February 28, 2019--Michael Cohen

I gorged on Michael Cohen's appearance before the House Oversight Committee and thus did not have time or energy to write anything.

Minimally, Donald Trump did not have a good day--

Cohen presented some documentary evidence that Trump may have committed a number of felonies and his talks with Kim Jong-un collapsed. So much for that bromance.

Let's see what today brings.

February 27, 2019--Nuked

I don't know how I feel about the list of targets in the U.S. that the Russians just announced could be nuked if we deploy new intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe.

Expecting that these targets for their "hypersonic" missiles would include Washington and New York, I was surprised (pleasantly?) that the targets include the Pentagon, various military bases, and Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains.

I am oriented to think this way as a former Cold War kid who grew up in Brooklyn, which at the time was threatened with nuking if, as it was feared, the Cold War turned hot. 

In fact, the Brooklyn Navy Yard (only a few miles from where I lived) was ground zero. Or was it Times Square? Either way, in spite of take-cover drills in which I participated at PS 244 and then Brooklyn Tech High School (walking distance to the Navy Yard), I would still be vaporized if one landed in Brooklyn or incinerated in a firestorm or rendered radioactive if a missile struck Times Square. 

None of these fates were very attractive.

So, Camp David, featured on the new list, felt relatively benign. Though it would be better, I perversely thought, if the Russians want to get under Trump's skin to leave Camp David off the target list (Trump doesn't much like it there--too primitive and no golf course) and switch the target to Mar-a-Lago.

Of course, I'm just being silly. About Mar-a-Lago, not the Trump-Putin threat. They are scary.

February 26, 2019--Express to Nowhere

Remember the "bridge to nowhere?" It was to connect nowhere with nowhere.

It was a nearly $500 million boondoggle project in Alaska paid for by earmarks, pork-barrel legislation, in which a project is funded by a stroke of a senior member's pen rather than having to go through the normal legislative authorization process. Powerful Alaskan Senator Ted (Uncle Ted) Stevens was the force behind the infamous bridge since it meant jobs for his constituents. It was never completed as the plug for it was pulled in 2005 when earmarks in general were under attack by "good government" forces.

Now, in California, we have the train to nowhere. 

With the help of billions in federal taxpayer dollars there was a plan to build a high-speed rail line that was to connect the state's Central Valley to Silicone Valley. As originally budgeted a decade ago it was projected to cost $45 billion. But it swelled to $98 billion, more than doubling, and so the newly elected governor, Gavin Newsom, recently cancelled it. 

To tweak dark blue state California, Trump moved swiftly to criticize it as an example of governmental incompetence and corruption and is attempting to claw back $3.5 billion of federal dollars, presumably planning to use the liberated money to help build his Wall.

The California plan called for 171 miles of high-speed rail. About half of that is in various forms of completion. In contrast, during the decade since the California High-Speed Rail Authority was established, China has built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail.

I am reminded of another rail project that is way over budget and taking forever to complete--the Second Avenue subway in New York City.

It was first proposed in 1919, but work on phase one did not begin until 1972. It was halted just three years later and wasn't resumed until 2007. The initial phase, two miles of tunnel and three stations, was completed ten years later, in 1917. It cost $4.45 billion and was more than $500 million over budget. 

There are three more phases planned. The second is projected to be completed by 2029 and when all four phases are finished it will be 8.5 miles long and include 16 stations.

New York City has a total of 236 miles of subway track and 472 stations. It was built in about 50 years. At the rate the Second Avenue Subway is being worked on, to construct that many miles of tunnel, track, and stations would take 1,180 years and cost about $600 billion. Of course, plus billions over budget.

February 25, 2019--Mitt Who??

Rona said--"Do you remember someone named Mitt something-or-other?"

"You must mean Mitt Romney."

"That could be. I think he ran for president a few years ago and then disappeared only to resurface when he had some tough things to say about Trump and Trump University."

"Yeah, he called Trump a phony and that his promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University."

"I remember that," Rona said, "Romney also said that Trump was playing Americans for suckers. If I have this right, he also said that Trump was getting a free ride to the White House and all we're getting in return is a lousy MAGA hat."

"That's why I thought he'd be a maverick once he got to the Senate. In the mold of John McCain."

"Then, if I have this straight, he ran for the Senate from Utah where I think he won."

"Yes, it's coming back to me," I said, "I remember seeing Mike Pence swearing him in. I assumed they hated each other and I enjoyed, I'll admit, watching Pence squirm."

"It was as if Romney had him targeted in crosshairs. Though I shouldn't put it that way since clueless Roger Stone got himself in trouble last week for threatening his judge when he tweeted about her being in crosshairs."

"It seemed obvious that Romney got himself elected to position himself for another go at the presidency, either running in 2020, if Trump decides not to seek reelection or, if he thinks he can win the nomination, he decides to challenge Trump in the primaries." 

"And of course Pence is thinking the same thing."

"So," I said, "we expected to enjoy watching Romney and Trump going at each other and of course waiting for more Trump criticism from Senator Romney."

"It's all coming back to me," Rona said.

"And?"

"And nothing. Literally nothing. I was beginning to think, since he's been so invisible, that I was hallucinating about Romney winning Orrin Hatch's old Senate seat."

"It is weird," I said, "One would have expected Romney to have a few choice things to say about Trump's bogus national emergency."

"I can't explain it," Rona said. "What kind of power does Trump have over even someone like Romney who has more money than Trump and very few skeletons in his closet that Trump can threaten him about?"

"It's scary. If someone like Romney is too intimidated to speak out, to at least say something, I'm afraid we may be cooked."

Rona said, "My thoughts exactly."

February 22, 2019--Coddling of the American Mind

Greg Lukianoff's and Jon Haidt's, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up A Generation For Failure, offers a convincing analysis of how the rise of "fearful parenting"; the decline of unsupervised, child-directed play; and the new world of social media that have engulfed teenagers have led to major changes in childhood itself. Much of it not for the better.

As a sidebar, there is an excellent summary of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and how the issues it was developed to address are among the developmental consequences of this new childhood.

CBT focuses on a cognitive feedback loop in which irrational negative beliefs can produce powerful negative feelings, which in turn drive clients' reasoning, motivating them to find evidence to support their negative, emotion-based beliefs. This produces a cognitive triad that can cause depression and a negative pattern of self-regard: "I'm no good," "My world is bleak," and "My future is hopeless."

CBT therapists work with clients to help them break the disempowering feedback cycle (which they call schemas). If people work to examine these beliefs and consider counterevidence, it frequently gives them some relief from negative emotions so that they can hopefully be released from them and become more open to questioning their negative feelings, thereby rising from their depression and becoming more positively oriented and activated.

I have found this approach to be helpful in my own life and thought it might be for yours as well.

To become less theoretical and more specific, the list below shows nine of the most common cognitive distortions that people learn to recognize while undergoing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.  

EMOTIONAL REASONING:  Letting your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.  "I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out."  

CATASTROPHIZING:  Focussing on the worst possible outcome and seeing it as most likely.  "It would be terrible if I failed."  

OVERGENERALIZING:  Perceiving a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident.  "This generally happens to me.  I seem to fail at a lot of things."

DICHOTOMOUS THINKING (also known variously as "black-and-white thinking, ""all-or-nothing thinking," and "binary thinking"):  Viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms.  "I get rejected by everyone," or "It was a complete waste of time."

MIND READING:  Assuming that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts.  "He thinks I'm a loser."

LABELLING:  Assigning global negative traits to yourself or others (often in the service of dichotomous thinking).  "I'm undesirable," or "He's a rotten person."

NEGATIVE FILTERING:  You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives.  "Look at all the people who don't like me."

DISCOUNTING POSITIVES:  Claiming that the positive things you or others do are trivial, so that you can maintain a negative judgement.  "That's what wives are supposed to do-so it doesn't count when she's nice to me," or "Those successes were easy, so they don't matter."

BLAMING:  Focussing on the other person as the source of your negative feelings; you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself.  "She's to blame for the way I feel now," or "My parents caused all my problems."

February 21, 2019--Putin

The Mueller investigation is reaching a crescendo. 

The New York Times story that yesterday was widely read and circulated revealed how Trump for more than two years has attempted to cover up and undermine that investigation. In fact it shows how Trump attempted to have Mueller fired, as if that would pull the plug on it. He forgot to recall how when Nixon fired almost everyone during the Saturday Night Massacre it didn't end the Watergate crisis but instead was like adding an accelerant such as gasoline to an already smoldering fire.

For some time I have been arguing here that though Mueller and the Attorney General might be fired, minimally, what Mueller has unearthed will come to light. I feel certain that he or members of his team have copied emerging iterations of their report on a jump drive and, if all else fails, will make sure the public learns what they have uncovered.

All they need to do is make a copy on a thumb drive that would fit easily in a pocket, walk out the door, and call 1 800 New York Times. A version of the same thing Daniel Ellsberg did to circulate the formerly secret and devastating Pentagon Papers.

I also have speculated that as his work begins to wrap up, as an additional strategy to make sure the public and Congress is informed, he will begin to allow the leaking of key findings. To that end, I suspect someone high up in Mueller's operation is the key source for the Times story.

So expect more leaks and ultimately copies of the full report. Bootleg if necessary. 

It is possible that the new Attorney General, Robert Barr, will act honorably, not seeing himself as former acting AG, Matt Whitaker, perceived to be his role--Trump's protector. As he was quoted in the Times, Whitaker was the person designated to "jump on a grenade" for Trump. Which incidentally he did not do when asked to by his president.

And while Mueller is at it, in addition to the 25 Russians and three Russian companies he has already charged with crimes, why not, as Rona wryly suggested yesterday morning, indict Vladimir Putin? Though he would not be extradited to face trial in the United States, it would make quite a statement about how we view the rule of law and, though our president is, we aren't Putin's puppets.

February 20, 2019--Tony Soprano

I might have misheard but early yesterday morning on CNN someone was talking about the far-reaching powers a president has during national emergencies. He claimed that these powers are so extensive and specific that presidents can arrange for contractors to undertake massive infrastructural projects without putting the work out for competitive bid. In other words he can hire anyone to do almost anything he deems to be important.

I mentioned this to Rona, who said, "Now I get it, in addition to everything else about Trump's emergency boondoggle, when declaring an emergency he has the ability to award sweetheart deals to the likes of his alter ego, Tony Soprano."

"As with everything else," I said, "when it comes to Trump, follow the money. In this case, all the way to the Bada Bing."

February 19, 2019--Master of Distraction

Being the master of distraction can cut two ways. With Trump, adept at this dubious art, it does and then some.

Take the National Emergency.

Trump was on the ropes. The Democrats in Congress (read Nancy Pelosi) were dug in. They were not going to give him even "one dollar" for his Wall. If he didn't agree to compromise (read "fold") the government would come to a halt and as with the December shutdown, Trump would lose politically and again see his poll numbers tank. They were heading then to the low 30s, pretty much for him a potential 2020 electoral disaster. 

The media covered this wall-to-wall. Even Trump's enablers on Fox News and talk radio (read Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh) were restive and cranky, with Ann Coulter, hitting him literally below the belt, when she called him a "weenie."

So Trump rolled out his thus far most ambitious distraction--he made up and then declared a national emergency, knowing, but not really caring, that it will take forever to get through the courts and ultimately wind up with the Supremes who will likely declare it unconstitutional. Even Clarence Thomas might see things that way. Actually, ignore that--there is no way that he will. But expect Roberts to assure that minimally it will be a 5-4 decision.

In truth, for Trump, the more time it takes to work its way through the judicial system, the more we will be taking about nothing but,  which is his hope. It's about distraction and that's the definition of distraction--talking about something else.

As we saw on Friday the media immediately switched from obsessing about the battle Trump was having with Congress and began talking about only the emergency. To help them and to fill time they rolled out professors of constitutional law, former federal prosecutors, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnists. 

I said to Rona, if this keeps up for another two weeks I'm going to learn so much about the law that I'll be prepared to take the Bar Exam.

But there were a couple of sub-headlines buried on page 16 that ground on relentlessly. Stories that were not about the constitutional crisis but rather about Robert Mueller's investigation. 

At about the same time Trump was holding his rambling, sing-song news conference in the Rose Garden where all the questions were about the "emergency," Mueller prosecutors were in court calling for the presiding judge to sentence Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to 24 years in prison. Effectively a life sentence for the 69 year-old Manafort. 

So expect that we will soon be back to paying 24/7 attention to Trump's legal troubles. Troubles exacerbated ironically by his use of the national emergency distraction because even some Republicans feel Trump by declaring it abused his power. Which is an impeachable offense. It was one of the charges against Nixon.

Thus, the default on all of this is the Mueller investigation. It is not going away. It is ultimately distraction proof.

For example, it is reported that Manafort is already singing like a canary and Roger Stone may be the next to flip.

February 18, 2019--Seething Sort of Muted Rage

A great friend, Jill Davenport, sent the following note late last week. 

She attached a posting from the Daily Kos blog which, as you can see, brought her to a calmer place when thinking about the state of our politics and nation.

It did the same for me and I thought it might do so for you. So here it is--

Morning, Steven . . . 

This piece from Kos made me think about you and Rona and your Bristol Diner breakfasts.  I sincerely hope that this is not a piece of fiction designed to give some respite to those of us who are weary from the constant whiplash of hope risen and hope dashed.  And it gives something of a pass to the MAGA-hats who were duped and who now seem redeemable.  No passes given out for the vultures sitting in Congress, though, nor to those who profit from the sweat of others.   

Sorry to press this upon you.  It’s an easy read and well-written despite the author’s insistence that he can’t write "too good."  He writes good.  The piece has put me into a calmer place where I can look upon the impending "National Emergency” as a “go ahead and do it” proposition.  Any touchstone for hope will work for me--

--We the 99% got money issues to worry about.

So yeah I’m not usually a dairist here, and my writing skills leave something to be desired. I’m analog and not very digital and fat fingers can produce interesting grammatical errors that leave the more gifted wincing, not to mention spelling. My mind out races my fingers frequently and I rarely think to edit.  Consider this your warning about wondering narrative ahead. It’s tax time, and Trump time, and valentines night out for a lot of people isn’t happening this year. Trigger warning: I am going to give you some actual conversation as verbatim as I can.

Some might find this offensive.

So I have finally gotten all the snow cleared from where I didn’t want it, cleared a space for the danger doofus doggo to do her business without freezing tender areas and was very hungry and did not want to cook and wanted biscuits and gravy with two over-easy on top. So off to the local greasy spoon I went. The place was packed with guys like me 40+ white working class/farmers, hey it’s rural Wisconsin, and they were all bitching about one thing. Taxes. 

It wasn’t the quietly disgruntled sort of mildly irritated bitching. It was a seething sort of muted rage that comes from people who are seriously pissed and are looking for someone to blame kind of bitching.

Then ol’ Chuck Grassley appears on the TV pontificating about taxes. Ho Boy. Spark meet gasoline. Even the owner and waitresses lost their shit. I think “Bald faced fucking liar” was the mildest term I heard used and that was a waitress.

Could be wrong though. It was loud. 

Everyone and I do mean every single person in that establishment started comparing just what they had to cough up in taxes or just how small their return was going to be if they got one compared to last years. People were going to be short 5k minimum on their refunds. Others were in the hole to the IRS up to 12k. Vacations were being canceled. Repairs and purchases are being postponed. Vehicles are not going to be purchased. 

Then the farmers started bitching about who they were going to sell soybeans to. What should they plant? Corn? Soybeans? It’s time to order seed you know. How can I make a profit if I can’t sell what I grow? Is this China shit going to be sorted out soon? Who gives a fuck about a border wall I need fucking laborers. Does that fat orange bastard really know what the fuck he’s doing? 50% of these people voted for Trump. Now granted there were some MAGA hat wearing folks in there and a couple spouted off about staying the course and talking points. My did that go over well. Not.

Long story short they eventually brought up her e-mails. Whoopsie. An older farmer who could probably buy the place stood up and said his piece.

“You voted for Republicans in 2016 because you were angry about a black man being president for eight years and there was no damned way you were going to have a woman, let alone that woman be president. You got what you wanted. It wasn’t just that shitbag Trump. It was Republicans in the House of Representatives and Republicans in the Senate that drafted these tax laws you’re all cryin’ about. You’re stupid. You never learned nothing. You don’t look at history.

Republicans ALWAYS do what really rich people tell’em to. It ain’t about fags, blacks, Jesus, God, her emails, abortions, guns, or any of that other shit they holler about. Religious freedom don’t need no special laws it’s right there in that Constitution they keep spittin’ on. It’s about the money. It’s about how they can take your money and give it to people who flat don’t fucking need it. All of you need to grow up and take responsibility for your damned government. 2018 was a damned fine year. Democrats in charge of Congress again.”

Then Mr. MAGA Major bigmouth just had to say it, “What about that Pelosi bitch and all them (n----r) women in congress? They’re going to wreck it!”

Farmer: “Son you’d best be grateful that Pelosi bitch is a mean ol’ bitch and those women are serious about government. They’re the ones going to save your stupid ass from yourself. How you going to cover that tax bill you owe Bill? You need a loan? Maybe next year this time we’ll have us a real honest set of tax laws. Then again maybe you like paying this much in taxes every year? No? Thought not.”

Exit the farmer. A badass first class taking no shit from anyone farmer. 

It got real quiet for about 30 seconds as the man paid his tab and left. Then a new kind of hum started building in the place. the kind that made me grin and made the MAGA boys nervous. And to think what that farmer would have said about Mueller? Now there, yes there is something I’d like to have a sit down and listen to. Maybe I can have that after I go see him about what he’ll be asking for half a beef.

Jill too writes good. 

February 15, 2019--National Emergencies

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unintentionally just set the agenda for the Democrat who will be elected in 2020 to succeed Trump as president.

He was good enough to set both the programmatic and the strategic agenda. With the latter being about how to govern.

Thank you Mitch.

Mitch did this when attempting to discourage Trump from declaring, in his case, a phony emergency.

Do not declare a national emergency, he urged Trump, to get your way with the border wall because if you do you will set a precedent for future presidents. Like the Democrat who will come after you in less than two years. A progressive who might use your precedent to declare emergencies involving gun "rights" and the climate.

When it comes to Trump, McConnell is whistling in the wind because for Trump there are no precedents. A precedent is something that applies to the future, but with Trump there is no such thing as the future. He is all about the now, caring only about himself, ignoring who or what comes next; and thus he will declare an emergency this morning to allow him to reap political credit from his base (meaning Ann Coulter, who two days ago called him a "weenie,"  and Sean Hannity) for building, or pretending to build the wall.

But for a normal person who might become president, governing by the strategic use of national emergencies in an era where nothing can be enacted by a broken and hyper-partisan Congress may make sense and to declare at least two emergencies--one to deal with the scourge of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of murderous people and the other for another genuine emergency, global warming--sounds like a plan for Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar.

February 14, 2019--Jack: Winning By Losing

"Why don't you pick up the phone and call him."

"Who?"

"You know. Jack."

"I don't want to get in the habit of calling him."

Rona said, "Calling him once every five years doesn't qualify as a habit. I suggested this because he might be a good one to ask about what we've been talking about recently. Why, after all the messes Trump has created, including the fiasco of shutting down the government, that pretty much his entire core of supporters stays loyal to him. There seems to be nothing he can do to alienate them. Even when he does something that's harmful to them. Like the tax cuts people are right now discovering has not been beneficial, as promised, to the middle class."

I said, "It is puzzling why that rock bottom 30, 35 percent stays loyal. Jack might have some insights to share."

So I called. He picked up on the second ring as if waiting for me.

"It's me," I said, "I know I never call but here I am. I have a question for you. It will only take a few minutes. If you're too busy, just hang up."

"No, no. I'm OK," Jack said. "To what do I owe the honor of this call? Every time I phone you you're rushing to get off the line."

I didn't want to get into why that might be, and said, "Rona thinks you can help with something."

"Shoot. Anything for her. You know I love Rona."

"I promise not to tell her that," I laughed, "I don't want to spoil her day. But here's the question--Why do you and your Trumper friends stay so committed to him even though he's constantly screwing things up?"

"Can you give me an example?"

"There are so many. But OK, in the news recently, take the Wall. He's clearly obsessed with it and claims during the past two years it's being built out at a fast pace even though it's well known that nothing, nothing has been constructed. Not one mile since he's been president. He's now saying it's time to 'finish' the wall. Lie built on lie. And yet you and his people don't seem to be upset about that. They and I presume you are upset with Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in general for not voting for the money he says is needed. What happened to all the winning? Isn't his appeal all about winning? On this one he's a loser."

"Once again you don't understand, you don't get it. But you called the right person to get the answer."

"I'm waiting."

"You've got it backwards. It, he's not about winning but, actually, losing." Jack paused to wait for my reaction to this radical thought--that Trump is into losing.

"I'm listening."

"I'll include myself."

"I assumed you would."

"We are angry about what's been going on in America from endless nation-building wars around the world, to all the illegal immigrants, to political correctness. We're furious about affirmative action and identity politics and the unfairness of the mainstream media. Also, we're made crazy by the drug smuggling and the murderous Mexican gangs. I could go on but this should give you a glimpse of what's on the minds of Trump's people."

I interrupted, "You're making my point for me. I mean, yes, this is the familiar list of grievances, but he's delivered nothing in more than two years to help alleviate what you and his other supporters are frustrated about. He's accomplished very little except passing tax cuts for the rich and withdrawing troop from Syria, which every serious foreign policy expert considers foolhardy."

"Again, you're showing your ignorance. For us it's not about accomplishing things of a traditional sort. Passing legislation to do this or that. We don't believe in that sort of approach because as we view things it's these kinds of government programs that have caused the problems we have."

I said, "This is familiar territory. Nothing new in what you're saying."

"So let me repeat this in words even you can understand. We're about wanting to continue to be frustrated and angry. That's the lens through which we view the world. We are pessimistic that government can make things better. In fact, it's the opposite. And so we don't want to be cooled out by getting a bone or two thrown at us. We want to remain in a rage. It's what we're about, what motivates us."

"So what about the winning/losing business?"

"If we win, so to speak, which at best will be minimal, what do we do with our anger? Being angry makes us feel alive and powerful; and now, with Trump, paid attention to. It gives us a purpose in life. So he too has to lose to remain angry. What we like about him is not getting a few more dollars for the wall or some new program, what we like, what we crave, is his expressing anger and fighting for us. Not mincing words (how he fights is therefore very important), telling it like is, showing contempt for traditions and moderate ways of talking about and doing things. For this reason we even like his public cursing."

Jack was on a roll, "His appeal to us is the result of the ways he represents our anger, our sense of being looked down to, our being thought of by your type as being deplorable. We haven't forgotten that one. To use one of your fancy words, to being marginalized. In other words, we're all about expressing grievances and frustrations. To do this you have to keep losing. We wouldn't know what to do with winning. We have so little experience with it. So Trump, who is the first president to represent us also has to lose."

I was stunned and couldn't quickly come up with what to say. He had never been so honest.

So Jack said, "Had enough for today? Remember you called me." He roared with laughter and hung up without a goodbye.

February 13, 2019--Trump: Size Maters

A dozen years ago a friend bought an apartment in one of Trump's glittering New York City residential towers. 

The first time we visited the concierge stationed at the gold lamé reception desk directed us to apartment 8C. 

In the elevator we struggled with what button to push to get us there. Struggled because there were no buttons for 1 through 8. Just one for 8 and others for higher floors.

"Don't worry about it," Rona said, "Just press 8 and we'll see what happens. Worst case scenario we'll go back down to the lobby and ask them how to get to the lower floors. I mean in a situation where many floors seem to be missing. If you live on 7, for example, what do you do?"

I shrugged and pressed 8. Silently, the doors slid shut. Then, almost instantly a bell pinged, the elevator glided to a smooth stop, and the doors opened. Tentatively, we got out and searched from door to door in the dimly lit hall before finding 8C.

Once inside the apartment, still wondering how we got to 8 so quickly, while getting the grand tour, I looked out the window toward East 62nd Street and noticed we weren't all that high up. In fact, it looked as if we were on the first or, at most, the second floor. One or two levels above the lobby entrance.

After settling in with a drink, I asked my friend about being on the eighth floor while it seemed that we in fact were at most on the second.

Smiling, he said, "That's Donald Trump for you. Always exaggerating, always hustling. He's brilliant at that. You pay a lot more for being on the eighth floor than the second."

I recalled that yesterday when reading about Trump's rally in El Paso.

About 30 minutes into it, he said he was being challenged by "a young man who's got very little going for himself except he's got a great first name." He was referring to Beto O'Rourke who was leading a counter rally and is thinking about running for president. 

Trump said, "So we have, let's say, 35,000 people tonight. He has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good," Trump claimed, "That may be the end of his presidential bid."

Trump as we know is not that good at estimating crowd size. Or, referencing Marco Rubio, dealing with size in general. Recall how Trump claimed, still contends that his inauguration had the largest crowd in history, even though the Mall in Washington was more than half empty. And about what Rubio implied about the size of Trump's hands, the less said the better.

The El Paso County Coliseum where Trump had his rally holds 6,500 and was full. In addition the El Paso fire department estimated that another 5,000 who couldn't get in watched on big screen TVs. 

O'Rourke's rally, which was a half mile away was outdoors, occurred at the same time as Trump's, and, the police estimated, attracted up to 10,000. In other words, at least as many as Trump's.

I suspect Beto will join the race (among other things he needs a job) and though I think he has little chance of winning the nomination, political rockstar that he is, he sure can draw a crowd. At least in his hometown.

   

February 12, 2019--The One Person Who Can Defeat Trump

I spent much of the weekend agitating about the 2020 election. 

Two more aspirants formally announced that they are seeking the Democratic nomination. Neither was unexpected--Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The latter without hat or gloves declared her candidacy in a blinding snowstorm. That image more than what she said proclaimed I'm ready to run no matter the obstacles. 

And then, waiting in the wings was Beto O'Rourke who held a counter-rally in El Paso last night at the same time as Trump's.

With respect for these three who joined at least seven others and after that perhaps there will be ten more candidates, none make me feel they can beat Trump, assuming by Election Day he's not deposed or imprisoned. Though like other popular candidates such as Ron Reynolds from Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump, running from Sing Sing, wouldn't manage to find a way to win. Such is the fervor of his dead-ender 35 percent. 

There is, though, at least one heavyweight already in the ring, Kamala Harris, who might find a path to 270 electoral votes, and one more-- the ever-coy Joe Biden, who, if he wasn't 100 years-old, could be nominated and win. 


But the passion among Democrats and Independents is tipped to the progressive, youthful wing of the party. What else explains the excitement about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Or, for that matter, Beto. The good news, at only 29, AOC is constitutionally too young to serve as president. Otherwise, heaven help us, infatuated Dems might suicidally nominate her.


There is though a solution to our search for a winning candidate who also, to quote a popular TV commercial, knows a thing or two. Also, how to go high and low.

Michelle Obama.

I know, she says no way. But I say, let's get to work drafting her. Let's get a petition drive going with a target of at least 10 million signatures. That could attract her attention.

On a personal note, she has seen the Obama legacy largely obliterated from changes in the Affordable Care Act to the abandonment of the nuclear treaty with Iran. She has also seen devastating attacks on the environment (remember the Paris Agreement?) and as a Harvard Law School graduate has witnessed equally ferocious challenges to the rule of law itself. And don't overlook what she must feel about Trump and the birther business.

Her book, Becoming, has thus far sold nearly three million hard-cover copies (an all-time record for a First Lady memoir) and all polls show her by far to be the most admired American woman (she is most admired by 15% of the population, three times higher than number two, Oprah), who if she ran would sign up in a second to be her media advisor and spokesperson. 

(Also helping, husband Barack is most admired by 19% while Trump languishes at 13%.)

If Michelle would agree to run all Democratic money would flow to her and she could early next year begin to measure the Oval Office for new drapes. (Anything but gold.)

The one concern--complacency.  Look what happened to Hillary as she waited around for the coronation that never happened. But Michelle is smarter than that and appears to actually like people.

February 11, 2019--Who For Certain Can Defeat Trump

I will reveal this tomorrow, Tuesday. Be patient!

February 8, 2019--Climate

The one thing I am incapable of reading and writing about is the planet's perilously changing climate.

I pride myself on my ability to identify and solve problems. I made a long career doing just that from the City University of New York to New York University to the Ford Foundation.

But about the climate I able to offer only a sense of hopeless despair. No solutions. Therefore, I run from the subject.

Not proud of myself, I have difficulty following or participating in global warming discussions. I confess this means I've given up hope that there are ways to bring about meaningful remediation. Though I know it is critical that we urgently do all we can to try.

What can one think, more, what can one do when greeted as readers were two days ago by a headline and story in the "New York Times" that the "'Climate Crisis' May Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100"?

I ignored my own practice of running from the subject and read how at least a third of these glaciers will melt by the end of the century, even "if the world's most ambitious climate change targets are met."

If these goals are not met (and most experts agree this seems likely) by 2100 the world's highest mountain range will lose two-thirds of its glaciers.

This would mean that the Himalayas could heat up by 8 degrees Fahrenheit by century's end, bringing "radical disruptions to the food and water supplies, and mass population displacement."

"Normal" Himalayan glacier melt, I read, provides water to about a quarter of the world's population.

And then yesterday, the "Times" in an above-the-fold front-page graph and story about rising global temperatures, reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year since 1880.

Though I will be long gone, all I can think about is what kind of a world I am participating in bequeathing to my one-year-old niece. 

February 7, 2019--Tomorrow's Plan

Not much today but tomorrow I will  be back with thoughts about the climate. Something I realize I haven't written about.

February 6, 2019--State of the Union: El Paso

During the 1990s, when with the Ford Foundation, I spent many days in El Paso working with the school district and the University of El Paso to fund their efforts to help more students than in the past enter and complete college.

I loved visiting. I enjoyed the diversity of the people and their energy. It felt as if the city had a sense of purpose and proudly was going about the business of improving the lives of all its citizens. Very much including those who crossed the border daily to work or go to school.

After my work day was over I wandered about the city looking for new places to visit and eat. Never once did I feel the sense of threat there that Trump talked about last night in the State of the Union address. And so this morning when I saw what the New York Times' fact-checkers said about El Paso I was not surprised. I quote what they wrote in its entirety--

Trump claimed--

“The border city of El Paso, Tex., used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the entire country, and considered one of our nation’s most dangerous cities. Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country.” 

This is false--

El Paso was never one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, and crime has been declining in cities across the country — not just El Paso — for reasons that have nothing to do with border fencing. In 2008, before border barriers had been completed in El Paso, the city had the second-lowest violent crime rate among more than 20 similarly sized cities. In 2010, after the fencing went up, it held that place.

February 5, 2019--Executive Time

Remember during the 2016 campaign how Trump made a big deal out of all the time Barack Obama was away from the office playing golf? How during his eight years as president, Trump ranted, he played 333 rounds? If elected Trump promised he would be "so busy working for the American people that he won't have time to play."

Fact checking shows that a little more than two years into his presidency Trump has already played golf 156 times. If he is reelected (heaven help us) he is on a trajectory to play about 600 rounds, nearly twice as many as Obama.

The cost thus far to taxpayers for all the back and forth to mainly Trump courses in Palm Beach, Bedminster, NJ, and Trump country clubs near the White House has been about $86 million. 

Extrapolated to eight years, this will swell to nearly $345 million. About four times as much as the cost of Obama's trips. Quite a piece of change.

Trump also criticized Obama for all the times he flew back and forth on Air Force One to vacation in Hawaii. Especially how much that cost. In fact, while president, Obama visited Hawaii fewer than a dozen times. Trump in just two years has already been to Florida more often then that.

Is there a scent of hypocrisy about this?

Also, do I sense a hint of racism? You know, how black people are lazy?

Then yesterday, AXIOS got their hands on and posted Trump's day-by-day schedule for the past three months. It shows him to be mainly alone when in Washington, spending more than 60 percent of his waking hours engaged in what his staff calls Executive Time. 

Time when Trump watches TV (presumable mainly Fox News), tweets, and talks on the phone to cronies who serve as informal advisors and enablers. These include Fox personalities such as "Judge" Judy, Laura Ingraham,  and Sean Hannity.

His meetings are mainly with the chief-of-staff and tend to last less than half an hour. He rarely has policy meetings with cabinet members or senior staff. He can barely sit still for more than a few minutes when he receives his daily national security briefing. Briefers are told to use charts and not words and to avoid including anything that might make him angry. Especially assessments of global threat with which he disagrees.

Picking up the AXIOS story the New York Times, Washington Post, as well as commentators on CNN and MSNBC have been expressing outrage that Trump is so off the case.

I have a different view. 

I welcome this. The more Executive Time he indulges in means there is less time for him to do the traditional work of being president. In other words, the less harm he might otherwise do if he followed a more conventional presidential schedule. 

It was felt by many that workaholic (and golfer) Bill Clinton and micromanager Jimmy Carter got in trouble by being so obsessed with minutia that they lost sight of the big picture issues that are the preferred purview of chief executives.

So, I say, let's stop criticizing Trump for lying around all day in his pajamas glued to the TV and Fox & Friends. The alternative could be worse. 

February 4, 2019--Warning Labels

Don't ask, but the other day I was looking at the yellow warning labels on my ladder. Things have come to that. 

I promise this is not an oblique route to talking about Trump. Tomorrow, State of the Union day, will be time enough for that.

My ladder is an 8-footer and has at least ten stick-on labels--

Maximum Load Capacity 225 LBS.
Walk Down Steps Backwards
Do Not Use Ladder Near Power Lines
Ensure Ladder is Fully Open and Locked Before Climbing
Do Not Overreach
Do Not Stand On Top Step
Do Not Use Top Step As a Little Table to Eat Pizza
Do Not . . .

Some of these warnings are required by OSHA. Others, Rona says, are written by the ladder companies' lawyers. If you fall on a power line and get electrocuted (mine is an aluminum ladder) you were forewarned and thus are not likely to be able to sue successfully for damages. 

It would be my own damn fault--didn't I see the warning label? I could, after all, have bought a wooden ladder. Then I'd have to be instructed not to use it near an open fire. Though probably it would be good to be advised about that even with an aluminum ladder. 

Later in the day, at dinner, we had glasses of Tormaresca, a nice Puglian Chardonnay. 

Reading the label, Rona said, "Did you ever notice this before?"

"What's the 'this'?"

"The warning label."

"I have seen the warning to women that drinking wine during pregnancy can cause birth defects."

"There's more." Rona rolled her eyes. "Let me read it to you because I too only remember the warning to pregnant women. It says, 'Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems.'"

"Duh," I said, "This means don't have a glass or two of wine at lunch and then expect to be able to use your backhoe to drive home. On the other hand when we go to Cafe Boulud for our once-a-year lunch and have a Super Tuscan we're unlikely to use our backhoe to get there. There's always Uber."

"And what kind of health problems are they warning about? Shouldn't they list the medical problems as they do on the TV ads for, say, Xarelto?"

"Let me look them up." Rona googled Xarelto. "It's a long list but let me read a few of the possible side effects. I'll leave out the goriest ones."

"Thanks in advance for that. I don't want to lose my appetite"

She read--

• Blood in urine
• Coughing up blood
• Nosebleeds
• Bleeding gums
• Dizziness or fainting
• Blurry vision
• Numbness or tingling in the legs
• Rash
• Itching
• Trouble breathing or swallowing

"Sounds scary," I said.

"That's the point," Rona said, "Actually, it's also to cover their behinds, legally speaking."

(Full disclosure--I made up the pizza warning.)