May 22, 2020--Books

Everyone knows Trump doesn't read.

Surely, not Foreign Affairs, not The Atlantic, not even Golf Digest where there are lots of pictures.

But now we know who in Washington and New York do read--every guest appearing on programs on CNN and MSNBC.

Because of the pandemic, guests phone in from home offices via Zoom, Skype, or FaceTime and invariably their home offices include their book cases, which serve as an attractive background.

Jon Meacham, an NBC Contributor who is also a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, not surprisingly has more books on display on his elegant shelves than anyone else.

Often more interesting to me than hearing what Eugene Robinson has to say about Trump and China, is what I can see he has been reading. I was especially tickled when I saw one day that he had on the shelves the same edition as I do of Ron Chernow's biography of President Ulysses S. Grant.

Sad to say when I snooped around to see what the Fox News hosts and guests have on their bookshelves, I've been discovering that few have bookcases as part of their home TV studios and there are no books in sight. On mantels, though, on display, most had a few airport-art tchotchkes.

What's this all about, I wondered. It didn't, though, take more than a moment to figure it out. America is divided I many ways.

December 12, 2019--Dershowitz

If he can get a leave of absence from Fox News where he seems to be happily ensconced, Alan Dershowitz will likely join Trump's impeachment defense team. 

Not quite the equivalent of OJ Simpson's Dream Team, but he would eagerly sign up if Trump would agree to offer him in lieu of a fee a supply of 14 year-old girls.

Their mutual pal Jeffrey Epstein may be gone but I feel certain Trump inherited his little black book.

October 30, 2019--Nancy

In a government of incompetents--executive and legislative--there is one shining exception: how the House of Representatives has been handling the impeachment process.

Actually, how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is managing the investigation.

It easily could have been a fiasco. Three or four committees of the House competing with each other for the lead role in conducting hearings would have sown more confusion than light. The public by now, with short attention spans, would have tuned out and drifted back to watching sports and Dancing With the Stars on TV. 

Trump would be tipped back in his Barka Lounger, puffing on a victory cigar while the rest of us would be left to dread what it would be like to have another four years of Trump, Fox News, Republican senators, and Rudy Giuliani.

But under Pelosi's firm direction we have seen a manageable procession of witnesses who, in the aggregate, are producing a narrative that is coherent and almost certain to lead to the impeachment of Trump and a trial in the Senate.

It is considered unlikely that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to turn Trump out of office. Acknowledging this, allow me to spin a fantasy--

The aggregated evidence of how Trump's behavior has imperiled our national security is so compelling that before Thanksgiving he is impeached by the House. New evidence emerges that his high crimes and misdemeanors are so felonious that 20 GOP senators vote to expel him. This, along with all Democratic senators, is enough to turn him out of office. 

Mike Pence becomes president and as in the past we do not have a Vice President. (For example during the second term of the Nixon presidency.)

The House Intelligence Committee continues its work, this time with Pence under the microscope. Evidence accumulates quickly that he was even more directly involved than Trump in impeachable behavior when it came to pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt about the Bidens. 

As a result he is impeached and voted out of office, again by the Senate.

We thus do not have a president until the next in line is sworn in.

The 25th Amendment on presidential succession requires that when there is neither a sitting president nor vice president--the Speaker of the House becomes president.

This means Speaker Nancy Pelosi becomes president.

We would finally have a woman serving as our commander-in-chief. A tough and competent one at that.

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. 

January 29, 2019--The Wimp Factor

I'm sure you remember that during the campaign Trump frequently said it's all about "winning." 

He got in trouble when draft-avoider Trump said he didn't respect war hero John McCain because being shot down and held prisoner for years was evidence that he was a loser.

He told us if he was elected there would be so much winning that we'd get tired of winning.

Thus far, considering Trump's short list of accomplishments, I am managing to avoid winning fatigue.

He set this dialectic in motion so it is only fair that he is now being brought down because these days he seems to be doing a lot more losing than winning. And to be perversely consistent, he is looking tired of so much losing.

Catching myself enjoying his evolving fate I thought a bit more about this winning and losing business. Employing it as a prism through which to sum up how he is doing, vis-à-vis, say, Nancy Pelosi may not be the best rubric to be using.

During the 35-day government shutdown most of the stories in the media were about who was up (Nancy) and who was down (Trump). Most of the polling cited in the coverage focused on who was to blame (mainly Trump and the Republicans) and how Trump's approval ratings were faring (badly).

A special focus of much of this reporting was how Trump was being regarded by his Fox News followers, principally how he was being treated by conservative columnists and radio talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

Coulter especially got under his skin. This could be because among other taunts she called his (fragile) manhood into question.

On one occasion she said we thought we were electing Trump but instead "got Jeb."

In a weekend tweet, after Trump gave in to Pelosi, Coulter wrote--

"Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."

Trump was being savaged by his old friends who said that while seeking to build a wall he wound up with a cave. As in "he caved" to Nancy and the Dems.

One obvious common denominator--it has been primarily strong women who have made him crazy.

If true, maybe we should back off from some of the winning and losing talk. Especially if there are significant gender aspects connected to it. As there are. Do we want a hyper-riled-up Trump, worrying about his manhood, as we move though more and more perilous times?

War could be looming in Venezuela, Israel, and North Korea. And of course Syria, with us unwisely withdrawing, is in danger of further unravelment. All places where in wag-the-dog terms Trump might be tempted to have us intervene.

I'm not suggesting that Nancy and her supporters back off but just that we should continue to look for opportunities to weaken him politically (to "win") but not make too big a deal of the personal contest that is at the heart of the matter.

I have always felt that in many hotly contested situations winning without gloating is the preferred way to go. This is a glaring and frightening example.

January 17, 2019--Dotty

Between June 2015 and now in hundreds of postings, I have struggled to understand the Trump phenomenon. 

As unlikely as his candidacy was, and how except on FOX and late night radio it was thought of as more a joke or an egotistical act of self-branding than a political force, the grinding process did reveal it had enough power to propel Trump to the White House where he sits as the nation's 45th president.

Though many of my friends and regular readers criticized me, often severely, accusing me of "normalizing" Trump rather than dismissing and deriding him outright, claiming that by taking him seriously I was contributing to legitimatizing him and his presidency. And, by doing so, I was overlooking his totalitarian, fascistic inclinations.

If we would wake up one morning with tanks in the streets and everyone in the White House wearing black shirts and jackboots, it would be because people like me were aiding and abetting his worst instincts, too casually certain he would be brought down by our mockery and constitutional system of checks and balances. We survived Charles Lindbergh and Joe McCarthy. So not to worry, they claimed I was saying. At least not too much.

I responded as over the months all the other Republican presidential candidates fell by the wayside--16, 17 of them--and Trump inexorably crept into the lead, got nominated, and, though a series of relentless one-man hate-filled rallies (Nuremberg?), defeated the inevitable candidate, Hillary Clinton. Observing this I said it was dangerous not to take Trump seriously and thereby ignore the opportunity to understand what was going on in that part of the country about which I and my friends and readers did not know enough about to take seriously.

I added, at our peril. If we don't figure out Trump's political power we will remain susceptible to him and other Trumps.

But, spending half the year in rural Maine, a part of fly-over America, I encountered many wonderful people who were enthusiastic Trump supporters and over many long breakfasts came to learn a great deal about Trump's appeal. 

Yes, much of it was fueled by fear and some of it, sadly, racism; but his appeal was also the result of his grim optimism. Many people believed that he and he alone could a restore an America where too many felt left out by professional elites who knew better than the people themselves what was good for them. For these people, and there were many, Trump alone would bring about a return to their lost America. With him as president they would no longer be looked down upon as deplorables. They would be in charge

No matter that his vision was mostly ahistorical fiction but it did tap into a stream of hope and belief. Both essential to successful presidential aspirants of all ideological persuasions. 

The differences are about what constitutes the hope--a white America or a socialist America. Then there is the belief, a powerful human propensity, belief itself, that affects us all. About this particularly we need to learn more. It above everything it drives our thinking and behavior.

That is what I was attempting to do. To learn from his followers. And to do so I needed to be genuinely inquisitive and respectful. I needed to do a lot of listening. Above all, I needed to be open to changing my views when that seemed appropriate.

This did not prove difficult as I liked my coffee companions so much. They were not defined by just their political views. And, hopefully, neither was I.

But many of my non-Maine friends found me to be a Trump enabler. I struggled with that.

Then recently, after daily revelations about Trump's felonious behavior--including the incredible speculation by the FBI, not cable news polemicists, that Trump may be an "asset" or agent of Russia's, everything changed. I no longer wanted to "learn" more about Trump and his appeal. I just wanted to see the end of him. And, as much as possible, his followers. I didn't want to discuss politics with anyone who could simply write that off as fake news.

When I saw something a Trumpian friend, Dotty, who tweeted that she didn't care that he might by a Russian operative--I was distraught. She wrote, "I don't care what he says or does He's the president we need now to assure our survival." When I saw that I thought there is no hope of reaching any understanding with someone like that--fortunately maybe only 25 percent of the population--there is nothing any longer worth learning from Dotty. But I know I have to search for a way to remain her friend.  

January 7, 2019--Happy New Year From Jack

"I was wondering if I'd ever hear from you again."

Without even a happy new year Jack moved on to his favorite subject--Donald Trump: "2019's going to be one wonderful year," he bubbled. He called less than five minutes after midnight new year's eve, "The way I see things, having Nancy as Speaker is a political gift that will keep on giving."

"We'll see," I said, "Remember who won the recent midterms in spite of the fact that Republicans tried to make it a referendum about San Fransisco's--wink, wink--Nancy Pelosi. How did that work out for you? The Democrats picked up 40 seats and took control of the House. Which will mean that for Trump, who never had to deal with congressional opposition, it's no longer Ryan and McConnell time. He had them in his hip pocket. Pelosi is a whole other matter. She may be 78 but she's at the top of her game and knows how to use power. Just ask George W. Bush, who had to compromise with House Democrats when she was Speaker during the last two years of his presidency and ask John Boehner who as House Minority leader during the first two years of the Obama administration was regularly rolled over by her. Think about the Affordable Care Act--no Nancy, no Obamacare. Twenty million without healthcare insurance."

Jack said, "Don't you think Trump is licking his chops when thinking about running for reelection against Elizabeth Warren while at the same time Nancy is Speaker? Both are red meat for his base. If he was a drinking man Trump would be popping corks tonight."

"I have to remind you of one thing--his base is about 30, 35 percent of likely voters. The last time I checked that's nowhere near 51 percent. Though I'll admit that Trump managed to get elected this time while losing the popular vote to Hillary by about 3.0 million votes. He likes breaking records. Well that's a record he in fact owns, unlike most of the others he claimed to have broken. Like having the most productive first two years of all presidents in history."

"Let's talk in a few days," Jack smirked, "After she actually takes over. Let's see how she's doing then. In the meantime, have a happy year."

True to his promise Jack called again on Saturday morning, less than 48 hours after Pelosi and the Democrats took control of the House.

"If I had called you 12 hours ago it would have been a whole different story."

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"Thursday was a big and I'll admit good day for Democrats. Especially Nancy. She had a bounce in her step that made her seem 58 rather than 78 and looked very hot on the floor of the House in a red sheath dress--red/blue am I reading something into the color of her outfit--surrounded by what looked like 20 grandchildren. They were more excited than she was. It was great TV time for your Dems. Even Fox didn't have talking points about how to trash her. Very kumbaya. And she and other Dem leaders cleverly fended off reporters' questions about impeaching Trump. How there are no current plans to do so--sure--and that we should wait for the Mueller report before thinking about what to do or not do. All very responsible sounding."

"This seems about right," I said, wondering warily about where Jack was headed with this. He sounded too self-satisfied to believe half the positive things he was saying. I didn't have long to wait.

"And then, thank you God, to take over the headlines along came the new Palestinian-American congresswoman from Michigan, Rashida Tlaib. One of two first-time-ever female Muslim members of Congress. Talk about political gifts."

"Oh, her," I said, feeling air slowly begin to leak out of my balloon.

"Yeah, one of the two Muslim members who Nancy changed the House rules for so they could wear head scarves, hijabs I think they're called, on the floor of the House. Rules didn't allow that. But Nancy got them changed as part of the first order of business, thank you very much."

I let him rant on.

"So what did the honorable gentlewoman Tlaib do to thank Nancy? Let me quote her. I wrote it down because you're always lecturing me about ignoring and making up facts. But here's a fact for you, right from Tlaib's potty mouth."

Jack read--"This is from your New York Times as recorded on someone's smartphone:

"People love you and you win," Ms. Tlaib told the crowd Thursday night. And when your son looks at you and says: 'Momma, look, you won. Bullies don't win.' And I said, 'Baby, they don't.' Because we're going to go in there, and we're going to impeach the motherfucker."

"The Times actually dropped the MF bomb in its front-page article. Not an M and a F with a whole lot of asterisks in-between. But 'motherfucker' itself. In print. But before you tell me how to think about this, let me add one more thing--Muslims don't drink alcohol, right? So what was she doing celebrating in a bar Thursday night on Capital Hill?"

"To tell you the truth," I said, "I was unhappy with her. Less than a day after being sworn in she comes out with this? Not that it would have mattered if she said it a month from now. It's inappropriate and, if we're serious about winning in 2020, she should be criticized, including by Democrats. Especially by Democrats. It's not enough to claim, as I am hearing many Democrats doing, that Trump said worse things. He did but shouldn't be the one to set the bar on appropriate behavior.

"And, one more thing--how politically stupid can she be. Teeing this up for Trump and Trumpians? So in 2020, rather than Trump running against Pelosi as the boogyman he can run against someone even better--a Muslim with a foul mouth who says she would talk this way to her six-year-old son."

"What can I say?" Jack said. I could almost see him grinning. "I couldn't have said it better myself. And then from my perspective, to make matters better, Nancy Pelosi, I mean Speaker Pelosi refused to criticize Tlaib, saying, 'I'm not in the censorship business.' I wrote that down too," 

He added, "I can see Trump's people already producing TV ads featuring Congresswoman Tlaib. Mind you, I'm not happy with some of the things he's been up to, including his shutting the government to get the money to build his stupid wall. But you guys can be even stupider. You always seem to shoot yourselves in the foot. Like Hillary calling Trump people 'deplorables.' There was no recovering from that. So 2020--bring it on."

"You guys can't stop running against Hillary. You need to move on. And be sure to call me," I said, "as soon as you get your hand-delivered copy of the Mueller report. I don't think anyone will be able to distract voters by mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's dancing. Which, by the way, is pretty good."    

December 10, 2018--Rats

This is not to contend that Republicans of varying stripes are rushing to abandon Trump as documents filed with the courts are becoming more explicit in their charges that Trump himself likely participated in felonies; though there is no rush yet of Trumpian rats deserting the ship, there are the first inklings, at a minimum, of some backing away from the thus-far Unbreachable One.

Up to now my two favorite examples of such self-serving behavior are Trump's lawyer, the increasingly preposterous Rudy Giuliani, mocking how long it took Trump to answer Mueller's soft ball written questions and Fox News's Tucker Carlson, who recently called Trump's competency to be president into question.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Rudy was quoted as saying that it was "a nightmare." It took three weeks rather than "what would normally take two days." For Rudy to acknowledge this represented a gutsy poke at Trump's fragile ego, especially when his intelligence is called into question. 

Then Tucker Carlson, a member, along with Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity of Fox News's triumvirate of prime time apologists, in an interview with the Swiss magazine, Die Weltwoche, called Trump "Incapable of sustained focus." Another sensitive issue for Trump who has referred to himself as "a very stable genius."

Carlson said, "I don't think he's capable. I don’t think he’s capable of sustained focus. I don’t think he understands the system. I don’t think the Congress is on his side. I don’t think his own agencies support him." 

He added, it was "mostly Trump's fault that he hadn’t been able to deliver on his pledges, because “you really have to understand how the legislative process works and be very focused on getting it done.”

"Trump," he continued, "knows very little about the legislative process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't surrounded himself with people who can get [his agenda] done, hasn't done all the things you need to do. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things" he promised to do during the campaign.

One more--as my mother would have put it, Chris "Crispy" is backing off a bit in his support of Trump, saying that the language that Mueller is using to outline the perfidies suggests that the investigators have a surplus of damning evidence.

And so this drip, drip, drip of criticism will be the model until the investigation produces a classic smoking gun. Then even wimpy Rand Paul may squeak something out. In the meantime, some of Trump's transactional "friends" are figuring out that if they are to have professional lives after he is no more they need to distance themselves from him or risk going down to the briny bottom with the USS Trump.

Tucker Carlson

November 15, 2018--Trump Agonistes

In Trumpworld every day provides the opportunity to encounter something so bizarre that it can be said that we never witnessed such behavior before. 

His funk in Paris last weekend is a case in point. 

He clearly didn't want to be there for the 100th anniversary of the armistice that ended World War One. To make matters worse, it was on the very same weekend he had in mind for his own Soviet-style military parade in Washington replete with nuclear missiles trundling down Pennsylvania Avenue.

In France he cut out on events, including one in a drizzle at an American military cemetery. He also didn't show up for other scheduled meetings and left a day early to, some cynics said, get back to the security of his White House bedroom and Fox News 24/7.

It was speculated in the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post that he is unraveling as the Mueller probe is closing in on him and some of his closest advisors, likely including members of his family. (Which son or son-in-law will be the first to flip and agree to become a Mueller witness?)

It didn't help, the press speculated, that the full extent and implications of the results of the recent midterm election finally dawned on Trump and he had no spin handy to deflect from the trouncing he and congressional Republicans experienced. 

It finally became clear to him that the Democrats, who will control the House, will immediately launch investigations of his potentially criminal conduct both before and while serving as president. So assuming he is able to shut down the Mueller investigation (even his new best friend Lindsay Graham says he won't be able to) Adam Schiff and other committee-chairs-in-waiting are licking their legislative chops

Is it any wonder that he hasn't been able to sleep and wants to hide in his bedroom with the blankets pulled up over his head.

And so it was not only in Paris that he withdrew from public view but back in Washington too.

He apparently was so shut off from the world outside his bubble that his wife, Melania, who couldn't get his attention on a matter of some urgency to her, felt she had to plant stories on Fox News, knowing he was watching, to elicit a response.

The strangest was the leak from her office earlier this week about deputy national security advisor, Mira Ricardel. Apparently still smarting from some of the fiascos associated with her trip last month to "shithole" countries in Africa (which was really more about showing off her tropical wardrobe than anything smacking of diplomacy), Mrs. Trump, who never met her, blamed the whole mess on Ricardel who, she claimed, didn't arrange appropriate seating for accompanying journalists and, I am certain, her junketing tag-along New York friends, she tried to talk to her husband about it but he was so tuned out that that didn't work and so the First Lady had her spokesperson issue a public statement saying Ricardel no longer "deserved the honor" to work in "this White House."

When the statement was broadcast on Fox News Trump finally noticed it and apparently just now arranged for some flunky to get Ricardel to pack up her stuff and await "another assignment." An assignment of the same sort, I assume, they arranged for Omarosa.

Melania Trump On Safari

October 30, 2018--October-November Surprises

The big October surprise, which was supposed to leach over into the first week in November, was the fear Trump would instill in midterm voters about the "caravan" of migrants heading from Honduras to the American border.

The fear was further fueled by Fox News sycophants who in a stream of fake news "reported" daily without evidence about how the thousands marching north were infiltrated by "Middle Eastern terrorists." 

Just as that was building into a political wave--poll numbers began to trend in support of Republican candidates--the stock market started to gyrate so that the so-called Trump rally lost all its gains for 2018 (giving the lie to his claim that the economy had never in history been better), a new mad bomber appeared, sending explosive devices to more than a dozen Trump critics from George Soros to the Obamas to of course Hilary and potential 2020 opponents Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Joe Biden.

(As an aside, how much like chopped liver do Bernie and Elizabeth Warren feel for not receiving bombs of their own? Just like anyone not on Nixon's "enemies list" expressed disappointment for not being included.) 

Trump harmed himself politically by making light of this, referring to it as "that bomb thing." And didn't do much better when an anti-semitic mass murderer attacked a synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing 11 worshipers. After a few perfunctory comments Trump referred to it as a "bad hair day." Something he should be an expert about, having one 365 days a year.

As a result, the polls appear to be reversing themselves again and it is looking likely that the Democrats will gain control of the House and lose only one or two seats in the Senate.

So much for October-November surprises, though there is still a full week before the election, lots of time for Republican dirty tricksters to pull a few stunts.

On that subject, though I am not prone to believing in conspiracy theories, there's a Pulitzer Prize awaiting a journalist who gets to the bottom of how the migrant caravan was organized to culminate in ugly confrontations at the border the day before Election Day.

I suspect that the political party that gave us Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and Roger Stone might somehow be tugging on the strings. If we can get that story out even Fox News would have to offer some coverage.

September 26, 2018--Jack: Freaking Out

"Not me. You." Jack was on the line.

"Huh?"

"Freaking out. You must be freaking out because it looks like the president is about to fire a whole lot of folks, starting with that weasel Rosen-Rosen, or whatever his name is."

"To tell you the truth, I am a little. I mean, freaked out about where this might be headed and maybe how Trump will figure out how to get away with murder."

"You mean like the Clintons and Vince Foster?" He laughed at that reference.

"Not a bad one," I said, "I'm impressed you remember that conspiracy theory with all the ones circulating these days."

"I never forget anything," Jack boasted. From what I know about him, though we disagree about pretty much everything, he does have an amazing memory.

"But to tell you the truth," Jack said, "if Trump fires Rosen and replaces him with some flunky who fires Mueller and while he's at it fires Session and half the senior people in the White House, there'll be a lot to be made crazy by. That's why Hannity and the other Fox people are urging him, publicly begging him not to fire Rosenberg."

"The Fox world is one I don't really know my way around in. Half the time when I tune in for a while to see what they're spinning (and the hosts do seem to get the same talking points every day so if you listen to one it's like listening to them all), I don't know what they're talking about. It's like they speak in shorthand or code with their unhinged viewers. So weren't you also surprised that they were pressuring Trump not to fire anyone? I would have thought after Rosenstein was outed by the New York Times, which revealed that early in his history as deputy attorney general he thought about wearing a wire to gather evidence about Trump that could then be used to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. Wouldn't Fox want Rosenstein out of the picture?"

Jack said, "One could come to that conclusion. Especially if one doesn't get what's going on." [That someone he referred to being me.] "How firing Rosenthal and the rest of them would be a political disaster for Trump. It would be at least as big a nightmare as Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. There are a few clever Democrats and they are setting an obstruction of justice trap. If Trump fires Rosenthal it will be viewed as his doing so to get him off the case. To stamp out the investigation of Trump, his family, and his American and Russian associates."

"In other words, to obstruct justice?"

"Yup."

"If you're right about this," I said to Jack, "and I think you may be, those Fox people really do have Trump's back."

"Yes and no."

"Because?"

"Because it may be too late."

"Really? I mean, I hope so."

"By now Mueller has tons of evidence from all the Trump people who have flipped, the people they deposed, and of course Mueller has access to all of Trump's and his people's tax and financial records."

"I suspect this is true, but wouldn't pulling the plug on Rosenstein and reining in Mueller put a lid on things? Bury evidence and documents from public view with Trump slipping out of the noose?"

"That wouldn't work," Jack said, "because I suspect a pretty complete Mueller report has already been drafted with him waiting for the best time to drop it. I suspect soon after the midterms. If he's allowed to do that, we'll all see it then. All the ugly details."

"I can only wish that you're right. But . . ."

"Let's say your Rosenman does get fired and an acting DAG is appointed by Trump. Ordinarily it would need the deputy's approval to release the findings and recommendations. Or not. Mueller or whomever follows him reports to the deputy attorney general. The findings go to the new DAG who could decided to squelch them, claiming they're too sensitive or whatever."

"So there you go," I said, end of story."

"As usual you're forgetting two very big things," Jack said, "First there are the midterms. All signs point to a big turnover in the House. If the Dems take over, and I suspect they will, as of January 2nd they'll begin their own investigations and will have the power to subpoena everything Mueller gathered. Probably even calling him as a witness."

"I'm tracking this."

"And then there's one more even bigger thing." He took a deep breath, "I assume you know all about the Pentagon Papers?"

"I do."

"Hundreds, thousands of pages were copied at a time when the only way to do so was to Xerox it page-by-page. Now, in a few minutes the whole friggen Mueller report can be copied onto a thumb drive, put in a jacket pocket, taken home, and plopped in the mail to the New York Times or Washington Post. In other words there's no way to hide it. To keep it from the public. So the Fox people wanted to help Trump from making things even worse for himself." 

He paused to gather himself, "And that's why I'm freaking and why you shouldn't be."

"Of course I hope you're right. Maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight."

"Really, one final thing--with Trump I could be wrong about all of this. He could just as easily fire Rosen-Rosen on Thursday, in part to distract from the Kavanaugh hearings, and get his replacement to . . . ."

Jack broke off and I was left as confused as ever.

Rosen-Rosen

August 23, 2018--Trump Jurer

One thing many thought about as the Manafort jury's deliberations dragged into a fourth day was concern that one or more jurors were such fervent Trump supporters that no matter how overwhelming the evidence of Manafort's guilt there would be no verdict, no guilty verdict. The jury would be hung on all 18 counts. 

It turns out that this concern was well founded. It almost happened. But nonetheless, Trump's former campaign manager was found guilt on eight counts.

Unless you take an occasional surreptitious peek at Fox News to see what they are up to (I do), how they are spinning things, you would have missed what a Manafort juror of the concerning type had to say about their deliberations. Particularly how, in spite of driving to the courthouse in Alexandria every morning, wearing her Make America Great hat, conflicted as to whether or not she should hold out to the very bitter end in spite of the accumulating evidence that point to Manafort's guilt, in spite of this, she voted guilty on those eight counts. And likely would have found him guilty on the ten others but didn't "need" to as there was another Trump juror who did hold out for a not guilty verdict and thus there was a hung jury on the other counts.

The juror, Paula Duncan, interviewed on Fox said--

"Finding Mr. Manafort guilty was hard for me. I wanted him to be innocent, I really wanted him to be innocent, but he wasn't. That's the part of a juror. You have to have due diligence and deliberate and look at the evidence and come up with an informed and intelligent decision, which I did."

As scary as the prospect is of a stealth Trumpian on this and upcoming juries (there are a lot of them across America--perhaps a third of the adult population), imperfect as it is, in spite of the relentless incitement emanating from Fox and other media sources, the system such as it is can work. There is something almost sacred to many when one enters the jury room to deliberate. Paula Duncan is a living example.

Paula Duncan

August 14, 2018--Jack: Omarosa

"Long time no talk."

"What's on your mind, Jack? I'm sort of busy."

"Omarosa. You've heard of her?"

"Unfortunately, yes. So what is it?"

"Your people are all excited about her. Not actually about her, but about her so-called tell-all book, especially the tapes she says she has."

"Right. The one she made in the Situation Room of Kelly firing her and her claim that there are tapes of Trump during the Apprentice years using the N-word when talking about black people."

"You guys think this is going to bring down Trump. If so, dream on."

"I don't think she's going to bring Trump down. That should only happen. Mueller can bring him down but especially voters beginning in November. The Omarosa business at most will chip away at his support."

"The way I see it," Jack said, "is that she will wind up helping Trump."

"This I have to hear."

"I'm not proud to say this, because as you know I'm not a racist. In fact I hate some of Trump's dog-whistle behavior, including his attack on athletes--black athletes--and other African Americans like CNN's Don Lemon and congresswoman Maxine Waters, both of who I can't stand. Always referring to them as 'low IQ.'"

"That's more than dog-whistle behavior," I said, "It's more like classic, out-and-out racism. Outrageous and disgusting. But finish your thought."

"When Trump plays the race card," Jack said, "it just adds to how you and your kind think about him. You're already convinced that he's a racist. At most it will motivate a few more liberals to vote in November and in 2020, if he runs for reelection. But . . ."

"But?"

"But," Jack said, "what he said about NFL players or even the very popular LeBron James actually appeals to his people. To them it's another example of his not being politically correct. Which they love. It's one of the things that make them excited about supporting him in the first place. Look, even I will admit that a portion of his base--maybe even more than a portion--are racists. They hate people of color. You heard what Laura Ingraham said the other night on Fox News--that America is no longer the country we loved in the past. It's changed for the worst, she said, because of all the immigrants who have come into the country. Including those who entered legally. Really what she was saying is that the country is now browner and blacker than it was in the good old days. When America was great. She tried to walk it back the next day after she got slammed, but what she said was what she said. It was stark and clear but wasn't pretty."

"You sound like you're all over the place. On the one hand, you criticize Trump for playing racial dog-whistle politics and then you seem to like the fact that by his being openly racist he secures and strengthens his base."

"I am sort of the way you described me," Jack fussed up, "I dislike some of the stuff he does (just as I'm sure you didn't like everything Clinton or Obama did), but overall I still support him and want him to do well in November and then two years later in 2020. To me it's not about distractions like Omarosa but about his policies. So if what he says or implies some times turn me off, what I care about is what he's done and plans to do. I agree with most of his agenda. And so if she jazzes up his people that to me is a good thing."

"To tell you the truth I'm still confused. You're even less coherent about this than usual." I already had my fill of him.

"Let me try to straighten you out. Both she and he energize people but come at it from opposite perspectives. He shamelessly plays the race card while Omarosa convinces people that those like her--black people--are Trump haters and are just like Trump describes them to be--low-IQ criminals. By her extreme and dishonest behavior, without intending to, she reenforces the stereotype of black people he's promulgating. She seems self-seeking and biased. Just the kinds of things he and his people believe to be true about all black people."

"This is too cynical for words. I hate what you're saying."

"You may, but do you disagree with me?"

"Totally. I reject your racist views."

"You're missing the whole point," Jack said sounding exasperated, "I'm against racism. I'm just saying that being openly racist like Trump is--or pretends to be--is a strategy to build and mobilize support for himself. And people like Omarosa and the football players who take a knee are helping with that because, as I said before, they confirm the stereotype."

"I get that and some of what you say may be true, but that doesn't make it acceptable. It's not just about doing whatever it takes to win, how you win also counts. You guys who claim to be good Christians and true conservatives are nothing but hypocrites. I don't see anything Christian in any of this. There is no milk of human kindness. All I see is mean-spiritedness, fear of the 'other,' and hatred. Now I've had my say and am about to hang up." 

Jack held back and so I continued, "For what it's worth, my sense of things is that you need to do some deep soul-searching, including about how you come across. Maybe more than that you would be advised to do some thinking about what you are bringing down upon America. A country you say you love."

And with that I did hang up.

July 10, 2018--Audiological Tale: Fox News (Concluded)

Ten days later, when I was scheduled to bring back my loaner hearing aid and pick up my new one, Rona and I drove up to Rockport.

In Dr. Schwartzberg's office, before he could fit me with the new device, Rona said to Gary, "I think I know what you're up to."

He immediately put on his blank face. Clearly he was moving to protect himself from who knew what.

"From the day we last saw you, less than two weeks ago, I've noticed changes in Steven's behavior." Rona paused to see if he would engage her or just keep on staring.

It was unusual for Rona to take the lead while at his office. After a moment she continued, "I could be wrong about this because I didn't keep notes of what I was observing."

Engaged now, Gary said, "This is sounding interesting. Please, tell me what you've been noticing and what you make of it." He slid his chair toward Rona but close enough to me so that I would be able to hear everything, even if either of them spoke softly. I thought so I wouldn't feel left out and think they were whispering about my condition behind my back. 

"Like you, Steven is progressive. Politically." Gary nodded, "On his blog he frequently writes about political issues." Gary rolled his eyes as he knew I was more than interested in what was going on--I was obsessed. "He is so involved with trying to figure out what is happening that in addition to gobbling up everything he can find that's critical of Trump and his supporters he even samples what's being broadcast on middle-of-the-night rightwing talk radio, especially Fox News."

I jumped in, saying, "It's not that I spend a lot of time listening to what they're saying, how they spin things, it's more as Rona says, to understand them better, to know what we're up against. So I check them out. There's just so much that I can take of the likes of Sean Hannity or the well-named Michael Savage, whose real name, by the way, also is appropriate--Michael Weiner."

"That's his story," with an edge, Rona said, shrugging in my direction.

"So then what's your story?" Now eager to hear, Gary slid closer to her.

"Since we saw you he's been doing a lot more than checking out what's on the conservative media. For example, he's been spending more time than usual tuned in to that Trump enabler, Laura Ingraham. Even at times watching her whole show." She folded her arms across her chest and vibrated her foot so violently I was afraid she was going to topple out of her chair. 

Gary was now smiling broadly. He asked me, "Do you have anything to report?"

"I don't agree," I waved toward Rona, "I'll admit that I tend at times perhaps to be a little over-involved," Rona snorted, "But there's no way I would watch more than a few minutes of Laura Ingraham's show. I find her to be part of the Trump propaganda machine. I maybe turn her on for five or ten minutes to see what's she's up to and to get a preview of what Trump's talking points will be the next day since Fox helps set his agenda."

"So what do you make of that?" he asked Rona.

"It's bogus. Baloney. Like I said, last night, I swear, he watched her entire show. And worse, I saw him nodding his head. Nodding his head because of something she said! Next thing you know he'll be wanting Fox to rehire Bill O'Reilly."

A tense silence descended between Rona and me. We had never spatted while with Gary. Some of the hearing loss issues are tense and emotional. I hate to be so hard of hearing and as a result need hearing aids. Depend upon them. It's an aging thing, and always Rona has been beyond sensitive to my frustrations about the inevitable lose of some of my powers. So we always tread lightly about anything potentially too upsetting when in Gary's office.

I sensed that he was uncomfortable witnessing our increasing edginess. 

Finally, he said, "I don't want to put you through any more of this."

"You're behind this?" I said, "About what Rona claims is happening? Whatever that is?"

He looked away, but, nodding, said, "Yes. I was running a little experiment with you."

"An experiment with me? Without letting me know?" I was upset but also relieved.  Maybe whatever he had to say would help reconcile Rona and me.

"Forget the CIA business you brought up the last time you were here. And all the things you wrote last year. The stories you made up."

I said, "I'm beginning to sense that rather than your wanting us to forget about the CIA because there's nothing there it's because there is something there. A connection to you that you are trying to keep hidden. Maybe even in regard to this little experiment you mentioned. It's just as I've suspected for two years. There's a covert side to you." I raised my hands triumphantly and swung around toward Rona, who was looking quizzically at Gary.

"Before you come to any conclusions let me explain." Not waiting for either of us to respond, he said, "You know I'm interested in neurology. A lot of my involvement with hearing and its correction is neurological. How the brain adapts to the loss of hearing, or, for that matter, sight. If one ear or eye has a problem the brain adjusts. As some would describe the process, it remaps itself. If there is lose of brain function--including how it effects hearing or sight--other parts of the brain have at least some capacity to take over. You recall when I first fit you for hearing aids we went through a three-month process of adjustments. As your brain got used to the hearing aids I tuned to one level what you were hearing began to feel more and more comfortable, more natural. As if you didn't have aids at all. And then I pushed their capacity a little higher and over a few weeks your brain adapted again. Remapped itself."

"I remember all that," I said, "It was fascinating and you described it at the time very well." I was moving slowly to consider letting him off the hook.

"Switching subjects," he said, "As someone as politically interested as you I thought you might like to participate in my little experiment. I couldn't tell you about it in advance--maybe all things considered and how you both reacted, I should have. I didn't and I apologize for that, even though it would have spoiled the experiment. Because then there would have been the placebo effect."

"Get to the point," I said, "You have patients in the waiting room. And to tell you the truth all of this is exhausting me."

Pressing on, Gary said, "Are you aware of the experiments and literature in behavior genetics that suggest a large portion of one's political ideology is genetically influenced? Some reputable scientists claim that up to 40 percent of our political attitudes could be hardwired in our DNA. Not subject to external influence. Like what gets said on Fox or MSNBC. That doesn't affect us at all."

I said, in fact I have read about this. Including in a book by Hibbing called Predisposed. "It's controversial but if even half true it's important to understand and deal with the reality. It would help explain some of the behavior of the hard right."

"And," Rona said, "Let's not forget the hard left. They or we can be pretty rigid too about political issues."

"Touché," Gary said, now smiling again. "For example, there have been findings that suggest openness to experience, which can in large part be genetic, predicts liberal ideology and conscientiousness, also in part genetic, often goes with a conservative orientation."

"Again, though interesting, how does this relate to your so-called little experiment?"

"I know of course that Steven is a liberal and if the science about this is accurate a large part of that may be genetically predisposed. As with the rest of us. Let's say the genetics of this is true. What we don't know is if any of the predisposed part might be alterable. Or is it untouchable. Once a Democrat always a Democrat. Or a conservative. Political campaigns as a result tend to focus pretty exclusively on the non-hardwired part of the electorate. Which is understandable. With my neurological interest I'm interested in the non-genetically-influenced part."

Attempting to follow, though exhausted, Rona and I were intrigued. 

Sensing this, with enthusiasm, Gary said, "Though it is claimed that we can't do much about what's hardwired, maybe in fact we can in various, yes, covert ways, affect the way people think and ultimate vote. And so . . . think about what might be possible . . . What could be . . . Who knows the good . . ."

Tired by the effort, I could feel him considering the possibilities.

"I'm out of gas," I said, interrupting, "It's been a long day."

"I'm done," Gary said.

"Not quite," Rona said, "You still haven't described the specific details of the experiment."

He rose from his chair, also weary, and stood behind me, placing his hands on my shoulders. I twisted to look up at him. He removed the bronze, loaner hearing aid and held it up, being sure we both could see it. Then placed it carefully in a small box on his work table.

"Think about it," he said, "Think about all of this."

And with that, gently, into my left ear, he pressed the new device and turned toward the waiting room. My hearing was immediately restored.

With so much to consider we drove home barely exchanging a word. Later, we both confessed that what he had shared with us was exciting and important. Even if we hadn't understood it all.

April 16, 2018--Ann Coulter & Me

Tell me I'm hallucinating. 

I woke up Saturday morning to the news that overnight we had bombed a number of chemical weapons sites in Syria. Putting aside for the moment how I feel about that, I thought I heard that Ann Coulter, as well as numerous right-wingers, who I assumed, as hawks, would reflexively call for tough action wherever and whenever, staunchly opposed President Trump's decision to attack military assets of the Assad regime.

I woke up in a hurray and sure enough, with the exception of dead-ender Sean Hannity, pretty much all the talk-radio bloviators, conspiracy theorists, and Fox News hosts and guests were ranting about how Trump violated his campaign pledge to bring all troops home from overseas misadventures, especially those that were involved in "nation building." They reminded Trump about this, since they know he was watching and listening, citing our failed involvements in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.  

The Hill reported that Fox hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham both claimed that Friday night's attack was inconsistent with what Trump said during the campaign and that it could be "risky" for us, considering the country's experience with the Iraq War.

Well-named Michael Savage, host of the radio show, Savage Nation, tweeted--

"We lost. War machine bombs Syria. No evidence Assad did it. Sad warmongers hijacking our nation."

Warmongers, I assume, including Trump.

Ann Coulter showed her opposition to the missile strike by retweeting postings by other conservatives who condemned the move, citing Trump's past tweets in which he cautioned about military action in Syria.

Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, broke down in tears on his  talk show when grossly gasping out his opposition to the missile strikes. He said-- 

"If he [Trump] had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn't be so bad. We've made so many sacrifices [he did not list them] and now he's crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

Best of all, alt-right conspiracy theorist and social media personality, Mike Cernovich, on his men's empowerment website, Danger & Play, posted--

"At least I won't feel bad when he gets impeached."

About that, we agree. As I do with Ann Coulter. 

That is, unless I was hallucinating.

March 26, 2018--"Give Melania A Gun"

My second favorite sign at Saturday's New York City's March For Our Lives march was--

"The only thing easier to buy than a gun is a Republican politician."

My favorite--"Give Melania a Gun." This even before Stormy Daniels appeared on 60 Minutes.

Along the route, at Columbus Circle, we came upon the Trump International Hotel & Tower, a gilded blot on the landscape just across from one of the grandest entrances to Central Park. A tower of brass and glass as tasteless as its eponymous owner. Shame on anyone visiting New York who checked in. Certainly to call it anything International" is a boastful reach. It's more Atlantic City than Manhattan.

The kids who brilliantly organized the march paused there to chant abuse in its soulless direction--"Lock him up. Lock him up." And did the same a few blocks later when the marchers swung east onto Central Park South and, slowing, turn to face another eyesore, Trump Parc Condominium. A residential tower on which, for a hefty fee, the actual owners were able to affix Trump's tarnishing name.

Hooking south down sun-filled Avenue of the Americas, which every real New Yorker still refers to as 6th Avenue, one of the organizer kids noticed at 48th Street there was the headquarters of Fox News and, at street level, the studio where Fox & Friends is broadcast.

In a prepubescent voice not yet changed, he began to chant--

Hey, hey
Ho, ho
Fake News
Fox & Friends 
has got to go.

Hey, hey . . .

Soon, all of his classmates and the rest of us stopped in the street to join the now soaring, angry chant. "Hey, hey . . ."

"Isn't it something," Rona said with welling eyes, "that these kids know all about Fox & Friends. Six weeks ago, back in Florida, they were thinking about the upcoming prom."

February 7, 2018--Rupert Murdoch's Boys

Rupert Murdoch, worth at least $13.1 billion, owner of various news outlets and TV stations, including in New York, the salacious Post and, nationally, the Wall Street Journal (known for its Neanderthal editorials and high-quality reporting), entertainment companies such as F/X and the National Geographic channels, and of course the nefarious Fox News Channel, home to the likes of Bill O'Reilly (gone but insufficiently forgotten) and Sean Hannity (still awaiting his ultimate fate), Rupert, now married for the 10th or 11th time (kidding) to Mick's Ex, Jerry Hall, approaching 90, with at least half his marbles (enough to talk to Donald Trump almost nightly offering advice and encouragement) has for the past couple of years been dividing and turning his empire over to his two adult sons, James and Lachlan--the entertainment division to the former and the news operation to the latter. 

This represents an opportunity, perhaps even hope, especially for his media holdings in America as son Lachlan is reputed to be of a more liberal persuasion than his father (he pushed vigorously to fire Roger Ailes when his sexual harassment behavior was exposed) and might, just might be inclined to calm things down at Fox by dumping the evening opinion shows (right-wing rants) and while he's at it the insipid morning show, Fox&Friends, which Trump watches religiously and from which he gets many of his most corrosive and paranoid daily talking points.

But then again, Lachlan's half of the pie is the most profitable part, netting the Murdochs nearly $1.0 billion a year in net profit.

Though the money keeps pouring in, Fox News's viewership is aging out and dying off. Their 3.3 million daily viewers are on average 68, almost old enough to be required to begin drawing down their IRAs.

With these trend-lines there's no real future for Fox News as it's currently configured while for Lachlan, only 46, it is too soon to be presiding over such a geriatric operation.

Then, though he holds dual citizenship (he was born in England but lives in America) he is more American than Brit and thus to have a life in New York and Aspen, where he owns a sprawling mansion, to live a cosmopolitan life, presiding over Fox News as it spills hate out over American airwaves, to be responsible for Sean Hannity, is a cultural and social problem. And not to forget, these mesmerized viewers led the spawning of the Trump constancy. No Fox, no Trump.

I can see the possibility of son Lachlan guiding Fox in a still conservative but moderate direction. There is a younger viewership for that and so the bottom line, over a carefully staged transition, would not be undermined. The Fox News channel would remain a cash cow.

On the liberal side, the Washington Post and New York Times (both at the time, as Fox, family owned) over a decade morphed from outlets for traditional Republican editorial policy into liberal institutions. (The New York Post, another example of generational transition, was for many decades very liberal, at times, socialistic, and then along came Rupert Murdoch.)

So there is precedent. Above all, one cannot overemphasize the propensity of children, when inheriting businesses, to want to put there own stamp on things. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?) Of course, children (sons) thinking they're smarter than the "old man" frequently wind up bankrupting the family business. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?)

In regard to Fox News, if that were to happen, I could live with it.

The Murdoch Boys