February 5, 2019--Executive Time

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a scent of hypocrisy about this?

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

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

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

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

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

I have a different view. 

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

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

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

September 25, 2018--Second Lady

To distract myself from Trump-related agita I flipped around the Internet to see if there were some things we should book to do after returning to New York City in late October. 

Maybe take in a few shows and a couple of concerts.

I checked out Live Nation's website to see what they might be featuring. Among others they represent U2, Miley Cyrus (who I confess to liking), and Beyonce.

Maybe, I thought, we should go to something at the Barclays Center in the new Downtown Brooklyn. We haven't been there for anything, including to see the hapless Brooklyn Nets, partly owned by Jay-Z. It's that hip. 

Something unexpected jumped out as Live Nation's featured attraction--

On December 1st at the Barclays Center Michelle Obama will appear to promote her new book, Becoming Michelle Obama.

Tickets are available but going like hotcakes and so a second night is being added to the schedule. 

All over the country where she will appear in more than a dozen huge stadiums, including the 23,500 United Center in Chicago--home of the Bulls--tickets are selling so fast and the price is so high that the title of the former First Lady's book could be Becoming Rich.

First, there is the astounding $65 million advance the two Obama's received for a book from each of them. And then at the Barclays Center a fifth-row seat will set you back $1,256 (not a typo). A "meet-and-greet" package goes for $3,000, wheelchair seating at the back of the house costs $400 and a perch in the very top tier is only $29.50. For these, remember to bring binoculars.

I should add, as you attempt to assimilate this, about how the former president and his wife who represented themselves as all about reducing inequality while serving in the White House, how these two could so quickly sell their souls to Mammon (and Netflix, where they have a production deal that will yield well over $100 million) , supposedly 10 percent of the tickets to each event (I almost typed "concert") will be set aside for local "charities." Nosebleed seats, I assume.

Quoted in the New York Times, Steven Barclay (not related to the Brooklyn center), a book agent, was "virtually speechless as he checked the Ticketmaster landing page for Mrs. Obama, 'Huh,' he said, 'Wow. O.K. It's like you're looking at a Madonna tour.'"

More, I say, like a Beyonce tour. I've suspected for years that Michelle has felt Barack has an eye for Beyonce. And that she kept him an a short leash whenever there was an event at the White House or Inauguration to which Beyonce was invited. And that slowly, over time, the First Lady morphed her makeup and hair to look more and more like the singer's.

Check out the photo below and tell me I'm wrong.

June 29, 2018--The Supremes

Fret not. At least not yet. 

Yes, Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the Supreme Court, and liberals and moderates (if there are any of these left) are concerned that his so-called "swing vote" and moderating presence will depart with him. 

And so if Trump nominates and the Senate confirms (as they will--leave that to Mitch McConnell) a stealth arch-conservative similar to Clarence Thomas' new best friend, associate justice Neil Gorsuch, say goodbye to any hope that on key occasions justice Kennedy will join the four progressives on the court and things will be at least a little right with the world.

I hate to sound cynical, but Kennedy isn't so moderate and hasn't often, in truth, been that swinging a Supreme. 

With the exception of gay rights and in limited ways abortion rights, where as a libertarian he has been supportive (after all he's from Northern California) he has almost always been the dependable fifth vote, joining the four knee-jerk conservatives.

This year, for example, on all but one occasion he joined the right-wing four. So if he swings, almost all the time he swings to the right.

Thus his leaving the court will not change that much.

But here's what to fret about--

RBG. Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

She seems still to be vital, but at 85, the court's oldest justice, a pancreatic cancer surviver, how much longer can she schlepp herself to her chambers?

(With Kennedy retired--he is 81--the next oldest justice is liberal Stephen Breyer, who is 79.)

I'm no doctor, but though RBG could make it through the remainder of Trump's (first?) term, what are the odds of her being around for the four years after that? I'm not a betting person but . . .

I hate myself for saying this, but considering her medical history, if RBG genuinely cared about the issues she has devoted her life to--like the various rights of women--why didn't she step down during the first half of Barak Obama's first term when the Democrats controlled not only the White House but both houses of Congress? It would have been possible for him to nominate and ram a moderate through the Senate confirmation process.

Then we would have little to fret about. But now we need to do more than fret but to worry and I mean worry profoundly.

More than anything else we need to vote in November and work hard between now and then to increase turnout.

May 29, 2018--Kim & Trump Together At Last

Don't be taken in by all the on-again off-again business about whether Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un will or won't meet on or about June 12th.

They'll meet. 

About that you can bet the house. And they will make a deal. Or a version of a deal, including possibly a faux deal. They'll be OK with that since anything resembling one will work. Will work for each of their purposes.

Never before have there been two political adversaries who so desperately need a deal. And so we will have one.

Kim's country is falling apart. Not that for decades, since his grandfather's rule, has there been much remaining to fall apart. Pretty much everything has been collapsing since the Second World War. Though one would not even be able to notice how fallen apart things are, especially after dark, since with the exception of the capital, Pyongyang, there is no power and thus there are no electric lights.

That should be the worst of the situation. Even more dire, most North Koreans are grossly undernourished if not out and out starving with parasitical worms common in most North Koreans' digestive systems.

But there is a small North Korean elite who are loyal to Kim as long as they keep getting their goodies (electricity, TVs, things to buy, and overseas trips and bank accounts). If they sense that Kim is imperiled by unhappy elements within the country and thus might be in danger of being overthrown, the military might rise up and preemptively do the overthrowing. 

Kim has had dozens from the elite killed, including, especially brutally, family members. As a signal that he can play rough. But he could be more precariously in office than he appears to be from our vantage point halfway around the world.

So any deal would prop him up, particularly if some of our sanctions were lifted and things for ordinary North Koreans improved. After Kim and Trump meet, if we see lights burning at night across the country, we'll know things are getting better.

Evidence that Trump will be satisfied by any version of a deal is his more than usual refusal to do any prep work prior to the summit. Briefing papers have been prepared but he has refused to be briefed. He plans to wing it, guided by his "instincts," which he has previously proclaimed are the best in all of history.

He knows making a deal, even one in which he makes more concessions than Kim, will boost his approval ratings by at least 10 points and this could help Republicans in November maintain control of the House. And if that were to happen, there will be no impeachment. 

So the stakes for Trump are very high.

A deal would also allow Trump yet more leverage when it comes time to savage the Mueller report and the inevitable additional indictments that will be forthcoming this fall or winter.

Then there is the Nobel Peace Prize. If they make a deal it would be difficult for the Swedish Academy not to award one to Trump (and Kim) and this would allow him to further obliterate all traces of Barak Obama and his presidency. More than anything else, perversely, Trump's controlling obsession.

Why, one might wonder, would Kim trade away his nuclear weapons based on promises from the world's most dishonest and untrustworthy leader?

Again, things for him are desperate and it's the only card he has to play.

That reminds me a joke. One of my father's. He had only two or three jokes in his repertoire, so pay attention.

It's about sardines.

Louie gets a call from his friend Dave. "Louie," Dave says, "Do I have deal for you. A warehouse full of canned sardines. And they're yours for a special price. Only $5,000." So Louie buys the sardines.

A week later, Louie calls his cousin Murray and says, "Murray do I have a deal for you. A warehouse full of canned sardines. Priced especially for your only $7,500." 

Sight unseen Murray buys the sardines and after a few days calls his friend, Steve, "Steve," he says, "Do I have a deal for you. A warehouse full of sardines. They're for sale at a special price just for you--$10,000."

This sounds like a good deal to Steve and after sending Murray a check he goes to the warehouse to check out his sardines. They are in huge shipping crates. He opens a crate and then one of the cans of sardines.

They smell awful. "I'll try another one," he thinks. "This one must be a defective tin." But the next one and the one after that are also spoiled. 

So, angry, he calls Murray to complain that all the sardines are rancid. 

Murray is not surprised and tries to calm Steve down.

"You don't understand," Murray says. "These are not eating sardines. They're buying and selling sardines."

So Kim will tell Trump that he has a deal for him. He's willing to denuclearize because his atomic weapons are not for bombing purposes but for trading purposes.

At least let's hope so.

On Sale at the White House Gift Shop

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."

April 25, 2016--Dateline: The Rest of the World

While waiting for election returns from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maryland, and Prince's autopsy findings, a new Cold War is breaking out. This time not only with Russia but also China. And, who knows, maybe with Saudi Arabia.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is beginning to sound and look like the old Soviet Union with economic dislocation fueling an aggressive foreign policy to both reannimate dreams of a restored Imperial Russia and as a chauvinistic distraction for the Russian people who will soon likely be needing to line up for hours to buy a loaf of bread or a liter of vodka. But while in line they will have their nationalistic dreams to sustain them.

Circuses but no bread.

Rather than acting like a European partner, which we saw signs of for a decade or so, Putin is leading Russia's military buildup and deploying forces on numerous fronts in an attempt to secure what it sees as its sphere of influence and to provide opportunities to flex military muscle in order to poke the US and Western Europeans in the eye, partly as a response to the economic sanctions we and our European allies have imposed on Russia in retaliation for its expansionist moves in Ukraine.

And, while they're at it, they've taken to buzzing U.S. warships in open waters

Under Putin's leadership they have of course reannexed Crimea, threatened various parties in the Balkans, and have become actively involved in Syria, deploying an entirely new mix of smart weapons whose existence has caught Western observes by surprise.

What happened to all those clunky Soviet tanks and misfiring missiles? Clearly once again avoiding CIA detection, right under the noses of our various surveillance agencies, the Russians seemingly overnight on the ground and in the skies in Syria are putting on display a whole range of new, sophisticated 21st century weapons systems.

So much for recent efforts under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to "reset" relations with Putin and Russia. He and Obama can't even talk to each other. Even Stalin and Roosevelt got along better!

Meanwhile, in Asia, also with thoughts about a restored Dynasty, President Xi Jinping of China, also in part to distract the Chinese people from a cooling economy and to deflect thoughts from rampant governmental and corporate corruption (which directly involves his own family), Xi has been investing heavily in modernizing and rapidly expanding China's military capacities and reach.

New fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and a modern submarine fleet are among recent acquisitions. In addition, as an extension of its imperial moves in the South China Sea, encroaching on what we impotently claim to be international waters, and pushing toward South Korean and Japanese waters, under Xi, China is creating a series of new islands which already include air strips and naval facilities. We talk and talk and threaten and threaten while China dredges and dredges and builds and builds.

Perhaps most ominous is Russia's and China's moves to modernize their nuclear weapons. Making warheads smaller and smaller so that they can be mounted on advanced intercontinental missiles with vastly increased capacities to avoid detection. In retaliation, the Obama administration, has quietly begun to do the same for our aging nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Ironically, Barak Obama who came to office proclaiming that nuclear disarmament was his highest priority, and thus quickly received the Noble Peace Prize, is leaving office engaged in a restored full-tilt nuclear arms race with Russia and China.

And also while we have been obsessing about our presidential election and other entertainments, in response to the bold nuclear deal we struck with Iran, Saudi Arabia is talking quietly, in response to that, of developing its own nuclear weapons.

Sic transit . . .

June 16, 2015--The New Cold War

This report from the New York Times isn't from 1955 but appeared yesterday--

In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is drawing up plans to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries, official say.

What happened to détente? What happened with the Obama administration's claim that it had successfully pressed the "reset button" in our relations with Russia?

This sounds to me like all too familiar sabre-rattling.

But there's more.

A few days earlier the Pentagon announced that a Russian jet fighter buzzed a U.S. reconnaissance plane flying well outside Soviet borders over the Black Sea. It came within 10 feet of the American plane and maintained its provocative position for 10-15 minutes before breaking off. Overnight, the Russians announced they would match the U.S. buildup in Eastern Europe.

This to me sounds like back to the future and is very scary.

We know that Obama and Vladimir Putin despise each other and can't stand to be in the same room.

Nixon managed to meet and talk with Nikita Khrushchev, Roosevelt and Truman sucked it up and met and negotiated with Stalin, so why can't the current U.S. and Russian presidents do the same thing?

They would probably claim it's because they disagree about Crimea, which Russia annexed a year and a half ago. Obama sees Putin threatening more incursions in other culturally Russian parts of Ukraine; Putin sees it as an inevitable part of Russia's national destiny. We in America above all should understand his version of Manifest Destiny.

But none of this requires Cold-War-style confrontations. If Putin and Obama had a civil working relationships it all could be resolved with a few phone calls.

"Vlad, what's going on with you guys? I mean in Crimea." 

"Well, Barack, it's a traditional part of Russia, the people there are of Russian descent, speak Russian, and want to be a part of Russia. So why not let things take their course?" 

"I see your point. But what we need to do, Vlad, is sell the idea to our own people and make the case that you let the Crimeans vote about affiliating with Russia. Which they did and overwhelmingly wanted to. I'll work on Poroshenko to convince him it's no big deal. He owes me one. Everyone knows Crimea has been largely autonomous for decades so we should be able to put a fig leaf on the situation. How does that sound?" 

"I think I can make that happen. In the meantime, send my best to Michele." 

"And mine to . . . Sorry, I forgot her name. The gymnast?" 

"Alina, Alina Kabaeva. Will do. Talk to you soon. Call any time. You know I don't sleep."

So now that their relationship is ruptured, there will be no conversations of this kind and as a result we have economic and diplomatic sanctions flying in both direction, Russia has been kicked out of the G-8 (which is now again the G-7), and there are not-so-veiled threats of more to come, including additional close encounters in the sky and at sea. All we need is for one jet fighter pilot to make a mistake and launch a missile and who knows what would happen next.

This is the way adolescents behave, not the leaders of the world's two most powerful nations, both still with hundreds of intercontinental missiles at the ready and thousands of nuclear warheads.

Where are the adults?

December 27, 2013--GOP Quandary

Republican don't know what to do. Up to now they have been all-in in opposing Obamacare. It is, they have been obsessively claiming, an evil intrusion of big government in people's lives fostered on us by an evil, illegitimate president; and they have passed nearly 50 bills in the House of Representatives in efforts to repeal it.

Of course that has been a futile effort--with the Senate in Democratic hands and the evil one still ensconced in the White House, that strategy was going nowhere. But they pursued it to make a political point--if you want to get rid of it and him, vote GOP in 2014 and 2016.

Now matters are even worse--it exists and people are signing up. Perhaps not in the numbers Obama and the Democrats had hoped for, but as of last count at least 2.0 million have; and as of January 1st they will have health coverage for the first times thanks to, sorry, Obamacare.

The GOP doesn't know what to do next. Especially if millions more sign up and, like those on Medicare, they come to like it. Flaws and all.

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson got it right. He said, "It's no longer just a piece of paper that you can repeal and it goes away. There's something there. We have to recognize that reality. We have to deal with the people that are currently covered under Obamacare."

Translation of "we have to deal with the people that are currently covered under Obamacare"--

"We have to figure out some way, some scam, to get them to vote for us. Or say hello to President Hillary. How does that sound to you?"

Equally flummoxed, the ever-effervescent Lindsay Graham moaned, "The hardest problem for us is what to do next. Should we just get out of the way and point out horror stories? Should we come up with a mini Contract With America on health care, or just say generally if you give us Congress, the House, and the Senate in 2014, here's what we'll do with you on multiple issues including health care?"

Translation--

"Listen up, I'm fighting for my political life here. I'm up for reelection next year and they're running a Tea Party flunky against me in the primary, saying I'm too liberal. So what if I have a man-crush on John McCain and spend all my time traveling around the world with him? If trashing Obamacare isn't enough to get me reelected, we'd better come up with something good. Maybe like Obama is fooling around with Jill Biden."

The Republicans didn't ask for my advice, but I have a suggestion for them anyway that would show them to be ideologically consistent (not just typical hypocritical Washington politicians) and would fit right in there with their hatred of big-governement Obamacare--

Go after something that really is socialistic--Medicare.

Besides their favorite federal program--the military--Medicare is the biggest government program of all time. Like Obamacare it too has the Feds requiring tens of millions to get their health care though the government. But unlike Obamacare it doesn't require people to buy insurance through for-profit insurance companies. It's socialized medicine pure and simple.

So Republicans should forthwith pull up their socks, forget about Obamacare, and go after the most evil program. Paul Ryan in his budget (which, recall, all House Republicans voted for as did all but one or two GOP senators) pretty much calls for Medicare's elimination. It would turn it into a voucher program and save trillions since the vouchers wouldn't provide enough money for millions of middle class people currently covered to go into the market place to replace it.

This would work, no?

October 21, 2013--Ladies of Forest Trace: Senator Cruel

"I only have a minute. I'm watching C-Spanish." My 105-year-old mother was calling from Lauderhill.

I knew she meant C-SPAN. These days she's been glued to the TV. So much is going on in Washington.

"And it's making me depressed."

"What else is new," I said, "My recommendation is that you watch something entertaining. C-SPAN  and CNN and Fox News," the other things she watches, "will make you crazy."

"C-Spanish I also find entertaining. Most of what they say there is not to each other but to people watching on TV. Only when there is an important vote is anyone there. But it is making me crazy."

"So why . . ."

"Why? I may be on my last legs but I have my mind and things that I care about. That includes our country. America. You know I came here from a shtetl in Poland?"

"Of course I do. With your mother and sisters and brother. You've often told us that your father came to America first, saved enough money, and then sent for the rest of you."

"He would be turning over in his grave if he had a TV."

"Good that there aren't any where he is in Mount Lebanon."

She let that one pass and said, "One of the girls I have dinner with told me she read in the Yorker that that senator from Texas, Ted Cruel who filibustered for 20 hours against the president, Obamacare, said he is going to read it."

"I heard that too," I said, "He's finally going to read the bill itself. Someone passed the article along from the New Yorker--that's its name--about Senator Ted Cruz--that's his name."

"If you say so. But wouldn't you think before speaking 20 hours that he would do his homework? How can you talk for so many hours about something you don't know anything about?"

"They do it all the time. As you said, Mom, it about being entertaining. He is that--a political entertainer. Like Sarah Palin. By being so outspoken about Obamacare, even though like her he doesn't know anything about it, guarantees that he gets to be on television and as a result he has become a household name. He's been in the Senate for less than a year and is now more famous than others who have been there for decades. I bet more people know who he is than know about John McCain."

"And like that woman Palin he is probably making a lot of money and getting ready to run for president."

"I'm certain about that."

"Why do they hate him so much?"

"Senator Cruz? His constituents back in Texas still seem to like him even though he almost ruined our economy and failed to get Obamacare defunded."

"I meant the president. Obama. Why do they hate him so much?"

"What do you think?"

"On TV they should talk about that. About the real reasons."

"Which are?"

"It's not because he doesn't talk with Congress. He should do more of that. The way Reagan talked with that Tipper person and Clinton with that Grinch."

"Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich."

"Yes. Them. But that is not the real problem."

"Which is?"

"He's smarter than they are and enjoys pointing that out. As they say on TV, he's the adult."

"I agree with this too. He isn't good at the schmoozing and backslapping and never misses the opportunity to demonstrate he's the smartest person in the room."

"But he is the smartest person and that's part of the problem too. But only part."

"And the other part is?"

I think I knew where she was headed; but for someone her age, who can handle the challenge, it's important not to put words in her mouth or finish her thoughts. If she can it's more stimulating and even healthy for her to have to think things through. And the miracle is that she very much can.

"They don't talk about it enough."

"What's that?"

"His color."

"His color?"

"Because he's black. Millions can't stand that idea. That there is a black president. Not that they have a black president--but that there is a black president."

"I get the distinction."

"And one smarter than almost all the rest of us. That only makes it worse. If he was just ordinary that would be better for them because that's the way they think about black people. That they are inferior to white people. They even believe that black people who went to Columbia and Harvard are inferior to white people who just went to high school."

"I agree with that analysis."

"That's why Donald Trumpet wanted to see Obama's college transcript. He couldn't believe that there was a black person who could be better educated that he is. Even one who became president. Which, remember, he tried to do and made a fool of himself."

"I can't say I disagree with you."

"There's more."

"More what?"

"More to say about this. About white and black there are many complicated things. Remember, I'm almost old enough to remember slavery."

"That's an exaggeration. You only 105."

"And four months. Now like a baby I keep track of how old I am by counting months."

"But still . . ."

"It may have been 150 years ago when it ended but with something this terrible it takes longer than that for all whites and blacks to get over the cruelty and the family memories. Remember Bessie Cross, who worked for us? Who took care of you when I was teaching? Her grandfather was a slave and told her all the stories. And she told her son, Henry, who lived with us for awhile and was like an older brother to you."

"I remember them both very well. But they protected me from that history. Henry never said anything about his great-grandfather."

"Bessie told me everything." I heard my mother sighing at the memory. "And she told me other things too."

"What where those?"

"About how she was raising Henry. She knew that there were still separate black and white worlds. This, remember was after the War. The 1940s."

"There was still official segregation," I said, "Jim Crow laws in the South and unofficial segregation in most of the North. Including in New York. And in Brooklyn where we lived. There were separate black neighborhoods and in my school, PS 244, there were no Negros. But what did Bessie say about raising Henry?"

"She was a very proud and fearless person. And she wanted her son to have a safe and successful life. What the times would allow. She did not want him to expect or demand more than what was possible. In her heart she knew this was not right, not the way for things to be, but she accepted them. Though they made her angry and she did things to protest. She was active in colored organizations."

"The NAACP?"

"Yes that. But there were problems, violence, lynching as Negroes after the War asked for, demanded their rights."

"I too am old enough to remember that."

"But like every other mother Bessie wanted to protect her son. Even if necessary from his own desire to want to live in the white world."

"That is sad to hear, but I understand."

"But she knew that was what he wanted. Not to be white but to have the same opportunities. And to have them he might need to study and work among white people. And to do that successfully he needed to behave in certain ways so as not to make things worse for himself because to live this way would be bad enough."

"Which meant?"

She whispered, "Often compromise."

I could hear my mother's labored breathing. Remembering this and those days was painful, but I didn't attempt to distract her. I knew it was important to her to finish what she had called to discuss and that she could handle the intensity of the recollected feelings.

"For Henry to stifle himself at times. Yes, do that if it was necessary. Remember when this was."

"I do. And now? You raised all of this when talking about Obama. Why so many hate him and how he reacts to that."

"He is not from Henry's generation, thank God, and he had a white mother, which made it additionally complicated for him to figure out who he is and what he wanted to be. He wrote about these things."

"In Dreams from My Father."

"So, do you think this puts more pressure on him about the right ways to behave among white people?"

"Say a little more about this."

"That what we see as his willingness to compromise, even when he may not have to, could be a problem that comes from the way he thinks about himself--I know he thinks about himself as black--and how he feels a black person should behave among white people."

"This is indeed very complicated and not easy to talk about. I think especially for white people. Even liberals. I don't expect to see this discussed on TV or written about in the newspapers.

"Like Bessie Cross taught Henry, does Obama see the need to compromise, to stifle himself as part of what is necessary for a black person to do to be successful among white people?"'

"Some would call this a race-identity issue."

"And maybe a problem."

"Maybe."

"So, they hate him because he is black--that needs to be said and exposed--but also maybe by some of his behavior as president we still see what remains of segregation and even slavery. That we have made many things better; but even when someone becomes President of the United States, someone who was elected and reelected both times by more than 50 percent, the pain remains. The wounds are still there."

"Could be," I said. "One thing I am sure about."

"What's that?"

"That hard as it is we need to talk about this."

"That would be good," my mother said. I could sense that she was exhausted and I didn't want any longer to keep her from lying down. "Even if everything I said is wrong."

September 13, 2013--Remember Benghazi?

Wednesday was the first anniversary of the attack on a U.S. diplomatic consulate in Benghazi, Libya where our ambassador and three embassy staff were killed by terrorists.

What did and didn't happen there became a hotly contested issue during the 2012 presidential campaign;  but since that time--as with other unpleasant news that the public wants to move on from--the story about what has happened during the past 12 months to apprehend the killers has receded to the back pages. If even that.

Some would say that this attack was a response to direct U.S. military involvement in Libyan affairs that began in 1986 when then President Ronald Reagan ordered the air force, navy, and marines to bomb various targets in Libya in retaliation for Libyan involvement in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by American troops. Targets in Libya included Muammar Gadaffi himself and members of his family. It is alleged that an adopted daughter of his was among those killed and that he was wounded.

Reagan did not seek congressional or UN approval for these raids or the targeting of Muammar Gadaffi. He simply ordered them.

Then in 2011, with UN sponsorship, but again with no congressional authorization, America joined with other nations to aid rebels who were seeking to overthrow Gadaffi. We took the lead in enforcing a no-fly zone and had B-1 and B-2 stealth bombers attack at least 100 targets in Libya.

The assault on the consulate in Benghazi and the murder of four American diplomats needs to be seen but not excused in this context. No matter the past history, it was a heinous act and should not be relegated to the back pages.

But this year, on the 12th anniversary of 9/11, the New York Times, on its back pages, published a follow-up story about our attempts to bring the Benghazi perpetrators to justice. And there is quite a story to tell.

We know who carried out the raid on the Benghazi compound. One of them is such a well-know, audacious Islamist terrorist that he has granted interviews to reporters. We also know his accomplices. We even know where they are located. We have drones positioned over them to keep them under surveillance at all times.

And they have been indicted for murder by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bringing them to trial should not be that difficult. Libya would still be ruled by Gadaffi if it weren't for American intervention. For at least a few days after Gadaffi's overthrow and death, Americans were publicly thanked by Libyans and the stars and stripes were on display in parts of the country.

So one would think that our Libyan friends would round up the suspects and either try or extradite them.

This, though, is not happening.

Those clan leaders in the Benghazi province where the murderers live are not willing to do either. For one thing, Libyan government authorities feel they would be unable to bring them out of their villages since they are protected by well-armed militias. Militias, I suspect, who are using weapons that we provided to Libyan rebels.

And, then, these same officials say, the U.S. is now so unpopular--including because we are now considering an attack on Syria--that it would be politically unpopular for them to become allied in a matter of importance with the United States.

Also, though we are considering a drone strike to "take them out," to quote the Times, Libyan officials are also not too happy about that--

A number of Libyan political figures have expressed wariness that any unilateral military action by the United States, like a drone strike, would fuel popular anger and add a destructive new element to the uncertain security situation in Benghazi.

On the other hand, there was not much "popular anger" among Libyans when the U.S. took military action two years ago to help depose Gadaffi.

What a difference a year can make.

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.

September 4, 2013--Cброс (Reset)

As President Obama departs for St. Petersburg for the G-20 summit, the New York Times ran a long piece about the fractious state of U.S.-Russian relations.

As evidence of this, though Obama will be in Russia, there will be no on-on-one with Vladimir Putin because Obama petulantly canceled their meeting after Russia granted temporary asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowdon.

Talk about diplomatic bumbling.

Early in Obama's first term, with Putin constitutionally not allowed to run for a third consecutive term, he turned the presidency over to the malleable Dmitri Medvedev. To anyone paying even a little attention (and that included me), it was obvious that Putin would be the power behind the presidency during Medvedev's four years, essentially telling him what to say and do.

Obama, probably happy not to have to deal directly with Putin all that much--former KGB operative and unrepentant grumpy cold warrior that he is--thought there was an opportunity to reset the big-powers' relationship through a friendship with Medvedev. They were both lawyers, they were of a post-Cold War generation, and Obama thought that if they managed to hit it off personally they could get a few disarmament agreements signed and the U.S.-Russian relationship, which had cooled down during Putin's first presidency would be reset (in Russian, cброс).

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was skeptical about things getting better as the result of a warm relationship between Obama and Medvedev, was dispatched to Russia to meet with Medvedev and Putin. To make note of the reseting agenda, she brought along buttons for the two Russian leaders with "reset" embossed on them, except that she didn't get the Russian quite right--there was a typo. I think it read Coрос But, in any case, all things being equal, it was a fun idea.

But all things were not equal. With Putin returned to the presidency there was no avoiding him, and from their first presidential  encounters things went from bad to worse.

Putin was obsessed with the Arab Spring and his feeling that it was all a plot promulgated by the United States to see long-standing dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi toppled and even killed with new governments installed that would replicate Western democracies. All of this chaos, Putin perceived, right on Russia's doorsteps, in their one remaining geopolitical sphere of influence.

No one in the Obama administration seemed to realize that from Putin's perspective there was a lot to be upset about. In the North Caucuses Putin and Russia have their own problems with Muslim fundamentalists. Chechnya, for example, has for decades been in violent rebellion. Ever since the break up of the Soviet Union.

Additionally Putin himself was under attack by many from the new Russian technocratic middle class. There were unprecedented street demonstrations in Moscow and elsewhere of a size and force not seen in Russia since the last days of the Czar.

And, closer to the point, czar-like Putin himself was undoubtedly feeling threatened. Perhaps, he claimed, with U.S encouragement (and he blamed America and somehow specifically Hillary Clinton for the street demonstrations) Russia would have it own version of the Arab Spring and Putin would wind up in prison like Hosni Mubarak.

So should it have been any wonder to Barak Obama that Putin would be more interested in potentially saving his own skin than agreeing to another nuclear weapons treaty?

Is it, should it have been a surprise to Obama and his foreign policy team that Putin would ask every time he met with a U.S. official, including the secretary of state and the president himself, that he would insist on asking when America was going to bomb Syria?

U.S officials assured him that we wouldn't be doing that. That with our reset Russian friends we had no intention of getting involved militarily with their ally, Syria.

Oh really.

So we're back to a version of the Cold War and according to wise heads such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, things in Syria are looking ominously like Eastern Europe in 1914.

Zbig may be right; he may be overreacting. But I know that if he were a member of the Obama team (and it's too bad he isn't) we wouldn't be conducting foreign policy with Cброс buttons.