December 20, 2018--Trump's Distractions

If you are wondering why Donald Trump is ordering the removal of all U.S. military forces from Syria, declaring ISIS defeated even those they aren't--up to 30,000 ISIS fighters remain--the answer by now should be familiar: this retreat, which he initiated without consulting Congress or his State Department or Pentagon, is to distract us from the Michael Flynn fiasco and the humiliating collapse of his own private family slush fund, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

You do have to admit that pulling the Syria withdrawal seemingly out of a hat is impressive in one way--who but Trump has our 2,000 troops on their radar screen ready to be brought home as a distraction from his political troubles. As of 5:00 am this morning on the New York Times webpage it is the lead story. Flynn and the Foundation are buried somewhere. He managed to turn both into one-day stories.

But don't mishear me--Flynn and the Foundation will contribute to bringing him down, especially when we get to see what is redacted in the Flynn charging memo: that he and Flynn openly conspired to play politics and strategic footsie with the Russians. As I have speculated here, Flynn was likely wearing a wire during some of those conversations, including in the Oval Office, and these tapes will turn out to be Trump's smoking gun.

And if you are wondering why Trump seems so adept, so quick in coming up with distractions of the Syria kind I suspect there is a simple explanation for that too--he has a pre-bickered list of them in his jacket pocket which he can pull out at a moments notice. 

(Ever think about why he never buttons his suit jackets? Not because they don't fit any more after he's gained at least 50 pounds since moving into the White House where the vanilla ice cream is available by the bucket, but to allow easy access to the distractions list.)

Investigative reporter that I am, from unnamed sources I have a copy of the list which I will share with you--

DJTRUMP DISTRACTIONS

Withdraw troops from Iraq

Withdraw troops from Afghanistan

Withdraw troops from Honduras

Withdraw troops from Japan

Withdraw troops from South Korea

Withdraw troops from Germany

Withdraw troops from all NATO countries

Withdraw troops from all bases in the United States
Start war with Honduras
Start war with Panama
Start war with Costa Rica
Start war with Mexico
Start war with California

Fire all Internal Revenue Service personnel

Fire all traffic controllers

Fire Ron Rosenstein

Fire Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Fire Kellyanne Conway

Fire Kellyanne's husband

Fire Jeff Sessions

Fire Rex Tillerson

Fire Reince Priebus

Fire Sean Spicer

Fire Jeff Sessions

Throw Sessions under the bus

Trow Spicer under the bus

Throw Kellyanne under the bus

Fire Wolf Blitzer

Fire Rachel Maddow

Fire Mika Brezezzzinzki

Throw Mika Bzezinzkiz under the bus

Throw Don Jr. under the bus

Throw Eric Trump under the bus

Throw Jared Kushner under the bus

Throw Ivanka under the bus

Throw Melania under the bus

Fire Omarosa

Fire Alec Baldwin

Fire Donald Trump

March 5, 2018--Trump: "Pure Madness"

Saturday night I violated Rona's 7:30 PM rule--No Internet surfing after 7:30--and paid the price. 

I didn't sleep much after reading the Washington Post's, "'Pure Madness': Dark Days Inside the White House as Trump Shocks and Rages."

Based on 22 interviews of White House staff and Trump friends, some of them on the record, it paints a deeply disturbing picture of Trump--

At times angry and increasingly isolated. He fumes in private that just about every time he looks up at a television screen, the cable news headlines are trumpeting yet another scandal. He voices frustration that son-in-law Jared Kushner has few on-air defenders. He revives old grudges. And he confides to friends that he is uncertain about whom to trust. . . 

Friends are increasingly concerned about his well-being, worried that the president's obsession with cable commentary and perceived slights is taking a toll on the 71-year-old. "Pure madness," lamented one exasperated ally.  

Retrired four-star general Barry McCaffrey said the American people--and Congress especially--should be alarmed. 

"I think the president is starting to wobble in his emotional stability and this is not going to end well. Trump's judgement is fundamentally flawed, and the more pressure put on him and the more isolated he becomes, I think his ability to do harm is going to increase.

There's more, but this should offer a flavor of the full article and an indication as to why I tossed and turned Saturday night. His "ability to do harm" made me think, of course, about where next and what--North Korea? Nuclear war?

"Pure madness" is not the best orientation for a president in an increasingly dangerous world.

Before my attempt to sleep a friend called, all excited.

"Did you see the piece in the Post?" I said nothing. "Very exciting, no? He's going down! We got him! He's unravelling, which is great. I'm so excited. I think it's terrific that they have him and his family in pincers. The sooner they take them away in handcuffs or, in his case, a straight jacket, the better."

I continued to say nothing, letting him go on and he eventually hung up, laughing gleefully.

The call was disturbing for reasons I at first did not fully understand. Why was I not also feeling gleeful? I have been coming to despise Trump since early in the campaign and later enjoyed watching and chronicling his decline as Robert Mueller and his investigators pressed closer to Trump's inner circle, his family of grifters, and especially Trump himself.

So the report in the Post was good news, no?

Yes, but also, I came to feel, no. 

The "yes" is obvious--Trump has been a political and cultural disaster, driving wedges of fear and hatred between Americans. Along racial lines. Along gender lines. Along religious lines. And of course he has taken the lead in coarsening political discourse, whatever little of it that remains.

The "no" case, less so. On a personal level I do not enjoy seeing any form of human suffering even, as in Trump's case, when deserved. And so to see him being driven literally mad has not given me much pleasure. OK, I admit, some.

And I have been enjoying the spectacle of his political implosion. The more things that contribute to that the better. He brought this and more upon himself. To be destroyed by the forces he himself largely unleashed seems Aristotelian, Shakespearean, Freudian. 

At some highest level of human retribution the self-imposed form of being held accountable is most just and satisfying. It also, in political terms, suggests that even when fully tested the "system" has the capacity to work.

Nothing that new here. 

But then why the continuing rub and agitation?  The sense that something extra-dangerous is happening? The very things I was feeing most satisfied about--the ways in which retribution was wicking out--after reading the Post article felt as if the very devolution of that reckoning has been contributing to the danger.

How, I wondered, would pushing Trump over the edge, watching, gleefully or not, as he approached the edge of his own capacity to survive, why was it feeling as if these facts themselves were contributing to making things worse, more dangerous?

His decline into pure madness increased the likelihood of Trump doing additional harm. Back to that.

By 2:00 AM Sunday morning I came to feel we should be focusing on how to help Trump no longer be president.

I use the passive voice intentionally. To suggest that it no longer primarily should be about seeking to remove him from office, from invoking the 25th Amendment to pressing for impeachment. Since the Republicans control Congress all of these strategies are likely to fail. It is thus urgent to find other strategies that lead to not having Trump any longer serving as our president. A subtle distinction.

About this I have not as yet formulated many things to suggest to contribute to this. But, I am coming to feel that the ceaseless attacking may no longer be effective. Perhaps it is having the opposite effect. He is digging in deeper, doubling down.

I sense we are not any longer helping by spending hours each day eager to pounce on, comment about, or make mocking reference to his every unhinged tweet ("Alec," not "Alex" Baldwin). 

No matter how satisfying it feels, inciting him will only contribute to his further unravelling and the likelihood that as he is further isolated and cornered he will, as General McCaffrey warns, do more actual harm.

Let things topple under their own weight. They already are and they will continue to do so.

And so we should encourage "Alex," as much as he tickles us, to put aside his version of Donald Trump and let things run their current course. 

In many ways the Trump presidency is already over. Where it isn't, however, where as commander-in-chief he can act unilaterally, dangers lurk. Thus we should seek ways to not inadvertently contribute to unleashing them.

October 3, 2017--Jack: Trump's People

Jack called, which surprised me because he had taken to coming to the diner mornings when he wants to talk about "his boy," Donald Trump.

"That Betty has been busting my chops when I'm there. She's so full of anger about Trump that it's hard to have a conversation. So, I'm calling."

"I'm sure she feels the same way about you--she can't understand, nor can I, with few exceptions, how you're such a butt boy for him. He does all these outrageous and dangerous things and you act like his chief apologist."

"I see you're already in a swivet so I'll keep this brief."

"That's fine with me." In fact it was. I was trying to have another few days without Trump, or at least as little Trump as possible. It was my birthday week and I was trying to give myself a present. But then there was the National Anthem and Puerto Rico fracas. And of course North Korea. There's no way to screen him out.

"I was looking at Facebook the other day and there was something posted by a friend of yours that I assumed must have gotten under your skin."

"I'm not that into Facebook," I said, "So I'm not sure what you're referring to."

"I don't know how Facebook works but there was something posted on my homepage that somehow seemed to connect to you. Which I assume is how Facebook works--Facebook friends of mine may have some connection to you and if so I somehow see what they post."

"I thought you said this would be brief." I had things to do and didn't want the aggravation.

"I have the Facebook piece right here," Jack said. I could hear him talking to himself as he searched for the posting. He read it to me and later I looked it up to quote it correctly--

GONNA VENT HERE. I have lived through a bunch of presidents and NEVER in my lifetime have I ever seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, humiliated by the public to the point of wanting to hurt someone, slander, ridicule, insulted, lied to, threatened to murder him, threatening to rape our Beautiful First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated. I am truly ashamed of the people of this country. I am ashamed of the ruthless, hating, cruel, Trump-phobia people that have no morals, and feel they have the right to say and do things they are. 

Every other President after they were elected and took the oath of office were left alone, they weren't on the news 24/7 being dissected by every word out of their mouth.

ENOUGH is ENOUGH is ENOUGH, LEAVE THE MAN ALONE AND LET HIM DO HIS JOB FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Jack paused, waiting to hear what I had to say. Finally I said, "I did see that and it did upset me. Not because I disagreed with pretty much all of it but because it revealed such a false sense of history. I mean, to say that criticizing presidents as forcefully as Trump has been attacked never happened before is all wrong."

"I knew this is where you would go with this," Jack said, "I'm sure you'll want to say more about this since you're a big student of American history. But that's not my point or what struck me. But please, have your say."

"Though I don't need you permission thanks anyway." He was already agitating me.

"Let's start with President Kennedy. He was a Democrat--I mention this because critiquing presidents has always been a bipartisan affair. He was attacked politically and after 1,000 days in office was assassinated. Then Lyndon Johnson, another Democrat, took over and was hounded out of office because of his Vietnam policies. I was happy to see him go.

"After Johnson we had Republican Richard Nixon. We know what happened to him. He was impeached and resigned the presidency. His successor, another Republican, was Jerry Ford. He was ridiculed from almost day one. It was said that he wasn't too bright, that he played football without a helmet. Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live lampooned him as much as Alec Baldwin ridiculed Trump.

"Ford lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter who was fiercely criticized by Republicans within months of his taking office and was handily defeated for reelection by Ronald Reagan, who, during his second term was almost impeached because of the Iran-Contra scandal.

"Next, his Vice President, the first George Bush, a Republican, was not reelected because he was savaged by critics for not paying attention to the economy. So Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was elected.

"We know what happened to him. Because of his sexual escapades and lying to the grand jury he was impeached and tried in the Senate.

"I could go on and recount how his successor, Republican George W. Bush, was treated because he failed to do anything to prevent the 9/11 attack and for getting us deeply into a quagmire of two wars in the Middle East. And how could I forget Trump's predecessor, Democrat Barak Obama who from before day one was undermined by Republican politicians and all sorts of right-wing media outlets. Then, of course, there was the whole birther thing, with Trump himself leading the charge, claiming Obama was not born in the United States and was a Muslim.

"That's what I have to say about the Facebook posting you brought up. That Trump being harshly criticized and every word of his being scrutinized is not unusual but the norm. It comes with the territory of being president. Complaining about it won't change that reality." 

I was clearly in a lather.

"I knew you would go there," Jack said, "And basically I agree with you. Your friend's posting is totally wrong when it comes to presidential history. As you said, all presidents get beat up. But this is not my point about Trump. Or what I took away from what she wrote."

"Which is?"

"That for her and all the millions of Americans who agree with her, the facts don't matter. What matters to them is that for the first time in their lives they have a president in the White House they can relate to. Viscerally. From Kennedy on down, all the presidents have had one thing in common."

"I can't wait to hear what they have in common."

"No matter their backgrounds, and most came from modest backgrounds--Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama--because of the education they received and how they behaved as politicians they came across as part of the professional and political elites that run the country. And all these presidents, all of them are the kind of people Trump supporters hate. 

"Hillary Clinton called them "deplorables,' remember that, and our leaders have given off that vibe for decades. As a result, for their entire adult lives these 'everyday people' as Obama and Clinton referred to them, have felt they did not have a president who represented them. Not so much their interests but them as people."

I thought hard about that. For nearly two years I have been feeling Trump's appeal is cultural. It's not about policies or a legislative agenda.

Jack said, "One final thing--how would you feel if the president or a candidate referred to you as an 'everyday' person or thought about you as a 'deplorable'? By your silence I assume not very good."

"Though I still disagree with what my friend posted," I said, "I do agree that she and others like her do have a president they can relate to. Ironically, even though he was born wealthy and is now a billionaire. So, it's not about class or money or power. It's in this case how Trump makes them feel. He gives them sanction, permission to act out, to say whatever they feel no matter the consequences. Just like he does. They pride themselves in telling it like they feel it is, in being politically incorrect.

"They are thus unleashed, very much including all their accumulated resentments. A lot of ugly stuff can leak out. Like it or not, I think this is the truth. His people and he connect with each other. Where we go from here, I can only guess. One thing I do know, it won't be pretty."

"See you at the diner one day soon," Jack said, "It would help if you could tell me when Betty has the day off."

February 10, 2017--Ridicule

Thursday morning we finally made it down for breakfast at 10:00. At least an hour later than usual. We lingered in bed as the snowstorm intensified. It was magical to watch our terrace turn into a giant snow globe. And we also lingered, in truth, because so much was going on. With and among Donald Trump and his band of co-conspirators.

By 10:00 AM the following had already happened--

In a series of three tweets he savaged John McCain for criticizing the ill-fated Navy SEAL operation in Yemen. McCain, he raged has been "losing so long that he doesn't know how to win."

Senators from both parties who had informal one-on-one meetings the day before with Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, were quoting him as saying that he was "demoralized" and "disheartened" by Trump's overnight tweets and comments that disparaged the federal courts. He made it known to the senators that he was comfortable with their quoting him directly.

I have been following these matters for decades and cannot recall anything even vaguely comparable.

Rona said, "That's because there has never previously been anyone like Trump in the White House. Even Nixon was more restrained in his assaults on the courts and never has a Supreme Court nominee allowed his words to be quoted publicly."

Trump took to mocking one of the senators who shared Garland's lament--Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal. In yet another tweet Trump blasted him for inflating his resumé in regard to his service in Vietnam, something Trump himself did when, after receiving four or five deferments, claimed he did his service in high school when he attended the New York Military Academy.

Then there was the Ivanka Trump flap. Trump began it himself when he called Nordstrom out for cancelling Ivanka's line of clothes. Trump said it was for political reasons, the store said it was because they weren't selling.

Brother Don, Jr., chimed in suggesting in a tweet of his own that shippers should boycott Nordstrom and signal they are doing so by cutting up and returning their credit cards.

Not to be outdone, favorite flunky Kellyanne Conway, while being interviewed on the inane "Fox and Friends" called for Trump supporters to "go buy Ivanka's stuff.  Doing so, as a government official, may be against the law. She was reportedly "counseled" for this infraction later in the day.

Finally, over coffee, wondering what this all means, Rona said, "I know how we can get rid of Trump."

"Impeachment?"

"No, resignation."

"No way but I'm interested in what you're thinking."

"Through ridicule."

"Say more."

"What's the one thing he craves the most?" She answered her own question, "To be in the center of things, in the spotlight, with all eyes on him while being adulated. That's why he's so obsessed with how he's faring in the polls, how large his crowds are at rallies and the Inauguration. That's why his touchstone no matter the purpose of the meeting is 'The Celebrity Apprentice.' He even began his comments at the Annual Prayer Breakfast by mocking the ratings Arnold Schwarzenegger was pulling after taking Trump's place as the host. 'Pray for his ratings,' he incredibly said."

"And so?"

"He thinks of himself as the entertainer or celebrity in chief. That's why he watches TV all the time. To see what people are saying about him. To be famous is his highest aspiration and that's why he's so protective of his image, his brand and can't stand it when late night talkshow hosts make fun of him or, much worse, how a show he used to appear on regularly, 'Saturday Night Live,' ridicules him mercilessly week after week."

"We don't watch it that much," I said, "But did the last few weeks. Via On Demand, and they sliced him up savagely, hilariously. Alec Baldwin has taken on his essence and the skit with Melissa McCarthy mocking his press secretary were works of comic genius. But I'm not entirely getting your point about the political impact of this."

"If all of these folks keep it up, Trump will not be able to appear in public. He certainly will not be viable in Manhattan at his favorite 21 Club or soon in Palm Beach. This would be like cutting off his oxygen supply. And so he'll wind up living alone in the White House. Don't underestimate the power of satire and ridicule. In his case, it could very well do him in."

"He'll resign?"

"That's what I'm thinking. Comedy as another of our checks and balances."

October 24, 2106--A Progressive's Dinner

At a gathering of a group of friends the other night we were talking about . . . what else.

It was after the Billy Bush tape had been in wide circulation and the consensus in the room of progressives was that this would be the end, finally, of . . .

No one was even comfortable pronouncing his name.

And then we slipped into our own not-really-that-funny version of Saturday Night Live where all of us played The Donald role. No one took on Hillary.

After a few more drinks and lots of satirical laughter one of my friends turned to give me a hard time about some of my blog postings. It didn't take long for a few others, equally well fortified, to join in.

It seems the problem is that they feel in my efforts to "understand" the reasons so many are supporting Trump, in spite of his many outrages, I was lending credibility--one said "legitimacy"--to his candidacy. By taking them and, by association, him seriously.

"He doesn't deserve to be taken seriously," another said.

"What should I be doing?" I asked, a bit agitated, "Turn my blog into a platform of support for Hillary?" This came out hotter than I intended.

There was some indication that some thought this was in fact what I should be doing. The stakes were that high. Fascism was threatening. It was not time for nuance or analytics. There would be time for that after the election. What's called for is partisanship. Every vote counts. I should be helping to bring out potential Clinton voters.

At least that's what I thought was being implied. All hands on political deck until he is defeated, gone and forgotten. So we can settle into four more years of what we have had for the past eight. Not perfect, but better than the alternative. Then there would be time to tweak Hillary's agenda. But only after a few more liberals are appointed to the Supreme Court.

"But shouldn't who are about to win recognize that Hillary will not just be our president but Trump's people's as well?"

"They're bigots, homophobic, Islamophobes, misogynists, white supremacists. You really want to have anything to do with people of this kind?"

"In many ways, I'd prefer not too," I confessed, "But since they're Americans too and there are apparently almost enough of them to elect a president--though I've also been writing that there are lots of Trump people who are none of these things--shouldn't we, who call ourselves liberals, who pride ourselves on understanding life's subtleties, shouldn't we be making an effort to understand more about what is tearing our country apart so that maybe we can help heal some of the breeches and distrust."

"It's a waste of time," a friend said. "These people are not interested in changing. They're dug in in their beliefs."

"I know, Hillary called them deplorables who are unredeemable. That may be what she thinks--those were her words--but I don't. I believe in the possibility of change for almost everyone. But that can only come, I feel, from a deep and empathetic understanding. It may be unpleasant and messy but that's what my definition of being liberal--minded means--being open to even listen to ideas we hate. Especially that. And if we don't take a step in this direction we shouldn't expect those who have very different views will take the initiative."

"This all sounds good but is too unrealistic to make anyone feel optimistic."

"Let me try out one more idea. How many of us have contributed money to Clinton's campaign?"

"Does giving money to Bernie count?" Everyone laughed but only two of ten indicated that they had contributed to Hillary.

"What about active electioneering? Like planning to go to a purple state and canvassing or making phone calls?" No one had done or planned to do that.

"That goes for me too," I said, "I haven't given her any money and I haven't been making phone calls to undecided voters. I'm not proud of that. But I've tried to read everything, talk to people like tonight, and I even to communicate with Trump supporters. But that's all pretty passive considering what's at stake. Having fessed up to that, it's hard for me to feel good about my open mindedness. But one final thing and then let's get back to having fun."

"As soon as possible," one said.

"So you have nothing but dismissive and disparaging things to say about Trump voters?"

"Don't they deserve it? Have you looked at who shows up as his rallies?"

"I do look at who they are. And that's my final point--they also look like those who show up at military recruiting offices. You're not OK with them as voters, but how do you feel about them as soldiers in our volunteer army?" Silence.

"How many of us have friends or family members who signed up to go to Afghanistan, Iraq, or just to be in the army?" More silence. Eye contact had broken off.

"Sorry to bring you down," I said. And to lighten things up again asked, "How do you like Alec Baldwin's Trump?"

May 21, 2014--Local News

I'm a TV news snob.

I have my issues with the so-called network news as well as the way national and international news is reported on CNN and other cable outlets (for their sensationalist and entertainment audience-building agenda); but I am particularly snobbish when it comes to local news.

We watch too much TV while in Florida and occasionally check in with local news reporting, particularly when there is the threat of bad weather. We otherwise tend to actively ignore it, tune it out, because we know what we will see--mainly people of color being arrested or shot down while robbing convenience stores. We know this is dog-whistle stuff--how the "news" reminds us about how "these" people behave in our midst.

Occasionally an ultra-rich guy after a polo match runs someone over in his Bentley and that gets covered. There is a strain of schadenfreude that permeates our culture that likes to see the rich and famous come crashing down. Justin Bieber comes currently to mind as does Alec Baldwin.

But mainly on Florida local news we see houses disappearing into sinkholes, Burmese pythons infiltrating the Everglades, fatal car crashes, and of course endless robberies, more and more caught by surveillance cameras. Mainly black guys in hoodies beating up South-Asian shopkeepers. Best, every once in awhile, the person behind the counter has a hidden baseball bat or gun which he uses to pound on the perpetrator or pump a couple of shots into him.

When we watch Florida local news, we gloatingly say, "Wait 'til we get to New York. At least there on the news they cover art exhibits and what's playing on Broadway."

Not so much.

The other day on the local CBS station the lead stories included a video of a taxi jumping the curb and mowing down shoppers on the Upper Eastside; pictures of a SUV crashing through the plate-glass window and all the way into a Nassau County pet store; an iPhone video of someone falling off a subway platform just as a train was about to pull into the station; and then more surveillance-camera images of an Asian grandfather being stalked by an African-American thug before being slammed to the ground and stomped on, dying from that a day or two later.

"I guess we'll have to look in the Times to see what's on Broadway," I said, trying to muster a little self-depricating humor.

But then WCBS turned to its version of national news, again it was wall-to-wall bad news--the tragic wildfires burning their way across San Diego County in California and the discovery of a second case of the Mers virus in the U.S. Wouldn't you know it, in Orlando, Florida.