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.

January 15, 2018--Davos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 13, 2017--A Fine Bromance

On an unseasonably warm day I was out on the terrace helping Rona secure some of her trees and plants for when the worst of winter will arrive.

When my part of the work was done, I collapsed on the bed and turned on MSBC to see if the world still existed.

At the bottom of the screen there was a shot of the White House State Dining Room. A graphic indicated they were waiting for the President and Vice President to arrive for a brief ceremony to honor Joe Biden's remarkable political career.

They were running late but I sensed it might be worth waiting. Maybe Biden would unleash a few valedictory Bidenisms. Like when he was caught on an open mic nearly eight years ago at another formal ceremony, Obama's signing the Affordable Care Act. Biden hugged Obama and whispered for all the world to hear, "This is a big fucking deal." It turned out to be just that.

Yesterday's was a wonderful occasion. The president struck the perfect balance between honoring Biden for his nearly 50 years of service and as is traditional in male-male bromances (and they clearly have an intense one) there was lots of affectionate joshing, including a smattering from the opus of the best Bidenisms. The "big deal" one very much featured with the f-word deleted (many grandchildren were present) but clearly hanging in the air.

When it was Biden's turn he didn't disappoint. He told stories from his life, a life of love and death and then more love and yet more death. But much of what he had to say was about Obama. All heartfelt and full of tears for what had been and what might have been.

"You have a heart as big as your head," Biden said, "And with it you entered my heart." It felt like a defining moment in both of their lives. These unlikely brothers. Not their political lives but their larger lives of family and commitment and integrity and resilient optimism even though, for Biden particularly, his life could have easily been one of cynicism and loss.

As it ended, I couldn't help but think about what was underway literally in other rooms beyond the true emotion and simple beauty of that White House ceremony.

The news channels could not wait to get back to it. One could feel that, as if there were digital emanations from the TV screen reaching out to pull us back into another version of reality, of what the media have opted to present as most important--the "unsubstantiated" CIA document, leaked by BuzzFeed, that alleges, in regard to Russia, that Donald Trump participated in many financial and personal indiscretions.

The reputable news outlets have known about this since August but did not write about it because they could not verify any of the accusations. But all the while, and this is what the networks and and papers such as the New York Times do when there is the hint of a scandal--as with Monica Lewinsky--pretending to be above matters of these kind, they cover the coverage.

That way they do not have to get down in the muck but instead write about what other sources that thrive in that muck are leaking. Journalistic ju jitsu at its most hypocritical. Having it both ways, the elite media remain clean while reporting about the reporting about the dirt.

In the current case that involves revealing, "unverifiably," that once when in Russia Trump asked to stay in the same suite in the same hotel that earlier had accommodated the Obamas and then hired Russian prostitutes to preform "golden showers" on the Obama bed.

Sad to say, though not verified, I'm almost inclined to believe this. This is where America is at. Where I am at. This is to where Donald Trump has helped to bring us.

And, I also thought, what will things be like, what will our country be like when the Obamas and Bidens are no longer in the White House and the Trumps next Friday arrive to check in.

                                       

March 3, 2016--Super Tuesday: Who Really Won? Who Really Lost?

The New York Times banner headline on Wednesday morning was, "TRUMP AND CLINTON FEAST AS 12 STATES VOTE."

Putting aside the funky "feast," did the NYT get it right?

One could make a case that they missed the real stories. For both parties.

That case would claim that the apparent biggest winner--Hillary Clinton--with by far the most delegate votes (she has 1,001 while Sanders has only 371) was really a loser.

She has thus far benefitted greatly, disproportionately, by being propelled into the lead by rolling up a powerful stream of victories in mainly southern states with large concentrations of Democratic African-American voters while she is doing less well in other, more demographically balanced states. States such as Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont, all of which Sanders won on Super Tuesday.

Further, over the next few weeks there will be mainly winner-take-all primaries in states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Illinois, Michigan, and of course Ohio where Sanders may be set up to do quite well.

And a large portion of Clinton's delegates (more than half her total) are so-called "super delegates," chosen by local party elites. These delegates could turn out to be evanescent if Sanders gets on a roll.

Remote as this may be, this is still possible and a good reason for the Clintons not to do too much premature celebrating since, according to this analysis, Sanders sort of won and Clinton sort of lost.

On the GOP side, if I were Trump I would be a little nervous. Many pundits said he was sure to carry all 11 Super Tuesday states, with the exception of Ted Cruz's Texas. Cruz did in fact win there with a margin of 17 percentage points, more than double what was predicted.

And then he went on to defeat Trump in Oklahoma (Tuesday's most unpredictable state with Cruz and Sanders winning) and the Alaska caucus.

Also, the otherwise hapless Marco Rubio managed to win the Minnesota caucus while Trump wound up a weak third.

Add to that that Trump, on average, is getting only 35-40 percent of the popular votes and if you add up all the GOP delegates thus far awarded, he has only 45 percent of them.

Not exactly a New York Times feast.

If Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio manages somehow to win Florida, Trump could be in trouble. Minimally a brokered convention would be a distinct possibility where the remaining party bosses and big-money people would rig things for Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.

So for me the Republican winners might be Kasich, who did pretty well in Vermont and Massachusetts and should do much better during the next two weeks, and without doubt Cruz, who is the current stand-out number two.

Then again, Ben Carson may turn out to be the biggest winner. If he "suspends" his candidacy, as expected, he'll no longer have to appear on stage side-by-side with these people.

April 13, 2105--Kosher Section

Everyone has their airline stories. Mostly not good ones.

Mine include a flight from New York City to Buffalo where my seat mate--a 10-year-old--threw up all over me; another between Atlanta and Newark where to my left there was a chimpanzee in a suit and fedora (yes, that really happened); and one from Washington, again to Newark, where the passenger in the cramped middle seat (I had the one by the window) weighed at least 300 pounds and took up so much room that if there was an emergency, he couldn't get out of his seat without significant help and I would have had to climb over him. And we've all had cranky, screaming babies behind us who spent the entire flight kicking our chair backs.

I could go on. As I'm sure you could

With the very overweight passenger, I rang the call button to let the cabin crew member know how his bulk created a safety hazard. I asked that he be relocated or required to purchase two seats. But it was a full flight and my protest was to no avail and so I held my breath for the entire flight. Fortunately there were no incidents, it was on time, and after a couple of hours I was able to extract myself from my seat and stretch my legs.

I was reminded about these flights the other day when the New York Times reported about another seat-assignment problem--ultra-orthodox Jews on flights to Europe and Israel who refuse to sit next to any women not their wives.

This is not some quirky thing for Hasidic men. They are forbidden by their rabbis from having pretty much anything to do with women to whom they are not married, including family members. And even with their wives there are strict rules about courtship (there is not much--most marriages are arranged), touching, and sexual behavior.

For example, at Hasidic weddings the men and women party in separate rooms, dancing with each other, and for that small part of the celebration where the men and women come together and even dance they are not allowed to touch each other's bodies, any part of their partner's body. In place of hand-on-hand touching, partners use a handkerchief that the groom holds at one end and his bride the other. It's all spelled out and choreographed in great detail.

About sexual practices, I leave that to you to do the googling. One tease--check out how husbands' and wives' beds are to be arranged, allegedly including a sheet separating them so that . . . Well, do your own research.

And when the ultra-orthodox need to interact with the world beyond their self-imposed ghettoes, there are all sorts of other rules they are required to follow, including behavior on airplanes.

In addition to not being permitted to sit next to any women to whom they are not married, I have been on flights to Israel where I witnessed all the Hasids on board organizing themselves for evening and then, overnight, morning prayers. God help you (pun intended) if you need to go to the bathroom at those times.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, disputes about seating are increasing. So much so that it is now routine that flights between the States and Israel are routinely delayed as Hasidic passengers request and even insist on seat changes. And more and more secular flyers are refusing to give up their seats. Some women, for example, find the whole matter sexist and for that reason alone do not agree to switch seats to enable an ultra-orthodox passenger to protect himself from inadvertently touching a female seat mate.

I have a solution--set up a kosher section on planes to Tel Aviv. Just as there used to be smoking sections. One can already order kosher food so why not kosher seats?

And while we're at it, let's have a section for children and parents. The maybe another one with bariatric seats for the obese. And perhaps a special section for . . .

October 8, 2013--Stagehands

"It's not that I'm antiunion," Stan said, which surprised me. He tends to take conservative positions on most issues of public policy.

"But from what I'm hearing about your stagehands, I'm not so sure."

"My stagehands?" I looked at him quizzically, "I'm a bit confused. I don't have any." We were sitting together in a booth at the Bristol Diner, with the sun streaming in, whiling away the morning.

"Well, you are New Yorkers, aren't you?"

"Still, I'm not following you." At times Stan tends to speak elliptically. Or playfully when tweaking us about being from the Big City. "Stagehands?"

"Don't you read your own paper? The one you're always writing about?"

"The Times? The New York Times?"

"There was something there, I think on the front page, about how they were on strike."

"I've been busy and somehow must have missed that."

"Not for more money but because they were insisting that Carnegie Hall hire more stagehands to work for the new education program they're planning to launch."

"What does the work entail? Traditional stagehand work? Moving props and scenery?"

"I don't think so. The Carnegie Hall people say it's mainly moving chairs and other lightweight chores. And so they want to hire people who will work for less money than the stagehand's union requires."

"What kind of money are we talking about?"

"I think that's why the dispute wound up on the front page."

"So, how much? As I said, this is the first I'm hearing about it."

"I'm glad you're sitting," Stan said with a broad grin. He leaned across the table to make sure I couldn't avoid making eye contact.

"On average, $400,000 a year in salary and benefits."

"What?" I was incredulous.

"You heard me--400 grand. More than most Carnegie executives make and a lot more that any of the musicians in the orchestra."

"I can't believe this is true. I know they have a strong union and at times have gone on strike and shut down Broadway theaters. And I know they make a lot and . . ."

"Here's how I think it works," Stan said, cutting me off and getting out his pen, using his napkin for scratch paper. "They get whatever their base is. For working 9 to 5 Mondays through Fridays. Like the rest of us. But since everything at Carnegie Hall is at night or on weekends they get paid for that at double or triple overtime."

"So you're thinking that even though there's not much to do weekdays during the day, still they come to work then and wait for after hours for the actual work to kick in and at those times they make a lot more than they do for the first 35 hours?"

"It's gotta be. Otherwise how does it add up to $400,000 a year?"

"And there's probably no way for Carnegie Hall to change the deal. Or on Broadway, for that matter, where it must be pretty much the same situation."

"I don't know about that," Stan said, "But about Carnegie Hall I only know what I read in the paper."

"You mean my Times?" I winked. "I didn't know you read that."

"My son-in-law, who knows my views, showed it to me on-line. Probably to make me crazy."

"So," I couldn't resist poking at him, "If it was up to you, you'd let them stay on strike while not just resisting hiring more $400,000-a-year men for the new program but also demand all sorts of givebacks from the current stagehands? To bring their compensation into line with management and, more important, the musicians?"

He smiled back at me in answer.

"They'd probably stay on strike forever," I said, "if the Carnegie board insisted on that. But I take your point about union overreach. I'm pretty liberal . . ."

"Don't I know it," Stan said. This time he did the winking.

". . . but this doesn't do the union movement any good."

"You're right about that," Stan said. But then, as he occasionally does, he surprised me, "Look, there are only four or five stagehands at Carnegie Hall and this is not a typical union situation. In fact aren't you surprised that your leftwing paper made such a big issue out of it? About four or five people making a ridiculous amount of money?"

"Good point," I said.

"This will be all over talk radio tonight. Another thing to make people feel they're being taken advantage of and that everything's unfair. There are many unfair things," Stan continued, "But not everything is unfair. It doesn't help to simplify things this way. If we want to dig out of the mess we're in we need to be smart. And blowing this all out of proportion makes us stupid."

I nodded. "What's more, it distracts us from looking at what's really unfair. I know we'll disagree about most of that but at least we'll be talking about the real problems. Not sideshows."

"That's why I love you Stan. So much so that I'm paying for your coffee."

"For today or the whole week?"

September 10, 2013--The $289,500 Hot Dog

One of my favorite big city guilty pleasures is slipping out once in awhile for a hot dog and Coke. A Sabrett's dog from a street-corner vendor. They come piping hot on a roll smothered in ballpark mustard and sauerkraut. Though they may not have any nutritional value, and are likely take years off one's life, once or twice a year it doesn't get any better than to sit out on a park bench and munch away on two or three.

And you can't beat the price. Depending on the where, Sabrett's cost about $2.00 each with the soda just a buck. In a neighborhood luncheonette, by contrast, a tuna on whole wheat and a fountain Coke is at least $12.00.

Down in my neighborhood--the West Village, at carts surrounding Washington Square Park--they go for a bargain dollar-fify each while up at Central Park they cost $2.00 or more.

Now I know why there is this price difference.

According to the New York Times, city authorities charge vendors an annual fee to set up in a specific location because about 10 years ago they needed to step in to regulate the situation as vendors were at war with each other. Literally.

Pushing their carts, they would show up before daybreak to stake out a favored loaction and then squat there, fending off others who had been set up there the day or week before. There was much pushing, shoving, and cursing; occasional serious fisticuffs; sometimes stabbings and even gunshots. No surprise, there were also allegations that the Mafia was involved.

Now, every five years, the best spots are auctioned off. There are 20 locations around Central Park and licenses there go for anything from $125,170 a year at the Harlem end of the park to a staggering $289,500 by the entrance to the zoo.

That means, to break even, with dogs at $2.00 each, a vendor who paid this fortune to be set up near the sea lions and monkey house has to sell nearly 150,000 to just break even. If one adds the costs of ingredients, that number is much higher.

With this annual cost of doing business how can any of these guys turn a profit? Some vendors report that they can gross $2,000 on a summer Sunday but take in virtually nothing when it rains or during the winter.  Maybe all the profit comes from selling bottled water at $2.00 a pop

Somehow it must pay.

Or is this yet another example of Big Apple real estate, where everything is inflated beyond normal reality? Where apartments that sold 10 years ago for $400,000 are now worth $2.0 million. Or more.

Location, location, location is the name of the game in Manhattan real estate and it must also be true when it comes to Sabrett's carts. A lot of people after all do come to the Central Park zoo to see the polar bears.

September 9, 2013--Good Yontif in Farsi

While much of the attention focused on the Middle East last week was about the United States' struggle with how to respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens, there was another important story that were virtually ignored.

The press covered every minute of President Obama attempt while in St. Petersburg for the G-20 summit to convince at least a few leaders of the world's most powerful nations to support limited military strikes against the Assad regime's capacity to deploy these weapons of mass destruction.  He secured little overt endorsement and may have to settle for going it along, assuming Congress grants him the authority to do so.

Dealing with Congress was the concurrent part of the Syria story. Equally covered by the media wall-to-wall were the deals the Obama administration was working on to garner enough bipartisan support for this authorization. At least half of what was discussed was how big a blow it would be to Obama's prestige and to undercutting the power of the presidency if the Congress failed to do so.

The other half was devoted to how this would play out in the rest of the Middle East, particularly how Iran would react if the U.S. were seen as weakened by bipartisan anti-war sentiment.

If Obama couldn't enforce the red line he drew regarding Syria's use of poison gas, how likely would he be to enforce an even more crucial one--not allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons? And, always of course, how would Israel react? What would Israel do if the United States was suddenly perceived to be impotent?

These are all important subjects well worth detailed coverage and discussion. But almost lost in the shuffle of Syria-related stories was what might be happening in Iran now that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no longer president and his successor, the "moderate" Hassan Rouhani appointed an even more moderate, American-educated Javad Zarif as Foreign Minister.

Both, if you can believe it, on the eve of the highest of Jewish holidays, Rosh Hashanah, sent out Tweets, wishing Jews a Happy New Year.

Semi-buried on page A9 of the New York Times, President Rouhani's Tweet was quoted--

As the sun is about to set here in Tehran I wish all Jews, especially Iranian Jews, a blessed Rosh Hashanah. 

And while they were wishing Jews a Good Yontif, unlike Ahmadinejad, who made a habit of it, they dismissed the idea that the Holocaust never happened.

In response to a Tweet from Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine, who is married to a Jew, in a message to Foreign Minister Zarif in which she said that the new year would be even sweeter if he would stop denying the reality of the Holocaust, he responded--

Iran never denied it. The man who was perceived to be denying it is now gone. Happy New Year. 

That "man" who is now "gone," of course, is the aforementioned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He was not just "perceived" to be a Holocaust denier--he in fact emphatically and repeatedly was. But the Tweets from Iran's recently-elected leadership (though the ultimate ruler remains Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) are encouraging.

Perhaps something good will emerge from the new regime in Tehran. Maybe a deal that would see Iran back off from its nuclear weapons program and, in response, we would agree to end the sanctions that are wrecking Iran's economy--the real source of the apparent sea change in attitudes and, let's hope, behavior.

This to me is the major story of last week.