerly follow.

For early humans, some claim, this was essential to survival. Hominoids on their own would be easy prey in a survival-of-the-fittest environment so to increase their chances to thrive it was important for them to band together into hunting and gathering groups. And to coordinate their defenses against those other animals who saw them as potential sources of protein. 

In these kind of tribal realities, to assure working together rather than struggling on their own, various forms of coordinated activity were beneficial. Important to that was the ability to identify and follow capable leaders. To subsume aspects of oneself for the sake of our species living on. 

Tribes not only required strong leaders but also willing followers. Hierarchies emerged as a result and it was helpful if individuals found ways to fit comfortably within them. In contemporary terms this meant the willingness to "sacrifice" aspects of one's individuality and freedom of action. All presumably for the greater good.

It helped if proto-leaders were charismatic, shamanistic, and thus could appeal to the emerging consciousness of the human spirit and that proto-followers, over evolutional-time, would develop the capacity to feel secure when submitting to leaders' origin narratives, promulgated codes of behavior, and ultimately to tribal belief systems.

All aspects of this that added to the likelihood of survival and propagation, over millennia, likely led to natural selection with these survival adaptions entering the human gene pool.

To survive our distant ancestors needed to learn to believe.

Another way of thinking about how this works when most effective is from an insight by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. As a poet and aesthetic philosopher, in 1817 he of course was thinking about the force of artistic narrative--how we willingly suspend disbelief for the sake of enjoyment.

He suggested that if a writer could infuse "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, readers would suspend judgement concerning the implausibility of the narrative.

There also is a potential dark side--"cognitive estrangement" can take advantage of a person's ignorance to promote the suspension of disbelief.

Either way, at the level of literature or in regard to human social behavior (including the propensity to believe things that are not based on truth or evidence) these capacities are pervasive and powerful. 

To bring this to today we can see the same mechanisms occurring in our politics; and though we no longer need to believe to survive, we may be seeing these residual instincts still operating. And if cognitive estrangement is in play, there are forces at work to manipulate and control our thinking and behavior.

July 27, 2018--Hard Ball? T-Ball

John said, "We have to find a way to stop them." He was talking about Republicans in the Senate, which is considering the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

"I would like to agree but how do we do that? The Republicans control the Senate and I think they have the votes to confirm him."

"You're probably right," he said, sounding flat. "But I wish there was a way."

"Until the Gorsuch nomination and confirmation process a year and a half ago there had been. Since 60 votes were required it wasn't easy to muster that many in a closely divided Senate for someone controversial, someone now like Kavanaugh who has written that a sitting president can't be indicted under any circumstances."

"That's half the reason Trump nominated him," John said. "But Mitch McConnell unilaterally changed the rules so that only 51 votes are needed. A simple majority."

"He has the power to do that as Majority Leader. There's nothing in the Constitution about confirming Supreme Court justices. So the Senate has the ability to set whatever rules it wants to organize and govern itself."

"Yeah, he invoked what they call the 'nuclear option.'"

"What kills me," I said, "is how the Republicans, who consider themselves to be conservatives, have no problem doing disruptive, radical things like that. They're hypocrites who have little regard for tradition or congressional history."

John said, "During the first two years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress but they steered away from taking bold action of this kind. It's not just that they are wimps, which they are, but by not invoking the nuclear option because they felt it would undermine traditional senatorial decorum and ways of doing business, they lost the opportunity to enact a bold legislative agenda. They even wound up with a very watered-down Obamacare program. They frittered away the opportunity to govern. Complaining all the time. Which Democrats are very good at. Complaining."

"I agree," John said, "The Republicans play hardball and congressional Democrats play T-Ball."

"McConnell and the Republicans only care about winning. Liberals and Democrats care about being right."

John summed it up, "And so we have what we have."

July 26, 2018--Wow Factor!

My favorite economists are those who are behavioral economists. 

They take on the still widespread efficient-market theorists who contend that in markets asset prices (such as stocks and bonds and real estate) reflect and are based on all available information. That people make economic decisions--they buy this or that stock, buy this or that house--by drawing upon all the information that is openly available from billions of transactions. And thus they are behaving rationally. They want their assets to appreciate as much as possible and if the Market is free--free of misinformation and regulations--people will act after careful thought. They will pursue their best interest and thus over time will be rewarded.

In contrast, behavioral economists cite evidence that people do not make financial decisions all that rationally. Emotion, beliefs not based on evidence, play a larger role in people's choices than efficient-market theorists allow.

My favorite example is how people make decisions about which house to buy.

If they were operating in an efficient-market environment they would take into consideration such things as the asking price (does it conform to the value of nearby, comparable houses); what about taxes and the cost of a mortgage (are they affordable); are the infrastructural systems such as the roof and heating system in good shape; are the schools in the area, based on evidence, of high quality; if it will be necessary to commute what are the traffic and public transportation options; what is the local crime rate.

These are among the issues one would expect those seeking to buy a house would have at the top of their list.

One would think so except that behavioral economists cite evidence that the so-called "wow factor" is more important than anything else when people decide which house to buy. 

Though a house for most is the largest deployment of assets they will ever make, how the house "feels" when they enter it for the first time is more important in shaping which house to purchase than if the seller has priced the house fairly.

I confess, when buying real estate, to having been influenced many times by the wow factor. In each case though we did well when we moved to sell the places a few years later, it was more because of good luck than careful investing.

There was very little that was rational or efficient when we chose to buy these properties.

I was reminded of this earlier in the week after reading in the Times about how owners and workers at Banner Metals in Columbus, Ohio are reacting to Trump's tariffs on steel since they are affecting the bottom line at Banner. They are experiencing delays in the delivery of the materials they need to fulfill orders and because of the increase in the cost of steel and aluminum their bottom line and paychecks for both workers and managers are already feeling the pinch. One would thus think there would be widespread discontent, much of it focused on Donald Trump.

Quite the contrary. Part-owner Bronson Jones was quoted as saying--"I'm not looking at what's best for Banner right now. I'm looking at what's best for the national economy. The United States has been taken advantage of for too long."

Line workers are saying versions of the same thing. Acknowledging that they expect to see less in their paychecks beginning this summer. If their "sacrifice" contributes to the creation of new jobs they say they are willing to pay the price.

The rational or efficient market would predict that Banner employees would care only about their own take home money. But something else is at work here. The behavioral economy.

Also in regard to the Trump tariffs we are already seeing their dampening effect on American agriculture. Especially the multi-billion soybean sector. In politically-crucial Iowa, for example, where Trump will hold a rally in a few days, a large portion of their economy is connected to the global market in soybeans. Most of what they produce winds up in Asia, in China where we are engaged in a widening trade war.

To alleviate the effect on farmers, Trump two days ago announced that he directed the Department of Agriculture to spread $12 billion in subsidies around among soybean farmers to help alleviate their pain. And, politically, to see if he can buy their complicity.

Forgetting for the moment how this exposes Trump as anything but a free-marketeer (about how "creative destruction" is necessary to a thriving capitalist economy), farmers and politicians from red farm states are outraged by what they see to be meddling in the free market. As it turns out, what many of them are saying sounds very much like classic behavioral economics.

Take Nebraska Republican senator Ben Sasse--

This trade war is cutting the legs out of farmers and the White House "plan" is to spend $12 billion on gold crutches. This administration's tariffs aren't going to make America great again, they're just going to make it 1929 again.

Sasse, who has thus far been pretty much a down-the-line Trumpian may be sensing something. It could be that Trump's reckless economic moves are beginning to hit close to home and he's beginning to back off.

Wishful thinking? Probably.

July 25, 2018--Midweek

I was so busy yesterday that I did not have time to do any typing. I will return tomorrow.

July 24, 2018--Pussyfoot

Recently I have been having dreams that take place at my last employer, the Ford Foundation.

Night after night I am being drawn back to the building on 43rd Street, mainly to meetings for which I am embarrassingly unprepared. Sometimes, to humiliate myself further, I show up for these meetings in my pajamas, or less.

In a dream from late last week, I was again at a meeting, this one I initiated and at it were the foundation's president and her most senior Vice President and my favorite colleague, Barry Gaberman. Unusually, this time I was fully dressed and I thought, for once, in command of the situation.

Knowing I was eager to share some insights about the foundation's function and was having difficulty gathering my thoughts and forming my words, to be helpful, calmly, Barry said--

"You're beating around the bush.
Get it off your chest.

Say what's on your mind.
No need to pussyfoot."

In spite of his help and, I never did manage to share my ideas coherently, but this time Barry did what he could to help me work my way through it. That alone offered some measure of consolation.

After waking, reviewing the dream material in an attempt yet again to understand why I continue to be obsessed with the Ford Foundation, I was struck by the series of idioms as the dream's scriptwriter I assigned to Barry. Wondering about their linguistic history I did a little research--

Beating around the bush seemed obvious--what porters and servants do with sticks to flush out from their hiding places animals hunters hope to shoot. Its first appearance is thought to have been from the Middle Ages.

Get it off your chest is not as vivid but from the 18th century on there have accrued a number of idioms that are derived from physiological sources. Having a lump in one's throat is an example. To get something (a weight) off one's chest first appeared in 1902. And then there is the all-too-familiar having something weighing on one's mind. Clearly, the source of many dreams. Which brings us close to the origin of getting something off one's chest. Again, something heavy. And why not consider to have half a mind to ___ and in the back of one's mind, to be of one mind, and the more recent, psychedelic, blow one's mind.

Most interesting by far of Barry Gaberman's stream of idioms is pussyfooting.

In this Trumpian Stone Age I could only imagine its source but was relieved to learn that it has a benign though unexpected origin.

William Eugene "Pussyfoot" Johnson (1862-1945) was an American Prohibition advocate and law enforcement officer. In the Oklahoma Territory, in pursuit of his campaign to outlaw booze, he went undercover, posing as a habitué of saloons in order to collect information against their owners. And, likely, a shot or two. 

He gained the nickname "Pussyfoot" due to his cat-like stealth while tracking down suspects.

Isn't our language wonderful! At least I'm getting something from all these sleep-depriving dreams.

July 23, 2018--Mulligan Summit

In golf, when you hit a bad drive and your ball lands in the pond or deep in the woods, if other members of your foursome agree to your taking another shot without penalty and you do, it's called a Mulligan.  

It is named for an actual person, David Bernard Mulligan, who in the late 1920s played at the Winged Foot golf course in Mamaroneck, NY and was notorious for asking frequently for do-overs.

That's what Donald Trump is up to as he moves to schedule in the fall and in Washington another summit with Vladimir Putin. Or maybe at his Mar-a-Lago golf course. Perhaps the only place he can best Putin. But then black-belt Putin might insist on a Judo match. Vince McMahon CEO of the World Wrestling Federation I am certain would be happy to promote that.

Having to endure so much heat for wimping out at the recent Helsinki summit, Trump is not only trying to take back or redefine half the things he said publicly at their joint press conference and subsequently at last Wednesday's Cabinet meeting, ("would" was really "wouldn't" and "no" was "yes"), realizing this was not enough to take him off the hook (even Trump flunkies Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell managed to squeeze out a few choked words of criticism), Trump wants a Mulligan. And Putin will grant him one since he knows he can humiliate Trump again at a second press conference.

But then there is a possible other scenario. To me, a more interesting one--


At the summit, especially when dealing with the press, in WWF terms, Trump gets Putin to take a dive.

The meeting of course would be scheduled for a few weeks before the November midterm election to have maximum impact on the vote. 

The intention would be to pump up Trump's base (assuming they can be pumped up even more than they already are). To do so, Putin would have to agree to let Trump dominate the summit and its aftermath. Particularly to let Trump criticize him in public (Putin, though, would have to be allowed to roll his eyes). This would permit Trump to masquerade as the strongman he isn't and thereby rehabilitate his deflating persona. To shed the lingering image of him as Putin's lapdog.

Why would this be a good thing for Putin? Enough so that he would allow himself to appear to be diminished?

Out of public view (where the real action is) since Putin owns Trump and has been able to pull his strings for years, nothing would change. In fact, Trump's behavior as Putin's double-agent would be strengthened. If his image as commander-in-chief can be shored up, that would make him more effective when doing Putin's bidding. 

A stronger-seeming Trump would be a better cover story. It would make it less apparent that Putin owns him.

So look for Putin to play along. He will agree to come to Washington or Palm Beach in October for a Mulligan-summit and will let Trump strut around for a few days at his "expense."

If this is the emerging plan, I doubt that Trump without medication can pull it off. He will have a script but he is not good at following scripts and so expect the Mar-a-Lago do-over summit to turn out to be another fiasco. 

July 20, 2018--Jack: When No Is Yes

I have been so agitated about Trump's pathetic behavior at the Helsinki summit and then with his attempts to walk back a number of the more outrageous things he said, that I found myself calling Jack to get a few things off my chest.

"I want you to just listen," I said, not even beginning with "Hello."

"You have 15 minutes before my next appointment. So shoot. There I go again with the shooting business." He chuckled at that. I ignored him as I didn't want to get sidetracked into an argument about the Second Amendment.

"Just listen," I said, racing on, "There have been numerous examples of politicians, including presidents, who said stupid things that they or their people subsequently attempted to clean up, to explain away.

"Let me begin with John Kerry when he was running for president in 2004. He was accused, not entirely unfairly by George W. Bush, of being a flip-flopper. The most enduring example was when he tried to have it both ways when it came time to vote for or against a supplemental defense bill that authorized $87 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"He said, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' Typical John Kerry and so he lost the election.

"Next there's what President Bill Clinton, under oath, said to the grand jury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I wrote it down so I can quote him--

"'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. . . Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

"I'm running out to time," Jack said, "But thus far I like what you're saying--taking it to those two phonies--Kerry and Clinton."

Again I didn't take the bait and continued--"Now let's turn to your boy. Trump."

"Shoot." I could hear him laughing.


"Trying to wiggle out of what he said about Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, on his return to Washington from Helsinki, Trump 'clarified' his position on Russian meddling in the election. Again I wrote it down--

Trump now claims he was 'very strong' with Putin on election meddling

Read more

“'I thought it would be obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn’t. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t, or why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative. So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.'

Among other things do you really believe he knows anything about double negatives?" 

Jack didn't say a word. "So here's another one for you. Also about the aftermath of the summit with Putin. This time about the meaning of 'no' and 'yes.'"

"When asked during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday if he believes Russia is still seeking to meddle in U.S. political affairs, Trump initially answered, 'no,' a remark that led to criticism even from some Republican lawmakers.

After Trump's remarks, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders again tried to, quote, 'clarify' what Trump was saying 'no' to--she said he meant that he wasn't answering any questions at all, that he wasn't responding to the reporter's question itself."

I took a breath--"This is right out of Orwell's 1984. It's doublethink. And before you say that Trump was only doing the same thing as Kerry and Clinton, let me set you straight about that. Kerry was engaging in political spin and no matter how reprehensible it was for Clinton to have sex with Lewinsky and lie about it, what Trump did was of a higher order of magnitude, or a lower order--he violated his oath of office--he wasn't defending and protecting the Constitution conservatives so cherish. That alone justifies considering impeachment."

"Are you done?" Jack asked, "Because if you are I have one thing to say back to you--an Axios poll just came out out about how voters feel about the Helsinki meeting. The poll focused on the joint press conference that you and your people are all bent out of shape about. Well, 79 percent of Republicans said they approved of Trump's performance. What do you say to that?"

"Two things--they're still drinking the Kool-Aid, and 79 percent, as pathetic as that is, is not the usual 90 approval rating Trump gets from people like you. And further, I'll bet that at least half of these people are OK with the Russians meddling in our elections as long as they were helping Trump get elected."

With that, feeling a bit better, I hung up.

July 19, 2018--One-World Government & the Antichrist

I continue to struggle to understand all the reasons why Donald Trump so consistently takes seeming pleasure bashing and undermining global alliances such as the European Union (EU) and NATO. It's not just that he doesn't do "group" very well, preferring bilateral relationships. The reasons are more sinister.

The most obvious reason of course is because by doing Vladimir Putin's bidding Trump contributes to fulfilling Putin's desire to weaken and ultimately dominate the West. Putin has the goods on him and thus Trump is in effect a Putin operative.

Trump is doing a pretty good job of this. Just ask Angela Merkel. Europe's longest standing and most powerful leader is, thanks in significant part to Trump, now hanging by a political thread. Thus expect her to be pushed out of office in the next 6 to 12 months.

Trump is also taking on the EU because by doing so he is pandering to the core of his base--the millennialist-minded evangelicals who, while waiting for the Rapture, support him so fervently that they have little problem overlooking the fact that he has had three wives, has sexually assaulted women, and cavorted with porn stars such as Stormy Daniels.

Part of the End-Time scenario calls for the emergence of the prophesied One-World government and the appearance of the Antichrist, who will preside over it for three-and-a-half years. All will feel oppressed by this government because ultimate power as a result will be concentrated in the hands of the Devil. 

Next, though, will be the Second Coming of Jesus who will establish his own world government, which in time will result in the cataclysmic death of us all and the resurrection for some during the Last Judgement. (See, for example, endtimes.com.)

According to the Christian fringe (which in fact is quite large, variously estimated to be up to a third of Americans--again Trump's base) there have already been a number of organizations that might qualify as this End-Time government as well as who might be the Antichrist.

First, since the early 1970s there is the Trilateral Commission. Founded and funded by David Rockefeller, it is a non-partisan discussion group whose agenda is to foster closer cooperation among Japan, Western Europe, and North America. Millennialists see the Commission quite differently--as an organization that wants to overthrow the current world order.

As might be imagined, David Rockefeller himself was an Antichrist candidate as was Commission member Henry Kissinger.

Then there was the United Nations. An obvious choice with various of its secretary generals suspected to be the Antichrist.

And currently the most likely New-World Order government is the EU. Among other things that make this suspicion persuasive is the belief that its euro is the kind of universal currency prophesied in the Bible as evidence that the time is approaching when the Antichrist will appear.

The list of possible Antichrists is lengthy and diverse. It includes--

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of ISIS (I vote for him)
Alexis Tsipras, prime minister of Greece
Emmanuel Macron, president of France
Barack Obama (not much of a surprise)
Jared Kushner (he does need a real job)
Hillary Clinton (the only woman on the list)
And Canadian prime minister Justine Trudeau, who qualifies because he is anti-Zionist, pro-global government, promotes lawlessness and immorality, and is the leader of the northernmost country on earth--some scholars argue that the "king of the North" is the Antichrist. 

This is what is swirling around in the heads of a majority of Trump's people. It also helps explain why Trump is so motivated to destroy NATO and the European Union.

July 18, 2018--President Munchausen

We were in New York City most of last week to do some routine doctoring and to see a few close friends and family members.

Good news on all fronts though it seems, without symptoms, I may have Lyme Disease again and either had or have Shingles.

One other thing--we were reminded again that while up in Maine we spend very little time watching cable news or pretty much anything else but when in NYC we watch too much. And, so, in town we did some reverting. At 6 a.m. I automatically turned on Morning Joe and we found ourselves watching Nicole Wallace's show later in the day.

This brought Trump front and center back into our lives. 

Halfway into Morning Joe Monday morning we realized why we keep the TV off most of the time during the six months we spend in Maine--what's available is too boring and/or too depressing.

Monday was all about Trump in Europe. First, there was a live feed from the NATO meeting in Brussels where over what appeared to be breakfast without food Trump in a monologue berated NATO members for not spending enough on their own defense. How they take advantage of us, expecting America to pick up the tab while they devote much of their GNP to overgenerous welfare programs for their citizens and the millions of refugees they foolishly allow to flood into their countries. 

The headline from that meeting was Trump slandering Germany and chancellor Angela Merkel for being held "captive" by Russia since Germany spends "billions and billions, many billions" of dollars for natural gas that flows into Germany from Russia. Germans, Trump claimed, get "70 percent" of their energy this way and thus are in effect hostages of Russia.

When I said to Rona that this figure is much too high (it turns out to be that "only" 13 percent of German's energy is supplied by Russia), she said, "More Munchausen Syndrome."

"You've referred to that before," I said, "Since I never heard of this I should have looked it up. Tell me, what is it?"

"It's a fictitious disorder, a mental disorder in which a person repeatedly and deliberately acts as if they have an illness when he or she isn't really sick."

"Like being a hypochondriac."

"Similar but there's a key difference--people with Munchausen's know they are faking it whereas hypochondriacs believe they are sick."

"So how does this work with Trump, who you say has a version of Munchausen's?"

"In many cases people with Munchausen's make illnesses up in part to elicit sympathy but also to 'cure' themselves when they want to boast by 'getting over' illnesses which they in fact never had. Like Trump does with facts or the truth. Unless he is more pathological than most people think, he knows he's making this stuff up. Like with Germany and Russian gas."

"Interesting but are their also parallels between classic Munchausen's where people 'cure' the illnesses they made up and Trump's relationship to the truth?"

"Take the business with Angela Merkel. He made up the 70 percent number, using it to verbally beat her up all day and then after they met one-on-one later that day or on Tuesday, he backed off from criticizing her and was full of praise for her and Germany. So among his followers he got credit for what he claimed while lying (his people hate the Europeans) and then later among the better informed, more serious crowd, he got some begrudging credit for appearing to have listened and moderated his position."

"I like this," I said.

"He did the same thing with British prime minister Theresa May. First he mocked her for getting in trouble when trying to implement Brexit because she didn't 'take his advice' but then after private meetings with her later in the week in England, he took much of it back, praising her for the way she is struggling with this complicated issue. First he made up the situation (her not taking his advice) and then took it back--in a sense overcame it in true Munchausen fashion."

"Is Munchausen a real person?"

"Of course not! That's half the fun. There's a fictional Baron Munchausen, an 18th century German nobleman who made up stories about the remarkable feats he performed like riding a cannonball or fighting a 40-foot long crocodile. Much like Trump's boasting. Then when caught in the lie that he knew was a lie he simply backed off.

"And when in the 1950s it came time to study and then name a new syndrome that had Munchausen-like aspects to it the psychiatrists named it for him. If they were doing that now I suppose it could be called Trump Syndrome."

Now, back in Maine, the TV is off except for Wimbledon and the World Cup. Thankfully, both are over.

But then there was the disastrous meeting with Vladimir Putin and . . .

Baron Munchausen

July 17, 2018--Trump's Presser

In case you missed it, here's a transcript of President Trump's presser with Vladimir Putin--

Q: Mr. president, did you confront President Putin about Russia's hacking Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 election?

A: Server, server, server . . .  no collusion, no collusion, zero collusion . . . Server, server, server, server . . . Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton . . . No collusion, no collusion, no collusion . . . Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama . . . Server, server, server, server.

Q: Thank you Mr. President. 

July 16, 2018--Bromance In Helsinki

Here's what to expect today in Helsinki at the Trump-Putin summit--

Putin publicly will throw Trump a crumb or two. 

Just enough to make it appear that the president's strategy of "befriending" the Russian dictator in a one-on-one relationship is paying off.

Trump has already delivered for the Russian leader (even before he became president) and so, from his friend Vladimir Putin's perspective, he deserves his little reward.

Trump has shrugged off Putin's crimes in Crimea and the Ukraine; he has destabilized and thus weakened both NATO and the European Union (to Trump the EU is a "foe"); he has undermined the political standing of British prime minister, Theresa May (she mishandled Brexit because she didn't take his "advice"); and done all he could to undercut Europe's dominant economy and leader, Angela Merkel, claiming Germany is a "captive" of Russia; and Trump has ignored Putin's meddling in our presidential election and thus tampered with our democracy.

You and I even know why Trump has functioned as Putin's lackey--

Putin has the goods on him. 

Remember that infamous BuzzFeed dossier, the one that reports on Trump's private business dealings in Russia (some of them likely illegal) as well as those incendiary claims that Trump in 2013, while in Russia for the Miss Universe Pageant, cavorted with prostitutes and intentionally sullied the same hotel suite used by Michelle and Barack Obama. My guess is that Putin has a KGB video tape of those golden showers.

Thus, to help keep his boy propped up expect Putin to say he will personally investigate what's behind the recent indictment by the Mueller team of a dozen Russian intelligence operatives. Pretending to know nothing about it he will agree to look into the charge that they directly hacked Hillary Clinton's campaign and he will, with a straight face, promise to report what he finds directly to Trump. (Don't hold your breath waiting for the results of that investigation.) 

Also, expect Putin to say he will order his military to work more closely with America's special forces to coordinate the hunt in Syria for the remnants of ISIS (again, resist holding your breath); and, as a bonus for Trump being such an important member of the Putin team, the Russian president will agree to open bilateral discussions leading to a plan to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons. (Once more don't . . .)

Then, speaking of nuclear weapons, Putin will praise Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-un and will agree to use his non-existing influence to press Kim to actually denuclearize. My advice--again, don't hold your breath for any of this to happen. It's all about the pretending and photo-ops.

At the end of their private meeting, at a joint press conference, metaphorically speaking, expect nothing but hugs and air kisses. 

And after that, expect nothing. Except Putin's relentless campaign to weaken all aspects of American and Western European life. With Trump continuing to clear the way for him.

July 13, 2018--Didn't Get It Done

It took 8 hours to get from NYC to Maine and so I didn't get any writing done. I will for certain reappear on Monday.

July 12, 2018--Friday

I will be back here on Friday with thoughts about the NATO summit. 

July 11, 2018--A Day In NYC

We're in NYC for a couple of days to get some routine doctoring done. Though my underlying condition remains stable (which is good) my doctor found that I have Shingles (with no symptoms) and he thinks Lyme Disease again (also without symptoms). 

So I am considering myself fortunate and can't wait to get back to Maine.

Tomorrow I expect to have a few choice things to say about Trump.

July 10, 2018--Audiological Tale: Fox News (Concluded)

Ten days later, when I was scheduled to bring back my loaner hearing aid and pick up my new one, Rona and I drove up to Rockport.

In Dr. Schwartzberg's office, before he could fit me with the new device, Rona said to Gary, "I think I know what you're up to."

He immediately put on his blank face. Clearly he was moving to protect himself from who knew what.

"From the day we last saw you, less than two weeks ago, I've noticed changes in Steven's behavior." Rona paused to see if he would engage her or just keep on staring.

It was unusual for Rona to take the lead while at his office. After a moment she continued, "I could be wrong about this because I didn't keep notes of what I was observing."

Engaged now, Gary said, "This is sounding interesting. Please, tell me what you've been noticing and what you make of it." He slid his chair toward Rona but close enough to me so that I would be able to hear everything, even if either of them spoke softly. I thought so I wouldn't feel left out and think they were whispering about my condition behind my back. 

"Like you, Steven is progressive. Politically." Gary nodded, "On his blog he frequently writes about political issues." Gary rolled his eyes as he knew I was more than interested in what was going on--I was obsessed. "He is so involved with trying to figure out what is happening that in addition to gobbling up everything he can find that's critical of Trump and his supporters he even samples what's being broadcast on middle-of-the-night rightwing talk radio, especially Fox News."

I jumped in, saying, "It's not that I spend a lot of time listening to what they're saying, how they spin things, it's more as Rona says, to understand them better, to know what we're up against. So I check them out. There's just so much that I can take of the likes of Sean Hannity or the well-named Michael Savage, whose real name, by the way, also is appropriate--Michael Weiner."

"That's his story," with an edge, Rona said, shrugging in my direction.

"So then what's your story?" Now eager to hear, Gary slid closer to her.

"Since we saw you he's been doing a lot more than checking out what's on the conservative media. For example, he's been spending more time than usual tuned in to that Trump enabler, Laura Ingraham. Even at times watching her whole show." She folded her arms across her chest and vibrated her foot so violently I was afraid she was going to topple out of her chair. 

Gary was now smiling broadly. He asked me, "Do you have anything to report?"

"I don't agree," I waved toward Rona, "I'll admit that I tend at times perhaps to be a little over-involved," Rona snorted, "But there's no way I would watch more than a few minutes of Laura Ingraham's show. I find her to be part of the Trump propaganda machine. I maybe turn her on for five or ten minutes to see what's she's up to and to get a preview of what Trump's talking points will be the next day since Fox helps set his agenda."

"So what do you make of that?" he asked Rona.

"It's bogus. Baloney. Like I said, last night, I swear, he watched her entire show. And worse, I saw him nodding his head. Nodding his head because of something she said! Next thing you know he'll be wanting Fox to rehire Bill O'Reilly."

A tense silence descended between Rona and me. We had never spatted while with Gary. Some of the hearing loss issues are tense and emotional. I hate to be so hard of hearing and as a result need hearing aids. Depend upon them. It's an aging thing, and always Rona has been beyond sensitive to my frustrations about the inevitable lose of some of my powers. So we always tread lightly about anything potentially too upsetting when in Gary's office.

I sensed that he was uncomfortable witnessing our increasing edginess. 

Finally, he said, "I don't want to put you through any more of this."

"You're behind this?" I said, "About what Rona claims is happening? Whatever that is?"

He looked away, but, nodding, said, "Yes. I was running a little experiment with you."

"An experiment with me? Without letting me know?" I was upset but also relieved.  Maybe whatever he had to say would help reconcile Rona and me.

"Forget the CIA business you brought up the last time you were here. And all the things you wrote last year. The stories you made up."

I said, "I'm beginning to sense that rather than your wanting us to forget about the CIA because there's nothing there it's because there is something there. A connection to you that you are trying to keep hidden. Maybe even in regard to this little experiment you mentioned. It's just as I've suspected for two years. There's a covert side to you." I raised my hands triumphantly and swung around toward Rona, who was looking quizzically at Gary.

"Before you come to any conclusions let me explain." Not waiting for either of us to respond, he said, "You know I'm interested in neurology. A lot of my involvement with hearing and its correction is neurological. How the brain adapts to the loss of hearing, or, for that matter, sight. If one ear or eye has a problem the brain adjusts. As some would describe the process, it remaps itself. If there is lose of brain function--including how it effects hearing or sight--other parts of the brain have at least some capacity to take over. You recall when I first fit you for hearing aids we went through a three-month process of adjustments. As your brain got used to the hearing aids I tuned to one level what you were hearing began to feel more and more comfortable, more natural. As if you didn't have aids at all. And then I pushed their capacity a little higher and over a few weeks your brain adapted again. Remapped itself."

"I remember all that," I said, "It was fascinating and you described it at the time very well." I was moving slowly to consider letting him off the hook.

"Switching subjects," he said, "As someone as politically interested as you I thought you might like to participate in my little experiment. I couldn't tell you about it in advance--maybe all things considered and how you both reacted, I should have. I didn't and I apologize for that, even though it would have spoiled the experiment. Because then there would have been the placebo effect."

"Get to the point," I said, "You have patients in the waiting room. And to tell you the truth all of this is exhausting me."

Pressing on, Gary said, "Are you aware of the experiments and literature in behavior genetics that suggest a large portion of one's political ideology is genetically influenced? Some reputable scientists claim that up to 40 percent of our political attitudes could be hardwired in our DNA. Not subject to external influence. Like what gets said on Fox or MSNBC. That doesn't affect us at all."

I said, in fact I have read about this. Including in a book by Hibbing called Predisposed. "It's controversial but if even half true it's important to understand and deal with the reality. It would help explain some of the behavior of the hard right."

"And," Rona said, "Let's not forget the hard left. They or we can be pretty rigid too about political issues."

"Touché," Gary said, now smiling again. "For example, there have been findings that suggest openness to experience, which can in large part be genetic, predicts liberal ideology and conscientiousness, also in part genetic, often goes with a conservative orientation."

"Again, though interesting, how does this relate to your so-called little experiment?"

"I know of course that Steven is a liberal and if the science about this is accurate a large part of that may be genetically predisposed. As with the rest of us. Let's say the genetics of this is true. What we don't know is if any of the predisposed part might be alterable. Or is it untouchable. Once a Democrat always a Democrat. Or a conservative. Political campaigns as a result tend to focus pretty exclusively on the non-hardwired part of the electorate. Which is understandable. With my neurological interest I'm interested in the non-genetically-influenced part."

Attempting to follow, though exhausted, Rona and I were intrigued. 

Sensing this, with enthusiasm, Gary said, "Though it is claimed that we can't do much about what's hardwired, maybe in fact we can in various, yes, covert ways, affect the way people think and ultimate vote. And so . . . think about what might be possible . . . What could be . . . Who knows the good . . ."

Tired by the effort, I could feel him considering the possibilities.

"I'm out of gas," I said, interrupting, "It's been a long day."

"I'm done," Gary said.

"Not quite," Rona said, "You still haven't described the specific details of the experiment."

He rose from his chair, also weary, and stood behind me, placing his hands on my shoulders. I twisted to look up at him. He removed the bronze, loaner hearing aid and held it up, being sure we both could see it. Then placed it carefully in a small box on his work table.

"Think about it," he said, "Think about all of this."

And with that, gently, into my left ear, he pressed the new device and turned toward the waiting room. My hearing was immediately restored.

With so much to consider we drove home barely exchanging a word. Later, we both confessed that what he had shared with us was exciting and important. Even if we hadn't understood it all.

July 9, 2018--Audiological Tale: Fox News (Part One)

"You remember of course what happened in Cuba?"

I was at audiologist Gary Schwartzberg's office in Rockport to have earwax removed from my left ear where it was interfering with my hearing aid. I felt as if this side of my head was under water. And so I wasn't eager to get drawn into one of his looping discussions that typically wind up in a very different place from where they begin. Ordinarily I liked trailing along with him, he has a very interesting mind and great sense of humor, but not this time as I was uncomfortable and cranky.

"Now the same thing is happening in China."

"Can we talk about this after you see what needs to be done? I'm experiencing some pain. Not to say I can barely hear anything." I tapped my left ear to illustrate and yanked the aid out, thrusting it at him.

"Sure, sure. Sorry. It will only take a minute. I'll vacuum you out and you'll be as good as new. Then we can talk about . . ."

As a reminder as to why I was there I poked at my ear again, "That'll be the day. I know, I'll be as good as new."

Seeing I was in an agitated mood without further delay he took me down the hall to the treatment room where he had the earwax removal machine. As the process is a bit painful on other days when I've been less upset and not feeling sorry for myself, to lighten the mood I called it the Torture Chamber. More than a slight exaggeration.

Peering into my ear canal with his otoscope, I could barely hear him say, "Yes, yes. It looks quite occluded. Hold still. It will only take a minute." 

Some minute, I thought. He inserted the probe and turned on the vacuum pump. I gripped the arms of the chair and gritted my teeth so hard I was afford I might break them off at the gum line. I was again acting like a baby. Indulging myself by feeling sorry about my state of affairs and worrying that this might turn into a permanent condition. When my anxiety takes over this is where I go.

"Back to the other room," Gary said, upbeat again, "We're done with the torture part of the program. This should bring you some relief."

I mumbled something incoherent, not ready yet to engage his bubbly side. And, to tell the truth, with the hearing aid back in place, with my left ear, I wasn't hearing that well.

"Let me take it apart," he said, continuing to sound optimistic, "The problem might also be with the device itself." He swiveled to his work table and in less than a minute had the aid broken down into its component parts. They're tiny and so he peered at them with a magnifying device.

I was able to hear well enough to understand some of his mutterings. He was saying that one of the miniature microphones was corroding. "Don't see this often," he said, taking an even closer look in the tiny cavity where the microphones are located.

Then swinging back to me, in a loud voice so I could hear, he told me it was beyond repair and, the good news, since it was still covered by the three-year guarantee he could get me a new one.

"It will take up to a couple of weeks," he said, "But I think that's what makes most sense. In the meantime, I have a loaner that can get you from now until then. How does that sound?" he asked, grinning, feeling good about his ability to take care of the problem and knowing me well enough that this would help get me to stop obsessing that all was hopeless and that the next thing I would need was a cochlear implant.

"Can we now talk about China?" he said.

"What's with China?" I had calmed down enough to actually be interested in what was on his mind.

"You remember about a year ago there was the feeling that Russia was behind what they called a 'sonic attack' on workers in the American embassy in Havana?"

"I do," I said, "In fact I suspected you were somehow involved with this," he stopped smiling, "How, I thought as part of your audiological doctoral studies you did research about how high-frequency sound could be weaponized if bad people decided to exploit it. It could be used as a form of psychological warfare, including when torturing prisoners, and how . . ."

He cut me off. "We've been down this road before," he said, wearily, "You even wrote about it and posted stories about me on your blog. I told you at the time that you have an overactive imagination. Which was an understatement. That I never worked for the Pentagon or CIA of, for that matter, any governmental agency."

"Of course that's what they train you to say. You can deny and pretend all you want but at the time, last year, I gathered quite a bit of evidence that you were or might even still be involved. This area of Maine is home to dozens of intelligence types. Retired and otherwise. You would fit right in."

Dr. Schwartzberg stared blankly back at me.

But I was on a roll, "In fact, I suspected you were also using me as one of your subjects. While testing me and getting me the hearing aids I needed and adjusting them every month until they were just right for me, you played with my mind, making me crazy at times while at others I enjoyed what you were up to--it added spice to my otherwise routine life."

He showed me his poker face and then said, "And now we are learning that the Chinese are doing the same thing to our embassy in Beijing. A sonic attack. Maybe as part of the tariff war that Trump is launching."

"Why do you keep bringing this up if you're not somehow involved?" I pretended to be exasperated. The fluid in my ear had stopped gurgling and I was enjoying recalling last year's events and what he might be drawing me into this year.

"It's just because you seemed interested. Recall," he said, "last year you're the one who brought up the attacks in Cuba, asking if I had an opinion about it. I thought that was part of your research. That you were wanting to write about it. And so . . ."

"I just realized," I blurted out, "That last year I also had trouble with my left hearing aid. You had to send it to Starkey to have it serviced and while I waited for it to get back to you you gave me a loaner. Remember?" 

He resumed staring.

"It's all coming back to me," I said, feeling excited, "You told me, remember, that it came from one of your patients. A Czech woman who lived in Camden, I think, who had died and her family returned her hearing aids so you could use them as loaners. Sort of like how people leave their corneas and lungs and other organs to be transplanted to people who need them."

At this comparison, I thought I saw the flicker of a smile.

"And do you remember how, through that loaner hearing aid, "I was hearing from her. From the woman who had died. She was communicating with me, I thought, from 'the other side.'"

Recalling that, with my heart racing and out of breath, I felt gleeful.

I continued, "You told me I was either crazy or making up stories, as you claimed I am prone to do. Especially in my writing. But the loaner you're wanting me to use is the same one, right? I even remember the color. Bronze. How many bronze hearing aids are there? I'm right, aren't I?" 

His face was frozen, not giving anything away. We locked eyes on each other in a test to see who would blink first.

"What the heck," I finally said, as if to myself, but in fact to Gary, "What else do I have to do. I know I'm not going to go deaf from your machinations. I know you wouldn't play around with that even if you were full-time CIA It's still America, right?

End of Part One . . .

July 9, 2018--Didn't Get Enough Done

I didn't get done what I expected to be able to do and so I will not be posting anything until Monday.

July 3, 2018--Two-Day Holiday

We are regraveling our road and I exhausted myself helping. So, to recuperate, I am taking two days off but will return on Thursday and Friday with a new two-part Audiological Tale.

Happy Fourth!

July 2, 2018--Jack: Born On the 4th of July

"Happy birthday!"

"My birthday is in October," I said to Jack who was on the phone, sounding celebratory, "I'm confused."

"I was born on the 4th of July, wouldn't you know it, and I call all my liberal friends to remind them about how it was when America was great. When we had our freedom."

Here we go, I thought, but said, "July 4th isn't until Wednesday and I assume you have at most one or two calls to make, considering I'm probably one of your only liberal friends."

"You'd be surprised," he said.

"I'm sure I would be. But in the meantime, happy July 2nd."

"I assume you've read the Declaration of Independence."

"I sort of know it by heart--'When in the course of human events . . .' We were required to memorize the first few paragraphs in elementary school."

"You mean when America was great," he repeated himself, chuckling, "Before all the political correctness. These days, since the Declaration didn't free the slaves or talk about women's rights it's probably ignored in history class, that is if kids these days even take history."

"About that we probably agree. Not much history is being learned these days. Or evolution." 

He liked that. "You know we conservatives like the Declaration more than the Constitution. The Constitution is about what kind of government we are to have while the Declaration is about what to do when the government becomes oppressive. How to change it. Even how to overthrow it. That was a big deal to Jefferson. Didn't he call for governments to be overthrown every few years? Every generation? I think he called this, 'throwing the government off.'"

"Glad to see you know at least some history. And about the differences between the two documents. We may agree about that too. Though we have differences, other big differences. I don't see the government in general being oppressive. Aspects of it, yes. Especially now with Trump as president, ironically, though he calls for less government in fact many of the things he's been doing are making the government even bigger and more oppressive. Think what it would be like if you were an American Muslim. Or an immigrant Dreamer. You wouldn't feel too free now."

"Speaking of immigrates, have you been to any big political demonstrations lately?"

"What about this past Saturday? Doesn't that count?"

"Not impressive. Relatively few marchers showed up. Sure wasn't like the Pussy thing or the one organized by Parkland High School survivors. Millions across the country participated then. This one was hardly publicized or covered by the press."

"Again, it looks like we agree."

"Just more evidence that you guys are out of gas. If you were serious about protecting your rights--like for women and gays, immigrants and the Supreme Court--shouldn't you be planning a huge 4th of July protest? A massive march on Washington? Reading of the Declaration? To show that you're unified and riled up. Not just heading out to the Hamptons or the Macy's fireworks thing. That you're willing to forgo your BBQs. Of course I'm not unhappy about this, but you and your friends should do some hard thinking about how to rally your people. To have a chance in November you have to out-organzie us. We're all jazzed up again with the prospect of Trump appointing another Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. If that doesn't get you marching I don't know what will. The Supreme Court is one vote away from overturning. Roe v. Wade. I hate that idea, by the way, because I'm a libertarian and support a woman's right to choose."

"It must be your birthday," I said, "Because again I tend to agree with you. We progressives have to get even more serious and mobilized."

"I've got to run," Jack said, "I have more calls to make. In the meantime, fair warning."