June 28, 2019--Winners & Losers

Picking winners and losers from this week's Democratic debate is easy--

There was one big loser. Joe Biden. Forget what he had to say (which is easy to do). Just look at him. He's OLD. Very old. And an old 76 at that. Expect his numbers to plummet. People like me desperate to find someone who can as assuredly as possible defeat Trump need to move on.

There were three big winners--

The third place winner was Elizabeth Warren. It was not that hard to imagine her in the Oval Office. At least there would be someone there with knowledge and energy. 

The second place winner was Kamala Harris. Not the biggest winner. Her takedown of Biden will live in debate history.

The biggest winner, though, was Donald Trump. 

This is because whichever Democrat wins the nomination will lose because they all lemming-like, by raising their hands in assent, saddled themselves with impossible to defend commitments they made to illegal immigrants (that they deserve free healthcare as soon as thy cross the border and that the crossing itself should be decriminalized) and to the medically uninsured-- there will be Medicare for all, paid for by phasing out private health insurance. 185 million Americans have private insurance and for the most part like it. 

Also, in the new frontrunner's case, Kamala Harris, it appears that she is calling for a return to forced bussing to reduce segregation in public schools.

The only good news--it's early, very early. Seven months until the Iowa caucuses. These folks, though, need to get their act together.

June 27, 2019--What's the Matter With "What's the Matter With Kansas"?

I read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America when it was published in 2004 to great acclaim among progressives.

I found its central thesis to be persuasive. In a sentence Frank showed how over decades the conservative Kansas political establishment promised, if elected, to enact a long series of rightwing cultural policies (end abortion, bring prayer back to public schools, provide vouchers that would enable parents to offset the cost of private school tuition, ban same-sex marriage, eliminate the teaching of evolution, and so forth) while in return voters would not stand in the way of the conservatives' real agenda--essentially cutting government spending on all social programs such as Medicaid in order to pay for dramatic reductions in taxes for the wealthiest Kansans; and then, most important, once in office, they failed to deliver the social agenda but instead cynically enacted their self-serving regressive economic program.

Frank's central question was--Why are Kansas voters so seemingly willing to put aside their own self interest and go along with policies that will only make things worse for themselves?

In regard to this latter point, for years there has been something about it that did not sit right with me.

And then on Tuesday, during a long lunch with my politically-savvy cousin Harvey who lives in Maine, what has been troubling me for years became clear:

The Frank book is not about what's the matter with Kansas but rather what's the matter with the people of Kansas.

And for that reason it is incendiary because it ultimately blames the victims (the people) and not the perpetrators (the political leaders) for the voting patterns in Kansas and other Midwestern red states. 

Frank's point then turns out to be yet another version of the professional and academic class's saying to working people that we know better than you yourself what's good for you; and, further, we know even more clearly than you what needs to happen to serve your best interest is an expanded role for government.

Many, perhaps a majority of people who live and vote in the middle of the country for years have been saying that this is offensive and patronizing because it fails to recognize their ability to articulate what they value and the kind of role they on their own see it appropriate for government to play. 

More than anything they hate being taken for granted and feeling talked down to.

They have been saying this but not enough of us have not been listening. And thus for the most part Democrats running for national office have not figured out an effective way to communicate with voters they need to attract if they are to regain the White House and retain a majority in at least the House.

June 26, 2019--Aunt Tanna

I've been thinking this week about my Aunt Tanna, my mother's second oldest sister who became our extended family's matriarch after my grandmother died.

This meant that all ritual occasions such as Passover and Rosh Hashanah dinners were under her auspices and occurred around her always-ladened dining room table. 

In my life I do not recall any warmer times.

Aunt Tanna was also the even-more-extended family's guardian angel. 

My earliest childhood memories were of distant cousins, who had survived Nazi concentration camps, who she somehow, at the end of the war, managed to bring to the safety of America. That "safety of America" was the security and love she provided to those who had literally been through Hell.

When they were liberated those emaciated skeletons were placed in DP camps, often tent camps, displaced persons camps, which were much less than ideal facilities, where they needed to wait, often for more than a year, before there was a place of refuge to which to send them. 

Much of Europe was in ruins and there were few places to locate freed prisoners. The United States, which sustained no direct damage, was only reluctantly welcoming. 

In America there was a long tradition of official antisemitism and our State Department, which was charged with managing the quotas that severely restricted the number of those who could be admitted to the country as refugees, was notoriously known to be unfriendly to anything Jewish. 

For example, before World War II erupted the Secretary of State ordered that ships packed with asylum seekers not be permitted to disembark them. The ships and their passengers were turned back and as a consequence many thousands were then sent to concentration camps where they were slaughtered by the Nazis. 

Aunt Tanna somehow found ways to locate scattered family members and one-by-one, occasionally in small family groups when more than one cousin miraculously survived, she managed to bring them to her apartment in Brooklyn where she arranged places for them to sleep, frequently for months, frequently three to a bed, while she searched for more permanent places for them to live and jobs so they could support themselves.

They spoke no English and I no Yiddish, the lingua franca, and so we communicated mainly though shrugs and gestures. As might be imagined I was especially drawn to the occasional young cousin survivors, who my father said, looked like "little old men." What they had been through, I came to understand, had literally left its mark on them.

And of course I could not take my eyes off the blue numbers they all had tattooed on their forearms.

I have been thinking about this recently because Portland Maine continues to be in the news as it struggles to welcome a few hundred Congolese refugees who have been granted asylum in America. There was another article in the New York Times Monday about how welcoming Portland is attempting to be. And how Portland and the State of Maine continue to be the only places in the U.S. where public money in combination with privately raised funds are being used to help defray the cost of their relocation and transition.

This, as I have written, has unleashed a storm of protest from some Mainers who feel that while citizens are struggling we should not be using taxpayer money to defray the costs associated with admitting refugees. That it is better to require that family members "sponsor" anyone seeking to live in America. The Aunt Tanna approach.

This seems to me to be worth considering.

June 25, 2019--Biden's Sister Souljah Moment

As is his propensity, last week Joe Biden stepped in it.

But then again, perhaps he didn't. 

This flap, significantly taken out of context, was from something he said when Vice President, in a commencement address at Yale in 2015. Among many things he spoke about how when he was in the Senate he attempted to work directly with even other senators who were avowed segregationists and racists to advance important legislation.

Some of his current rivals, though acknowledging he is not himself a racist, claimed he minimally showed insensitivity to people of color who do not look back to that Jim Crow era with any sense of nostalgia or bipartisan clubbiness. Among others, sensing a political opportunity, Cory Booker called on Biden to apologize.

That really got under Biden's skin.

He fired back, "Apologize for what? He knows better. I don't have a racist bone in my body."

I suspect the old Joe would have tied himself up in knots of contrition and squeezed out a version of a self-righteous apology. But not this Joe. He doubled down. Tripled down. And in at least two regards this may have been the politically smart thing to do.

Voters this time around are looking for feistiness not wimpiness, confrontation not nuance. Even many liberals who pride themselves on being measured and understanding--never hot under the collar, no drama--more than anything want their candidate to be able to go toe-to-toe with Trump and take him down. After that, we can get back to seeking dialogue and reasonableness in the hope that maybe we can get a few legislative things done. Like fixing Obamacare and Social Security. Like doing something about our collapsing infrastructure. Like rebuilding our standing in the world.

For any of this to happen, assuming the Dems capture the White House and retain their majority in the House, it will be essential to figure out ways to work across the aisle with at least a half dozen Republicans. Biden by insisting on his ability to do this is boldly putting the spectrum of his political history out for review. Admittedly, some of it is on the compromised side.

Related, but more complicated, if he is to recapture some of the white, blue-collar vote that last time went overwhelmingly to Trump and more than anything else put him in the White House, he needs to demonstrate that though he is responsive to voters of color and progressive in other ways, he will not allow himself to become their agent. 

So this current flap could turn out to be Biden's Sister Souljah Moment. The original was in 1992 when Bill Clinton was the Democratic nominee. He was at risk of being perceived as pandering excessively to black voters as part of his strategy to win at least a few southern states, but in the process he risked alienating enough moderate white voters to lose to incumbent George H.W. Bush.

For those of you who do not recall what Clinton audaciously did, here is the best definition of a Sister Souljah Moment I have as yet come upon--

It is a critical moment in a campaign when a candidate takes what appears to be a bold stand against certain extremes in his or her own party and offers a calculated denunciation of that extreme position or special interest group. 

Such an act of repudiation is designed to signal to centrist voters that the politician is not beholden to traditional, and sometimes unpopular, interest groups associated with the party, although such a repudiation runs the risk of alienating some of the politician's allies and the party's base voters.

In 1992 popular African-American hip hop artist and social activist, Sister Souljah, provided Clinton with the opportunity to criticize her extreme views about race relations and thereby demonstrate he was not beholden to any special interest groups.

In a Washington Post interview Sister Souljah was quoted as saying (in response to a question regarding black-on-white violence during the 1992 Los Angeles riots):

Question: Even the people themselves who were perpetrating that violence, did they think that was wise? Was that a wise reasoned action?

Souljah: Yeah, it was wise. I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?... White people, this government and that mayor were well aware of the fact that black people were dying every day in Los Angeles under gang violence. So if you're a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person? Do you think that somebody thinks that white people are better, are above and beyond dying, when they would kill their own kind?

Speaking to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition in June 1992, Clinton responded both to that quotation and to something Souljah had said in the music video of her song "The Final Solution: Slavery's Back in Effect" ("If there are any good white people, I haven't met them").

Clinton said: "If you took the words 'white' and 'black,' and you reversed them, you might think the KKK's David Duke was giving that speech." 

This elicited a storm of hot debate but most dispassionate observers concluded that Clinton won the political battle and that helped him do better than expected, like it or not, among disaffiliated white voters.

I said "like it or not" because I do not like any of this. But politics is an ugly business and if Biden roughing up Booker will help him defeat Trump I will find a way until the day after Election Day 2020 to live with it.

June 24, 2109--Jack: "Disproportunate"

Jack said, "How are you liking your president these days?" Without waiting for something snarky in return he added, "To me he's looking very presidential."

I hadn't seen Jack in a couple of weeks and with so much going on wasn't surprised he showed up at the diner where I was nursing a cup of coffee.

"As Trump put it, he's 'cocked and loaded.'"

"If he knew anything about guns he'd realize it's locked and loaded. Not cocked. But what does he know about guns? Or for that matter very much anything else?"


"I didn't know you were such a gun nut."

"I'm not and neither is he. He grew up in Queens New York for God sakes. The only people there with guns packed Saturday Night Specials."

"You're changing the subject because you don't want to acknowledge him as being presidential."

"This I have to hear."

"It's how he's finessing the Iran situation."

"You mean how he can't make up his mind what to do? Finessing is the last way I'd describe him. One minute he's drawing red lines in the sand and launching missiles, the next he's saying the Iranians shooting down one of our drones doesn't deserve a military response. After how he excoriated Obama for backing away from a red line of his own after the Syrians used chemical weapons on their own people while he blithely does the same thing is sheer hypocrisy. Not that I'm in favor of going to war with Iran over this. We haven't had much luck with war in the Middle East. Even candidate Trump realized that. It was the one few thing about which he was right."

Jack sighed, "You are so closed minded. Trump for you can never do anything right. But anyway, let me try to enlighten you."

Not in the mood but unable to restrain myself, in a weary voice I said, "Start by telling me how his most influential advisors come from Fox News. How Tucker Carlson is advising him not to get involved militarily. That if he does he'll lose the election next year. And Sean Hannity is putting pressure on him to launch strikes otherwise he'll look weak and lose his reelection bid. Trump actually listens to these people?"

"And who is keeping his own counsel? Trump asks their views and then follows his instincts and makes decisions. You call that irresponsible I call it presidential. And don't forget many previous presidents had their favorite reporters and columnists. I looked that up yesterday. Kennedy had Ben Bradley and also leaked information to the Time's Arthur Krock, who was on his father Joe Kennedy's payroll. And there are others. Many others. Like James Reston and the Alsop brothers. All presidential whisperers. So don't try to hang this one exclusively on Trump."

I said, "This is still no way to make foreign policy. Especially when it comes to matters of war and peace. I don't think any of the journalists you cite--and I give you credit for digging that out--advised presidents one way or the other when it came to launching military strikes. They dealt mainly in the political realm. Offering political advice and clearing the way for their presidents. It was straight use-use. Not that Carlson and Hannity are above that. Using Trump to build ratings."

"With this," Jack said, "Trump is having it two ways. On the one hand he threatens to attack Iran and this makes him seem tough."

"With emphasis on the 'seem.'"

"And then he shows moderation," Jack said, "saying he pulled back the attack when he was told 150 Iranians would be killed. He didn't want that blood on his hands. He wanted to appear to be compassionate."

I said, "He tweeted that he didn't want to do anything 'disproportionate.' Shooting down an unarmed drone doesn't cause any deaths."

"What's your problem with that? I thought you'd like your president not to be casual about a loss of life."

"I'm very OK with that. Using force only as a last resort. But this didn't qualify. My problem is his not having a clear, coherent plan so that both our allies and opponents would know what to expect. That, as in this case, we won't inadvertently stumble into a real war."

"Again," Jack said, "I think this is exactly what Trump is doing."

"That's not how I see it. In fact, I'm suspicious of the whole thing. A tipoff for me is his use of the word 'disproportionate.'"

"You have a problem with that? I thought you would see it to be a good thing. Evidence that Trump has a better temperament than he is given credit for."

"A couple of things. First, it appears he endorsed a cyber attack on the Iranians. Not bloody but still an act of war. And then again there's his use of the word 'disproportionate.' Do you really think that's in his vocabulary? Does it sound like the Donald Trump we know?"

"Picky, picky. What will you guys come up with next."

"It reveals to me," I said, "that what we are witnessing is pure fabrication conjured up in his favorite place--the White House basement Situation Room. TV producer that he is he's creating a screenplay. He's spinning out one that's more reality TV than reality. And as in all thrillers this one too has a scene where everyone in danger at the last minute gets pulled back from the brink by a super hero. None other than Donald Trump."

"Again," Jack said, "I don't see why this is making you so crazy. To me it shows him acting responsibly."


"It shows him playing with, not dealing seriously with his awesome commander-in-chief responsibilities."

"I give up," Jack said fully exasperated.

"Good," I said, "Now I can concentrate on my coffee and try to get Trump out of my head."

June 21, 2019--Summer

In these parts summer arrives this morning, Friday morning at 11:57.

You'd never know it from the outdoor temperature. It's 57 degrees right now and our heaters are on as they have been for at least part of every day since we've been here. Nearly two months.

Probably in a week I'll be complaining about it being too hot.

As they say in Maine, "If you don't like the weather wait ten minutes."  

I'm waiting.

June 20, 2019--Asylum In Maine

While waiting for our septic system to be pumped out (living by the bay in Maine has its moments), we had a long talk with our septic guy, Donny. We've known him for ten years. He's very bright and full of opinions. The other day many were about asylum seekers. From West Africa, Congo mainly, who he claimed are being welcomed by the political leaders of Portland.

"Can you believe they're getting $1,500 a month for rent and other expenses? My daughter who works two jobs makes about half that. And still lives with us. She could sure use some of that money. Not that I'm in favor of the government giving anyone that kind of money. To be consistent, including my daughter. But refugees when there are Americans who have needs?"

He slapped his thighs in frustration. "And people wonder why Trump was elected. It may surprise you that I didn't vote for him and don't intend to next year. But I share some of his feelings about the asylum system."

"I've been reading about this," I said, "There was a long article about Portland earlier this week in the New York Times."

"So you agree with me."

"Not so fast," Rona said, "The Times didn't say refugees are getting that much money and didn't say that whatever they might be getting in city or state money will go on indefinitely. And there was no mention of the federal government providing money unless someone is admitted to the country as an officially designated refugee. Then, as I understand it, they're entitled to the same services and benefits as U.S. citizens. But that's a relatively small number."

"And that makes sense to you?" Donny said, "That a judge finds they are in danger back in the own country, grants them asylum, and then they get Medicaid and food stamps? Again, while my working daughter, who's an American citizen, has to wait on a very long line to get housing subsides. Again, that makes sense to you?"

We felt the need to do some research.

Yes, it's true Portland has one of the most welcoming of policies. Recently, this city of 66,000 admitted about 200 Africans who were granted asylum by a judge in San Antonio. It took most more than a month to get there but they made the trek because San Antonio is considered to be the easiest place in America to be granted asylum.

Once granted asylum, attempts are made to settle refugees with family members--Maine has a relatively large Congolese community, but it is not large enough to absorb all who are likely to need help with resettlement. And Maine, it is true, is one of only two states where there is taxpayer money available to help with housing. The Portland Community Support Fund uses local government money to provide rental assistance but that Fund is already depleted. So, Donny was misinformed when he said refugees are receiving $1,500 a month in government subsidies. He was right, though, that Portland is welcoming. They, for example, have converted their basketball arena into emergency housing.

"This is really complicated," Rona said, "It is important to admit refugees who are escaping from oppression and violence, but how many is the right number? To relocate and house 200 as in Portland is a generous thing to do but we know there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions more worldwide who we cannot accommodate."

"Considering the numbers this feels like a gesture," I said, "But still the right thing to do. Isn't it?"

"Maybe the government should not be in this business altogether, leaving the welcoming and resettlement to refuge organizations and family members. I remember that in the past anyone seeking asylum or refugee status needed to be sponsored by an organization or family member. Didn't that work?"

I said, "I'm not proud to bring this up but there is also the political cost. Trump is mocking Portland's efforts. It continues to be an effective wedge issue for him. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him tell Donny's daughter's story."

"The good news is that in spite of continuing to have this red-meat issue to rile his base, the poll numbers for Trump are not looking good."

"We can continue to talk about this with Donny," I said, "We won't need to be pumped out again this year, but I'm sure we'll see him at the Nobleboro Village Store when we're making a donut run. They still make the best ones in Maine."

June 17, 2019--Impeachment

Speaker Pelosi understandably, from a political perspective, has been reluctant to unleash her Democratic colleagues who are pressing to begin the process required to impeach Donald Trump.

She knows her history and saw Bill Clinton's favorability numbers skyrocket when Republicans in the House of Representatives, which they controlled at the time as the Dems do now, moved to impeach him on two counts--lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

Pelosi is worried that she and her fellow Democrats will experience deja vu all over again--in the House Trump will be impeached minimally for abuse of power but will not even come close to receiving the two-thirds vote that is required to remove him from office. As a result, she fears, like Clinton he will emerge more popular, more emboldened than ever, and sprint in 2020 to reelection.

Thus she has held AOC, Jerry Nadler, and others in check, citing these political concerns.

Putting aside for the moment whether political considerations should determine what to do, there may be an historical flaw in Pelosi's reasoning.

She is right about the Clinton example and it should worry anyone who feels that ridding ourselves of Trump in 17 months is even more important than holding him to his constitutional responsibilities.

But that is just one example. 

In our history there is only one other instance when Congress impeached a president--Andrew Johnson who had been Lincoln's vice president and assumed the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated. He subsequently abandoned Lincoln's Reconstruction agenda and as a result alienated virtually all Republicans who promptly passed the 14th and 15th Amendments and resisted Johnson's efforts to fire his inherited secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. He was impeached in 1868 by a wide margin but was not tossed out of office, though Republicans had the required votes in the Senate, because enough of them did not want to put Congress's powers to a constitutional test. He was retained in office by just one vote.

Being impeached did not in any way enhance his political or electoral viability. He is still considered one of our worst presidents.

Many think that Nixon was impeached. He was not. He certainly would have been if he had not resigned, but in fact he was only charged by the House judiciary committee. Their recommendation to impeach was never voted on by the full House. And we know Nixon as a result did not receive an impeachment bump in the polls. His numbers plummeted and for that reason alone he chose to leave office.

And now there might be Trump. 

Let us stipulate that he is not as unpopular as either Johnson or half-impeached Nixon. But, for the sake of seeking historical parallels it is important to point out that he is not as popular as Clinton was even after he was exposed as having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. 

In other words to compare Trump to Clinton (the one example we have of a president whose approval ratings rose while he was being impeached) we have to factor in their relative political power. I is my view that Clinton, by comparison, in spite of all his misdeeds began the impeachment process in much better political shape than Trump. More jobs were created than at any other comparable time in our history, the budget was throwing off surpluses not as now mountains of new debt, and we were not at war. Also, and important, Clinton was an eminently likable rogue.

In addition, the facts about Clinton's malfeasance were well known before impeachment hearings began. After all, his story was full of sex and violence (remember Vince Foster?). Subjects the public turned to for their daily fix. 

With Trump, as the Mueller Report reveals, we have been dealing with relatively complex legal hairsplitting so it is no wonder that the majority of American's to this point couldn't care less. 

In other words, Speaker Pelosi, there may not be that many political consequences to fear if there were impeachment hearings. They would be on television and one might be able to make the case that when the public finally tunes in they may be furious to learn the sordid details of what Trump and his party of grifters have wrought. 

In addition, to move to impeach may be the right thing. Sometimes it's important to do that too.

Andrew Johnson

June 14, 2019--Crustateans

I'm not sure if we got to talking about crustaceans because we were having a fried clam and lobster dinner at the Pemaquid lobster pound and wondered if they both were (the lobsters, yes; the clams, no) or because one of the answers on Jeopardy the night before was, "What is a crustacean?" to the question, "Shrimp and lobsters."

But talking about them we were.

All I knew is that they have exoskeletons--their shells. Neither I nor Rona knew much else but we were curious how many kinds of crustaceans there are and which one is he largest. In regard to the latter, we assumed the answer would be icky and that we wouldn't like to run into one in the surf off Coney Island.

We were right about that. According to Wikipedia the largest crustacean is big, very big--the Japanese Spider Crab, which can have tentacles that span 18 feet (see picture below), weigh 42 pounds, and is sure to give one nightmares. In fact, I had such a dream last night. I was floating around in the Mediterranean and one scooped me up and dragged me to its underwater cave for nothing good.

For the scientist in you here's a sample from Wiki--

Crustaceans (Crustacea /krʌˈsteɪʃə/) form a large, diverse arthropod taxon which includes such familiar animals as crabs, lobsters, crayfish, shrimps, prawns, krill, woodlice, and barnacles. The crustacean group is usually treated as a subphylum, and because of recent molecular studies it is now well accepted that the crustacean group is paraphyletic, and comprises all animals in the Pancrustacea clade other than hexapods. Some crustaceans are more closely related to insects and other hexapods than they are to certain other crustaceans.

The 67,000 described species range in size from Stygotantulus stocki at 0.1 mm (0.004 in), to the Japanese spider crab with a leg span of up to 3.8 m (12.5 ft) and a mass of 20 kg (44 lb). Like other arthropods, crustaceans have an exoskeleton (yes!), which they moult to grow. They are distinguished from other groups of arthropods, such as insects, myriapods and chelicerates, by the possession of biramous (two-parted) limbs, and by their larval forms, such as the nauplius stage of branchiopods and copepods.

Enough?

What jumps out for me is the fact that there are 67,000 species of crustaceans. 67,000!

How do we know that? Who schlepped around the waters of the world to identify and name and collect them? Who sponsored this? In other words who paid for it? 

And how did whomever did this decide when they were 12 years old that this was what they decided to devote their lives to? 

I assume all 67,000 are gathered in a crustacean museum somewhere. Probably in Japan or France where at least a few thousand are considered to be delicacies.

June 13, 2019--Trump Slump

We've been in Maine more than five weeks and I have spent about five minutes watching Morning Joe. 

Not each day, but five minutes totally. And for at least half that time I wasn't paying attention.

This is me who back in the city was about addicted to Joe Scarborough's early morning show and Nicole Wallace's on MSNBC later in the day.

My rationalization for tuning out is that the 2020 election is more than 17 months away and I do not want to peak too soon in my effort to help dispose of Trump.

But though I may be pooping out, or, as I prefer to think about it, pausing, Trump at 73 is tirelessly racing around the country appearing at pep rallies and spending hours each day tweeting up storms of noxious abuse that he hurls against his opponents. Mainly recently, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. 

Forgotten for the moment is that the week before there were others who bedeviled Trump and as a result were mocked by him--remember Robert Mueller and Bette Midler among others? Yes, "Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy" Bette Milder, who he called from the beaches of Normandy, on D Day, a "washed-up psycho."

And that's sort of the point--he sends out such a continuous stream of political gas that he creates a new norm, and unless one is careful it is easy to get sucked into it or want to retreat to the sidelines.

So I am finding, not just anecdotally, that many people are seeking distractions. Even Trump people. His rallies are less well attended and somewhat less rapturous. But just as I expect Democrats to return to the fold, or minimally resume following the campaign, I expect most of Trump's people will as well. So I don't see much of an edge there.

Conventional wisdom (which with Trump has not always been that wise) suggests that in national elections people do not start paying attention until the Labor Day before Election Day. And in the current case, if this holds true, we're talking about two Labor Days from now. The one this year and another in September 2020.

Yes, the Democratic nomination process kicks into high gear in 13 days when there is the first debate, spread over two days, among the 20 or 75 candidates seeking the nomination. (Another debate will follow in July so by August I'm afraid that hardly anyone will be paying attention to the Democrats.)

Party activists, though, will track what is happening as the debates are viewed as elimination rounds where those who languish in one-percent land at the end of June will begin to drop out. New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, for example.

And, yes, on the other side of the equation the debate is an opportunity for someone or two to emerge from the pack. Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg, for example, who recently have been doing well in the polls. In Iowa at least. 

Many Dems seem to be looking for an alternative to oldsters Sanders and Biden, both of whom are looking as if they are readier to move into a care facility than the White House. Though 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the ultimate care facility. The president even has his own in-house physician and emergency room.

In spite of what I've just said, I suspect for some time I won't be tuning in to "Morning Joe." Except, perhaps, for a couple of days later in the month just before and after the first debate. 

Though it appears that Joe himself these days hardly ever turns up for his own show.

June 12, 2019--Down Day

I've been a little out of gas but will be back Wednesday with "Trump Fatigue." 

June 10, 2019--No Need to Vote

I've been hearing from friends who live in blue states that they're not planning to vote next year.

"You must be kidding," I've been saying. "You're lifelong liberals, Democrats, you can't abide Trump, and yet you plan to sit on your hands in November? The 2020 vote may turn out to be our last chance to rid ourselves of him. I'm not sure I want to be involved with you if this is your plan."

"Before you cut me off," one said, "I live in deep-blue Massachusetts. There we can already chalk up the Electoral votes for whoever the Democrats nominate."

"Or California where I live," another said. "Last time around it gave Hillary more than a four-million vote plurality. So what does my vote mean?"

"Then there's New York," one of my oldest friends said, "My vote won't count there either. The Democrat always wins at least 60 percent of the vote."

"I can't believe I'm hearing this," I said and was tempted to change the subject so we could remain friends.

"What's the counter argument?" my California friend asked, "So Biden or the nominee wins by 'only' three-and-a-half million popular votes. But still he cleans up in the Electoral College."

"You're right that what happens with the Electoral votes will determine who becomes president but the national vote also counts in some big ways."

"Enlighten me."

"First of all the potential size of the Democratic plurality will contribute to repudiating Trump. He won't be able to claim that there's fraud if the vote against him adds up to many millions. No matter what states the votes come from. As we know he's all about size."

"Fair point."

"Then there are the potential political consequences. With a big plurality the winner's coat tails will be longer and maybe more Democrats will be elected to Congress. This then could contribute to what legislation gets enacted and, perhaps most important, who can get confirmed to the Supreme Court. In other words, the size of the vote could enable the winner to claim a mandate. Pressure by the electorate to push Congress to protect the environment, women's rights, a sensible approach to foreign affairs. All sorts of things you support that have been gutted by Trump and his administration."

In general, after these conversations pretty much everyone says they will rouse themselves vote to help run up the numbers.

We'll see. 

June 7, 2019--Once Again: The Rhumb Line

A number of people asked me to repost this. It first appeared July 27, 2016. The "George" is George Lindberg. He's always good for a story.

It was a hot morning and George took a break from mowing our lawn.

"I hear from your missus that you're looking for a new place to have lunch on Wednesday."

"Yes, a cousin is going to be in the area. In Rockland."

"I know you like the Slipway in Thomaston. The same owner now has a place on the harbor in Camden, the Rhumb Line."

"That's exciting," I said, "He had one of our favorite places in Port Clyde. Until Linda Bean of the LL family bought the property. He couldn't stand her because of her homophobic politics and refused to remain as chef. That's when he opened the place in Thomaston."

"The one in Port Clyde was called the Dip Net."

"In addition to being such a good restauranteur," I said, "he comes up with great names for his places."

"What do you think about Rhumb Line?" George asked.

"We haven't been there yet," Rona said.

"I mean the name."

"I know what a dip net is--a long-handled net used to land fish--and a slipway is a boat launching ramp. But a rhumb line? That's a new one for me. It sounds nautical."

"It's a navigation term," George said, "If you don't know what it is I think you'll like it."

"I'm eager to hear."

He let go of his lawnmower and with a sweeping gesture, using both hands, created in the air the shape of a large sphere. "Make believe this is the earth," he said, "In three dimensions."

"I got you. I loved solid geometry in high school. Especially how to think about and understand how lines on a solid three-dimensional globe work. Arcs and such."

"Exactly. So if you, for example, head east from here across the Atlantic and don't change course--in effect, go straight--the shortest distance from point to point is not a straight line, as it is in two-dimensional plain geometry, but an arc, a circle. Thus ships or airplanes follow the Great Circle Route to get to England most directly."

"And a rhumb line?" I asked.

"I'm getting to it." George likes to take his time when explaining concepts to be sure you're following him. He's really good at this. Particularly if the concept is complex or full of ambiguity. His favorite type. He also likes telling stories of all sorts. The shaggier the better.

And so, again with a gesture, maintaining the outline of the globe with one hand while with the other, where the Equator would be, he traced a spiral in the air, up from the Equator toward the North Pole.

"A rhumb line is a line on a globe that as it moves forward crosses all lines of longitudes at the same angle. That's the key--the same angle. Longitude, as you know, being the way on a globe that we map north-south slices of space and location."

"I think I'm beginning to get it," I said, "To trace a great circle on a sphere one moves along in a three-dimensional arced line, not changing course because the distance between lines of latitude are constant."

"Exactly."

"But with a rhumb line, to cross longitudes at the same angle one has to constantly change one's course."

"And thus a spiral is traced on the globe because as you head north--or south for that matter--as one approaches a pole the separation between the lines of longitude get narrower and narrower. If you will, compressed closer and closer together so it's necessary to constantly adjust your heading."

"And?" I said.

"And what?" George said.

"Whenever you get into these kind of things you always have another meaning or two to offer."

"Me?" he said with a shrug, trying to hide a smile.

"Please proceed."

"I know how you like to go round in circles. I mean," he quickly added, "not in a bad way, but metaphorically to see what you might stumble onto that's interesting."


"Could be true," I conceded. "And so?"

"With great circles and now rhumb lines you have more circles and spirals within which to go round." George winked.

I tried to get us back to basics, asking, "But is it a good restaurant?" I thought I had cleverly circled around to where we began.

He smiled and, ignoring me, said, "According to the theory, no matter what course you set we all end at the same place."

As I pondered that, he said, "But be sure not to forget to order the fried oysters."

June 6, 2019--No Rules to Art

I've been reading Jan Morris's In My Mind's Eye, excerpts from her daily diary. It was written when she was 92 and still in full command of her mind and sensibility.

One entry stood out that I shared with my talented artist niece, Melissa Middleberg. You as well might find it to be of interest.

Day 69--

    I don't want to sound curmudgeonly, but I do not approve of literary prizes. It is true that I wouldn't mind winning one, instead of being a habitual runner-up, and I would not say no to being half a century or so younger than I am and thus qualified to win one of those prizes specifically reserved for younger writers. No, it is not just envy that animates me; it is the conviction that art, however elementary, cannot be competitive.

    How can anyone rate the merit of one book against another, or this talent with that--like comparing beauty itself, or goodness, or evil? Which would win the prize, Jane Eyre or Ulysses, Flaubert or Mark Twain? Only a god, an angel or perhaps a genius could judge, and not many are around to preside over the Man Booker or the Pulitzer. I suppose there are, though, writers extant around the world who really are competitive, who are out to be better than the others--not in the matter of sales or even reviews, but out of plain competitiveness, like sportsmen.

    The success of some athletes and chess players, it is true, is sometimes abetted by the elegance of their performances, but their true purpose is to beat someone else by the rules of their practice. 

    There are no rules to art, though, nobody is offside, and to my mind nobody should be judged a winner. 

    Not even me.

By Melissa Middleberg

June 5, 2019--Micucci's Pizza

Not much writing time today. 

After a memorable three-hour breakfast with John and Bernie, we spent additional hours haunting the garden shops near Portland and then, in Portland, at Micucci's, we inhaled a few slices of their America's-best pizza-by-the-slice.

If you haven't had any, put it on your list. 45 India Street. It's been there for almost as long I've been wandering around looking for pizza and donuts and BBQ. Not all at once, of course. Though why I say "of course" escapes me. I have been known to . . .

Enough about that.

June 4, 2019--Outraged By Trump

A friend mentioned he was "outraged" by Trump's behavior while on a recent four-day visit to Japan.

"What has you all agitated?" I asked.

"Did you see what his people did to that naval ship? A destroyer, I think."

"I assume you're referring to the USS John McCain."

"That's the one. How he had the crew cover the name of the ship with huge bolts of canvas. To avoid pictures of Trump visiting the troops with the hated McCain's name visible on camera. It would have been Trump's version of Bush's 'Mission Accomplished.'"

I said, "I doubt Trump needed to order anyone to do that. I assume some of his advance team know what he would want and on auto-pilot carried out what they assume to be his wishes. In a way that makes it worse. His silent wish is their command."

"And then," my friend said, "there was his speech to the troops. Did you see that maybe half the 800 sailors and marines he addressed attached patches to their uniform sleeves that said, 'Make America Great Again'? And how they chanted 'USA, USA,' like his people do at campaign rallies. I assume Trump's events staff also made this happen. There's no way military personnel would have done this on their own. Outrageous "

"I've got to be frank with you," I said, "I'm done with being outraged. Yes, every day he does something more outrageous than the day before. But by focusing on the outrage of the day I am concerned that it saps too much of our energy and takes our eyes off the ball. The ball being doing everything we can to vote him out of office in 2020."

I rattled on. "By now we should be frustrated enough with his doings that we don't need too much reinforcement about why he is a danger and has to go. Let's focus on mobilizing people to vote. Not just overloading people by spending so much time airing grievances. I am seeing much of that now to be counter productive. It may make us feel we're in the fight and that we're good at keeping score of his lies and outrages. We want to demonstrate that we're paying attention and intend to hold him accountable. To call him out. We obviously need to do some of that but not at the expense of organizing, raising and contributing money, and trying to persuade people still on the fence to consider voting for whoever becomes his opponent."

My friend came back at me--"It's more than a year to Election Day and so I disagree. We have to keep him off balance and on the hot seat. Taking note of his outrageous behavior is one way of doing that. We have the time to do all of this between now and November 2020 and focus on defeating him at the polls."

"Maybe you're right," I said, "I need to give it more thought."