June 24, 2109--Jack: "Disproportunate"

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

"This I have to hear."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"With emphasis on the 'seem.'"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"I give up," Jack said fully exasperated.

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

May 18, 2015--ISIS Takes Ramadi

It was reported yesterday afternoon that ISIS forces took the Iraqi city of Ramadi, the capitol of Anbar Provence--the site of George W. Bush's famous "surge."

Despite intensive U.S. missile and drone strikes and a seemingly strong defense put up by Iraqi security forces, ISIS drove them from their positions and took control of the city. With a population of 500,000, Ramadi is Iraq's 10th largest and lies just 68 miles west of Baghdad.

I have one question--

How did this happen?

Over 10 years we spent hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money to train an Iraqi defense forces that could defend itself from threats of this kind.

In much less time, with little money and materiel, apparently under the radar, the Islamic State, is clearly able to launch attacks successfully in spite of what one would imagine would be effective resistance by the U.S. and the Iraqi army that we trained.

If we wanted an army that could fight, we should have hired ISIS to do the training rather than turning it over to Blackwater.

How is it that this training of ISIS forces was unknown to us?  Don't we have drones and satellites to keep an eye on such things? ISIS trained thousands, not a few dozen, and this should have been apparent to us from week one.

Why is it that using Google Earth I'm able to see Rona's 2x4-foot planters on our terrace but the U.S. and its allies weren't able to spot ISIS efforts to train what is feeling to be an invincible force?

Can anyone help me out here because I am very confused. And angry.

November 5, 2014--The New Mediocre

As if we didn't have enough to complain about. We need to make it worse?

That's just what Vanessa Friedman did in a column in last Sunday's New York Times Review, "Mired in Mediocrity."

The title of her piece says it all--things globally, but especially in the United States, are stalled out because we are accepting, even embracing what she calls "the new mediocre."

Her bonafides? She is the Times' chief fashion critic and fashion director. More about that in a moment.

Let me summarize her indictment--

The idea that mediocrity is "the new normal" originates, Friedman claims, with Christine Lagarde, director of the International Monetary Fund, who applied that term to the global economy. It could use a jolt, Lagarde correctly suggests, to get it going, mired as it is, "muddling along with subpar growth."

Fine. But to generalize this to just about everything else is questionable. I do not want to come a across as Pangloss, seeing everything to be the best in "this best of all possible worlds," but to see everything to be the worst in this worst of all possible worlds goes way beyond the defensible and slips more into whining than legitimate analysis.

When she sees the newly emboldened Republicans putting forth an economic agenda that is made up of "a compendium of modest expectations," Friedman sees this this to be a manifestation of "the new mediocre."

Ranging far afield, she sees Twitter losing participants and thus income not because as a fad it is fading but because it has become an example of "the new mediocre."

"Old-guy action films" and "comic-book-hero" flicks that are predominating at the box office, squeezing out higher-quality art-house Indies, is yet more evidence that the the movies that are thriving--what else is new--are yet more evidence that "the new mediocre" is all-pervasive.

And then there is clothing, fashion, Friedman's expertise. Here she sees the same thing--mediocrity.

Enduring the recent spate of fashion shows in New York and Europe, she sees little evidence of new ideas among designers. Rather, she unhappily reports, everything seems deja vu--1960s-style "rock chick dresses," 1970s "flared trousers," 1980s "power jackets," and even 1920s "flapper frocks."

It doesn't get any worse than this, in this worst of all possible worlds.

I've been hearing from disillusioned and generally despondent friends that the Friedman piece sums up what they have been thinking and feeling about the contemporary world. That we are in fact mired in mediocrity. That this not only explains what they are seeing but also helps reconcile themselves to their own unhappy and frustrating circumstances. "It's not my fault," they are in effect saying, "but the larger world's."

I have been pushing back, claiming that though there is much to not feel good or optimistic about, to balance things, one could contemplate making a case in opposition to "the new mediocre" in support of "the new excellent."

A list of things to feel optimistic about would include--

All the advances in medicine and healthcare. Yes, the system for its delivery is deeply flawed, but if one has various types of cancer or needs life-saving, minimally-invasive surgery, with any good fortune, methods and tests and medications are now available that a scant few year ago were only dreams. "The new excellent."

If one is fortunate enough to be in the top 25 percent academically, public education capped by still the best higher-education system in the world could be considered an example of the new or continuing excellent.

Then there is Google, wirelessness, iGadgets, the Internet itself and all the possibilities that these enable--more "new excellent."

Evidence-based philanthropy, best exemplified by the Gates Foundation, which just last week announced it is stepping up its promising efforts to eradicate malaria, is, as part of "the new excellent," making progress on many fronts from environmental conservation to potable water to sustainable economic development. Yes, I know the counter list, but the picture is more balanced than the "new mediocre" people are claiming.

Even in regard to military hardware, while waiting for peace and sanity to break out in the world, drones, as one example of excellence of its own sort, enable battles to rage that inflict fewer civilian casualties than conventional methods. I know many of my anti-war friends (include me among them) will blanch at this, but in realpolitik terms this represents "progress."

At a different level of things to feel good about is the New Brooklyn, ATM machines, E-ZPasses, and the ubiquitousness of really wonderful coffee--my counter case to worrying too much about power jackets and flapper frocks.

One reason to consider the excellent to be at least as pervasive as the mediocre is that it can motivate one to shake the funk, get up off the couch, turn off the TV and iPhone (at least for a few hours a day), and look for ways to become engaged with making things a little better for yourself and the larger world. To take the opposite tack is to me to waste one's life.

September 29, 2014--World's Fastest Insect

We were having breakfast in Cafe Rona, which is our kitchen dining room overlooking the gardens and  bay.

It was another perfect morning and the migrating birds and butterflies were feasting on the last of the flowers in Rona's perennial bed. Carbohydrate packing for their impending journeys.

"It'a also Dragonfly time," Rona said. Look how many there are darting about scooping gnats right out of the air. I've been reading about them. How they begin as naiads in ponds and other fresh water wetlands before emerging, throwing off their skins or exoskeletons, and coming into their own as amazing four-winged insects."

"Naiads?"

"That's what the water-breathing immature form of the Dragonfly is called."

"They do swoop about with great agility," I said.

"More than that. I heard that the Pentagon is studying them, how they can fly forward and backwards, up and down, and side to side. They're implanting the tiniest computer chips in their brains to see what they can learn that might be incorporated in military drones."

"Why am I not surprised," I said. "And they seem to fly very fast. I guess they have to to be able to feed off other insects while in flight."

"I looked that up to. To see how fast they can fly. And that too is amazing. About 35 miles per hour. Though Horse Flies, the fastest of insects, can hit 90."

"Really? No wonder it's so hard to swat them."

"But Dragonflies are fast and the most maneuverable. And there they are right outside our windows."

"I'd hate to be an ISIS terrorist in Iraq and be attacked by a Dragonfly drone. That would make me think twice."

"And, while I was doing my research," Rona said, not wanting to let me spoil our morning talking about jihadists, "I looked up other fastest creatures."

"Like the Cheetah," I jumped in. "They're the fastest land animals, no?"

"Correct. They can run up to 75 miles and hour."

"And what about birds? Did you look that up too?"

"Yes. The fastest bird clocked flying horizontally, in so-called flapping flight--as opposed to the Peregrine Falcon which hits an amazing 242 when diving toward its prey, is the White-Throated Needletail which clocks in at 105 miles per hour.  Pretty good, wouldn't you say?"

"Indeed. What about fish?"

"Black Marlins can swim up to 80 mph. Which to me is remarkable ."

"All of this is," I said, "And, finally, how about humans. Your know, 'The World's Fastest Human,' the Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt. How fast can he run?"

"Only about 28 miles an hour. Not that fast when you think about it."

"Pathetic," I said, playing along.

"But faster than chipmunks and squirrels, 7 and 12 mph respectively. And," Rona added, feeling good about all her newly-acquired knowledge, "thankfully we're much faster than cockroaches which can race across the kitchen floor at only 3 and a half mph. Though when you see one you think it's going 100 miles an hour."

"But with most animals able to move along much faster than us I suppose that's why we need all our weapons." Rona looked at me skeptically. "To protect ourselves from Cheetahs, Tigers, and the like."

"There you go again," Rona said, "Can't we just enjoy the Dragon Flies?"

April 23, 2014--Obama's Drones

Five days after Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released an audacious video of a daytime militant rally in southern Yemen, President Obama authorized a drone strike that killed at least 55 Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.

Putting aside for the moment the legal and ethical issues, in many ways this was a good thing. These men are among the world's most dangerous people and drone strikes are a good way to get at them with little risk to U.S. or Yemeni forces.

The openly-flaunting way in which Nasser-al-Wuhayshi, head of AQAP, organized the rally and brazenly made videos of it public, not only emphasized the level of the threat he and his fighters represent but also was a way to humiliate his enemies, especially the United States. He brashly seemed to say, "Catch me if you can."

So Obama was quick to rise to the taunt. At least three drone strikes were carried out over the weekend and as a result dozens were killed.

One thing even fierce critics of Obama's concede is that he not hesitant about authorizing drone strikes against bad guys, including an occasional American citizen.

Putting tactics aside--drones' ability to respond quickly to threats--it is striking to see Obama acting so decisively about . . . anything.

The very same Republican critics who poke him about "leading from behind" give him begrudging credit for being so aggressive about the use of drones. But I suspect Obama is uncharacteristically decisive and forceful when it comes to the deployment of drones for other than just military or political reasons.

Political-Psychology 101 would suggest the unfettered use of drones is the one arena in which Obama has undisputed power and can act out his frustrations.

For a president who knows that at least half the reason conservatives oppose everything and anything he initiates or even supports is because he is African American, for a president who is reluctant to play the race card much less even openly confront this political bigotry, fearing being characterized as an "angry black man," having a means to act out his frustrations and, I am sure, rage about this must be irresistible.

The giveaway that this is not a preposterous notion is that authorizing the use of drones without seemingly endless cogitation--a quality for which Obama is known and not-entirely-unfairly criticized--is the one area of leadership in which he clearly leads from the front and is expeditiously decisive.

In Freudian terms--this is an example of displacement theory.

As a close reader of the Constitution, he knows that much of this is extra-legal or, minimally, questionable; and yet, time after time, instead of being cautious or timid, he acts boldly. And, it would appear, successfully.

It may be unfeeling to suggest that ordering the killing of people--even terrorists--is in some ways therapeutic, but considering the circumstances in Washington and in Red-State America, on some level it is understandable.

December 2, 2013--Cyber Monday

It was 5:30 yesterday evening when we pulled up to the house to unload groceries.

"Today's Sunday, isn't it?" Rona asked, actually knowing the answer. "So what's that mail truck doing delivering packages on Sunday?"

"It's because Amazon made a deal with them to deliver orders on Sundays."

"You mean the American people, the president, and Congress couldn't get them to do it but Amazon could?"

"What can I tell you."

"Let's get upstairs as soon as we can," Rona said, "I think 60 Minutes is doing a story today about Amazon. About Jeff Bezos. Your favorite."

"You know I can't stand 60 Minutes any more. They have descended basically to doing puff pieces. I stopped watching after Mike Wallace retired."

And, as predicted, the story about Bezos was mainly fluff. The interviewer was Charlie Rose who is a personal friend of the Besoses, Jeff and MacKenzie, his novelist wife. The whole thing was like an unpaid advertisement for Amazon.

But there were a few things of interest. Great interest.

One of Amazon's senior executives, I think the person responsible for Amazon's fulfillment operations--the people who round up, pack, and ship orders--when asked said that Amazon's long-range plan is to sell "everything to everyone."

He added, "I think." But I believed him since they seem well on their way to achieving their goal. Currently they have nearly 225 million customers worldwide.

A lot of the piece was shot in one of Amazon's one-million-square-foot fulfillment warehouses--one of, I think, 19 in the United States--with more under construction so that packages can get to customers quicker than the typical two days at present. Thus the Sunday delivery deal they struck with the USPS.

And Bezos, told Rose, they are working to get orders to customers even faster than that--they hope to be able to deliver 80 percent of orders the same day. Which is an enormous challenge since they get 300 per second.

When Charlie put on his faux-incredulent face, Jeff winked at him and indicated he was willing to let his friend in on a top secret project--he agreed to show him the drones--yes drones--Amazon is developing to deliver packages right to people's doorsteps within hours of their placing orders.

And sure enough 60 Minutes had video footage of these little drones with yellow plastic buckets attached to their underbellies hovering over a suburban home, using GPS coordinates--just like in Pakistan--before descending to the lawn, uncoupling itself from the yellow tub before lifting off to swoop back to the fulfillment center.

The still incredulous Rose, with his mouth still hanging open, could barely deliver a follow-up question, so Bezos, unasked, said that 85 percent of their orders could fit into one of those plastic boxes and so . . . He didn't need to finish his sentence.

Charlie, now recovered, asked how soon packages would be delivered that way.

Bezos laughed--he's worth about $25 billion and that makes it easy to chuckle at such things--that it wouldn't be for a few more years. They had to make sure the drones won't cause collateral damage, landing on people's heads on streets such as ours in Manhattan.

"So," Rona said, as we watched with our mouths also agape but for other reasons (everything to everybody?), "I guess that means the post office will be doing Sunday deliveries for quite some time."

"Good for them," I said, "I mean I suppose. Good for them."

"And it all started in his garage in Bellevue, Washington less than 20 years ago. Good for him . . . I suppose."

I said, "Too bad we don't have a garage."

"Maybe we don't, but tomorrow, I'm buying some Amazon stock." She wrote a note to herself.

Shrugging, I said, "Get me some too."