January 1, 2018--Liberal Fallacy: The "Woke"

One of my favorite Morning Joe guests is political and cultural columnist Anand Giridharadas (AG).

Friday, on the last show of the year, he was the final guest. It fell to him to sum things up.

He was asked about the status of the Resistance, the movement to resist the worst of the Trump presidency. Appropriately, for our tragically divided nation, he offered an expansive call for national reconciliation. 

Nothing to argue about with that, but there is much to be concerned about in the specific ways in which he hopes to see that reconciliation occur. 

To me it is representative of the Liberal Fallacy.

What he calls for embodies engagement in some of the very-same virulent behaviors Trump supporters participate in to support him.

After the show, AG summed this up on his Twitter feed. He wrote--

"In 2017, the Resistance was, and had to be a fortress, protecting America from a grave threat to the republic. 

"In 2018, it must be a church seeking converts. It must persuade. 

"Is there space among the woke for the still-waking?"

If one is serious about seeking ways to come together to seek reengagement, isn't it necessary for that dialogue not to be so one-sided? It is clear that he sees virtue only in his dug-in position along the cultural divide and calls for those of us who are of that persuasion to look for ways to be persuasive. Not to listen, not to be open to the heretical possibility that we too might be influenced.

Isn't this a version of the very thing so many Americans hate about the cultural elites? That we claim to embrace the truth, reject or not even listen to other views, and are eager to lead those our candidate called deplorables, irredeemable deplorables, and who AG, literally with pink patches on his jacket sleeves, also seeks to enlighten? About the truth. Our truth. To convert those who are "still-waking."?

To in effect say, "Better than you, we know what's good for you." 

And then what condescension, what self-assigned superiority is revealed by the "woke"-still-waking" paradigm.

This call is not going to get the job done. Actually, it will have the opposite effect. If we seek understanding and perhaps the beginning of reconciliation this is not the vision we need to guide us in 2018.

I was saddened that Willie Geist and the other Morning Joe guests hearing this, uncritically, without evidence of self-insight, came close to clutching hands and breaking into Kumbaya. 

It was a depressing moment at the end of a tumultuous year that summed up entirely too much.

November 8, 2017--Jack: The Great Destraction

"So how are things in Moscow?"

"What?" I was busy and shouldn't have picked up Jack's call. I knew it would lead to aggravation.

"You know. Where you are."

"You mean New . . . ? Oh, I get it. New York City. Moscow. Communism."

Jack was already chuckling. "You and your comrades in Moscow by the Hudson must be feeling pretty good about my boy."

"Pretty good about Trump? That'll be the day. Maybe because he hasn't yet got us involved in a nuclear war? To be fair to him I should give him another a day or two to get one started."

"I mean how he's doing in Japan and South Korea. On his trip to Asia."

"In what way is he doing anything I might feel good about?" Jack again had me hooked. I should have hung up. We got back to New York just a few days ago after being powerless as the result of a tropical storm and we were having enough trouble adjusting to all the craziness in the city after six months in small-town Maine. I didn't need him making matters worse.

"I'm referring to what he just said about our talking with the North Koreans. How maybe there are signs that diplomacy could be working. He said that Tuesday at a press conference in South Korea. That didn't make me happy, but for you and your pansy friends that should have been music to your ears."

"I've heard this before. But before yesterday the last thing he said about trying to make a deal with them was to publicly tell his Secretary of State not to waste his breath talking to 'the little rocket man.'"

"That's the Trump I love," Jack said. "Republican and Democratic presidents wasted 25 years trying to get them to give up their nuclear weapons and what did that get us? During that time they developed atomic and hydrogen bombs and missiles that can almost reach America. I'm no fan of war. I was in the army. But we may be left with no option except nuking them. So when Trump talks about negotiations that buys them more time to figure out how to build bombs small enough to fit on their biggest missiles. Someone this morning on your favorite show, Morning Joe, said they're only a year away from being able to do that."

"Do we really need to talk about this depressing subject? Out the window here in Manhattan all I'm hearing are ambulance and fire engine sirens after months of listening to the sound of water in the bay and the birds in the trees and bushes. And now from you, there's more upsetting noise. So, give me a break and change the subject."

"OK. How about your girl."

"My girl?"

"Hillary."

"Not my favorite person. I had to hold my nose to vote for her. But you guys continue to be obsessed with her. She seems to be your favorite person. Don't you think it's time to fall out of love and move on?"

"Are you kidding me. She's the gift that keeps on giving. While you guys are locked in on Trump and the Russians, we have Hillary making life fun for us. A few years ago we had Benghazi. Now we have that uranium business and the fact that Hillary is behind the famous BuzzFeed dossier that supposedly lists Trump's alleged involvement with the Russians. And just the other day, when these were no longer on the front page, Donna Brazile came out with her book about how Hillary rigged the nomination, sabotaged poor Bernie, and bankrupted the Democrat Party. What a trifecta."

"But Hillary lost. She's irrelevant. Trump was elected and is the president. So he's the one that counts. If we're talking scandals and maybe criminal activity, the focus appropriately should be on him. Not her. You're trying to change the subject. Shifting the focus from him where it belongs to her who no one cares about anymore."

"Au contraire," Jack said, "To Trump people--and there are still a whole lot of us--she's still front and center. In fact, so much so that there should be a special prosecutor to look into her collusions. Just tracking down how Hillary sold 20 percent of our uranium to Russia justifies having someone other than Mueller to investigate it."

"Most of the stuff about her is made up. It's part of all the conspiratorial thinking you and your friends are so good at. But be that as it may, answer one more question for me before I have to go."

"I'm listening."

"Let's assume that Hillary did all sorts of bad things when it comes to the Uranium One deal."

"As they say, if it's true, 'Lock her up.'"

"OK. She's convicted of something and even goes to jail. This is preposterous but to shut you up for a minute let's assume that. So here then is the point--this is no way lets Trump and his people off the hook about all the corrupt and likely illegal things he and they did. Focusing attention on Hillary doesn't mean taking the spotlight off him. Were capable of doing two things at the same time--probe her dealings and keep the Mueller investigation of Trump going."

Without waiting to hear from Jack, I said, "But let's keep things in perspective--while she may have stolen the nomination from Bernie, with the help of the Russians he may have stolen the election from Hillary. They are not morally equivalent."

Jack didn't respond. 

"Your silence is making my point for me. You're primarily interested in using Clinton as a distraction. To turn attention away from Trump. At the popular radio talkshow level it's working. At least for the moment. You may be good at changing the subject--Trump is actually excellent at that--but Mueller's not going away and day by day, drip by drip, more of Trump's people are being shown to be implicated and at some point, probably two, three months from now, standing back, in full focus, we'll see what Trump himself and his cronies have been up to. It's not going to be a pretty picture and no matter what Hillary did or didn't do, no matter where she is, even if in jail, your boy is going down."

Still nothing back from Jack.

"You all will trot out more things to try to distract us--maybe even a war with North Korea, wag the dog style--but still his colluding and criminal behavior--likely of a financial sort--is not going away. What will ultimately happen I have no idea. But the truth will out. Only his rock-bottom 30 percent of dead-enders will believe all this is the result of conspiracies between the media and the socialists and the Clintons. But even you will know better. You're too smart to be taken in by that craziness, that paranoia"

Not a word from Jack.

"Then be sure to call me. That conversation I look forward to having."

Benghazi Hearing

May 31, 2017--Jack: Be Careful What You Wish For

"Sneaking around again?"

It was Jack who spotted us in Hanniford's parking lot.

"What? We're just here to pick up a few groceries."

"And, I see, a newspaper. I assume your New York Times."

I had it under my arm and pressed it closer to me as if to protect it from him. "Let me have a look. What's this morning's headline, as if I didn't know?" He reached for it and I reflexively backed away. But he managed to grab hold of the paper and extracted it from where I had been attempting to hide it.

He read, "'Inquiries Turn to Why Kushner Met a Putin Ally.' So predictable."

"So true," I said, feeling pounced upon, "I mean about Kushner. What was he . . ."

Jack cut me off, "That's this week's drumbeat--the mainstream media's push to get rid of the son-in-law. To get him to resign and go back in disgrace to New York."

"I don't know about . . ."

"That's what's going on. Haven't you been listening to Morning Joe and all the other MSNBC harpies? And CNN? And then of course the Washington Post? It's all Jared-all-the-time."

"OK, so tell me what he was doing talking to that Russian banker? He's an intimate of Putin's and is on our sanctions list. And this meeting or conversation was before Trump was inaugurated. You think that's not a problem?"

"Maybe not. You think it's a bad idea for us to have a private channel for conversations with the Russians, and especially Putin?"

"Again, you're missing the point. We have one government at a time and this was going on while Obama was still the president. Then there is the issue of Trump and Kushner doing business with this banker, Sergey Gorkov. You're OK with them wheeling and dealing with each other?"

"First of all, this is speculation. No one knows if there were business dealings. And if there were, so what? What would be wrong with that? It was before Trump was sworn in."

"Because, as I said, Gorkov's on the sanctions list which means he's dirty. You want our president and his senior advisor son-in-law doing business with someone like that? With him maybe having something on them that can be used for blackmail?"

"It sounds to me like you've been listening again to your late night talk radio. The programs that are devoted to conspiracy theories."

I said nothing to that but I had been, though all the conspiracies being discussed were right wing ones. "Maybe we'll find out they lied. Trump and Kushner."

"So," Jack said, "how about waiting until then to condemn them and drag them through the mud?"

"The whole business with Russia, and I mean more than business, stinks to the high heavens. There are too many Russian connections between Trump's people and Putin and his henchmen."

"I get it. You want to bring Trump down and think the best way to do that is by demolishing all the people close to him."

Involuntarily, I nodded, "This is the way Nixon was exposed and had to resign."

"So, that's your plan--to get Trump to resign by trashing the reputations of his closest advisors?"

That was essentially true but I did not want to acknowledge that to Jack.

"As the saying goes, 'Be careful what you wish for.' Sometimes it works out that you get what you want and that in turn presents an even bigger problem."

"Go on."

"OK. Like with Nixon, to get Trump you start out be squeezing underlings. For Nixon it was Ehrlichman and Halderman; for Trump Flynn and Manafort. Then you get Kushner in the net and after that Trump himself." He looked at me for further confirmation. "To you and your friends that sound good, right?" I stopped nodding. "So, let me ask you this." He didn't wait for a response, "Kushner and, and this is big, Ivanka both resign and move back to New York. That's the hope?"

"That wouldn't be the worst thing. This business of the two of them right next to the Oval Office gives me the creeps."

"And tell me what the Trump presidency would look like with the two of them run out of town."

I hadn't thought much about that.

"You want him there all alone without his wife--who I predict will say in New York and only show up for glitzy foreign trips and state dinners--and without the two people in the world closest to him and who are the only ones who have a chance of keeping him from doing crazy things? Because, left to his own devices, even I, who still supports him, think he has the capacity to do crazy, even dangerous things."

"This sounds worrisome. That it's only Jared and Ivanka who are keeping him from blowing up the world?"

After a moment, Jack, leaned closer to us and softly said, "That's what I think."

"Then we're cooked," I sighed. This was not what I was wanting to talk about in Hanniford's parking lot on a beautiful Tuesday morning.

"Nepotism is not my favorite thing," Jack said, "But in this case maybe . . ."

A car backing out almost ran into us.

"Enough," I said. "I think I won't read today's paper. Maybe just the sports."

April 7, 2017--Congressional Dye Job

There was something familiar looking about Adam Schiff yesterday morning during his appearance on Morning Joe.

As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee he's in high demand these days by the media since the Intel Committee is one of two congressional committees investigating the Trump administration's various Russian involvements.

Though their work is supposed to be confidential, since national security may be at stake, he and his fellow committee members, especially the chairman, Devin Nunes have not been shy about appearing on TV and in some cases inappropriately even thinking out loud that they wouldn't be "surprised" if at the end of the day some people who are apparently involved in dealing less than legitimately with Putin and his people will wind up in jail.

2020 presidential candidate  and committee member Joaquin Castro said as much earlier this week. He got lots of headlines for that as did a number of other Democrats who chimed in. Half the Dems on the committees it seems are also thinking about running for president in four years.

I peered intently at Schiff to see what might have triggered my curiosity about the way he looked. Was it that he reminded me of my Uncle Ben or Mr. Gatti, my 5th grade teacher?

I tried squinting to see if would help.

Then there was the first of the morning's breaking news--under pressure to step aside because of his behaving as a Trump apologist, eager to do his bidding, rather than a more-or-less impartial investigator, Nunes "temporarily"suspending his Russian Connection involvement.

Nunes' picture popped up on the screen.

"That's it!" I said to Rona, who had no idea why I was so excited. "They have the same hair!"

"The same what?"

"Hair. Schiff and Nunes. Look." I pointed at the TV, "Not the same hair but the same color. I mean the same dye job. Isn't that amazing?"

"I'm beginning to be concerned about you," Rona said. "Can we watch something fluffy? I've already had my daily fill of this and I'm worried about you. You're in danger of going off the deep end over Trump and his people. Is there a MASH or Seinfeld rerun to distract us?"

"I think I know why they have the same hair color," I said.

"You can tell me on one condition."

"What's that?"

"That after you do we watch an episode of Married With Children. I hate that show but it always gives you a few laughs, which you desperately need. In fact, the next time you go to see Dr. Heller I want you to talk with him about this."

"This? You mean their hair?"

"No, your obsession with everything having to do with Trump. Maybe there's some medication he can prescribe."

Ignoring that, I asked, "Is this just a coincidence? The both of them having the same color dye? What are the odds of that?

"I wouldn't know and I don't care."

"I don't care but I'm sure I know."

"Lord help me."

"They go to the same barber. And I bet it's the House barber."

"The House barber? The House of Representatives has a barber?"

"More than that. A barber shop and a hair salon for female members. I saw them one time when a congressman I was working with walked me around the Capital and showed me that and their gym and swimming pool and sauna and of course the cafeteria and restaurant. Where things are either free or very low cost."

"So your theory is that Nunes and Schiff go to that barber rather than ones in the districts?"

"Exactly. I can hear them telling the barber 'Give me a Nunes or a Schiff.'"

"Like people used to ask for an Elvis or Farrah." Rona was getting into it.

"I wonder what else our representatives are getting as perks. I know they get a minimum of $174,000 in salary and $250,000 a year for office and travel expenses which means that they effectively fly for free."

"And don't forget the free parking at Reagan Airport. Right by the terminals."

"And pensions that are way beyond what ordinary employees or executives get. I looked that up the other day. After 20 years in office they get $59,000 a year. More than twice what they'd get or a typical retiree would get from Social Security."

"This is making me sick to my stomach," Rona said.

"Congress meets only part of the year and so members get 239 days a year off. They work on many of those days back home, but really."

"Can we change the channel?" Rona pleaded with me.

"Here's my favorite thing--they get platinum health care of course, much of the cost of which is subsidized by, you'll never guess, Obamacare. I'm sure when they repeal and replace it they won't be taking away that subsidy."

"Is it any wonder people who are struggling to get by are made crazy by this?"

"At least if Congress did its job. But one more thing," I said.

"As long as it's the last thing."

"I promise. But back to the hair business. Don't you think that if they didn't have their own hair place in the Capital they would benefit by going to barbershops in their home districts? Barber shops and beauty parlors are great places to stay in touch with constituents. Better than town hall meetings where everyone is screaming and yelling."

"Joaquin Castro was right--they need to be put in jail."

April 5, 2017--25th Amendment

Monday on Morning Joe, Joe and Mika reviewed the storm of tweets that poured forth on Saturday and Sunday from Donald Trump.

They were clearly dismayed.

Usually, Trump's weekend tweets appear only on Saturday mornings when his family handlers, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, practicing Jews, are observing Shabbas. On that day orthodox Jews are forbidden to work and this even includes turning on electrial devices such as stoves, TVs, and smart phones.

Knowing this, it is during this window when he is not under surveillance that Trump as the bad boy he is is at his most uncensored and outrageous. But he goes silent when Ivanka and Jared are again wired up or, if he does tweet any more, knowing they are monitoring him, he is more restrained.

But last weekend, perhaps in part because Jared as quasi Secretary of State was secretly flying off for a visit to Iraq, he published perhaps a dozen tweets. As Joe and Mika reviewed them on air, their dismay turned to horror.

"Who is this person?" Joe asked rhetorically, "I thought we knew him." Mika shrugged and smiled. They thought they knew him from more than a year of having him as a constant presence on their program. He would call in most mornings and they would keep him talking often for up to a commercial-free hour. They rode his wave of popularity as he rode theirs. His poll numbers rose as did their ratings. More viewers tuned into Morning Joe than all other cable shows other than the preposterous and inane Fox & Friends.

An early Saturday morning tweet asked--

When will Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd and @NBCNews start talking about the Obama SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL and stop with the Fake Trump/Russian story?

Not exactly a haiku. And, as Joe and Mika noted, the more things capitalized the more agitated the Commander in Chief.

Then they pointed out, "Sleepy Eyes" is not one of Trump's best sobriquets. It doesn't compare with "Crooked Hillary," "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," or for Elisabeth Warren, "Pocahontas."

Another email, a non sequitur asked--

It is the same Fake News Media that said there is "no path to victory for Trump" that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!

And, still obsessed with Hillary (he can't get over the fact that she beat him by almost 3.0 million popular votes)--

Did Hillary Clinton ever apologize for receiving answers to the debate? Just asking!

For the uninitiated, the "answers" he referred to are actually questions that CNN reporters prepared to pose to Clinton during one of her debates with Bernie Sanders. They were passed along to her campaign by Donna Brazil who was vice president of the Democratic National Committee and a CNN contributor. She subsequently lost both jobs.

At that point, Mika Brzezinski, in visible pain, as if to herself, mumbled, "24th Amendment."

Joe corrected her, "You mean the 25th."

"You think it's time . . . ?"

"I'm beginning to think maybe . . ."

Having depressed themselves they stared blankly into the camera for what felt like an endless five minutes.

To review--the 25th Amendment, which was ratified in 1967, spells out presidential succession. The amendment was needed since the original Constitution was ambiguous about who would become president if the chief executive died or was otherwise incapacitated. In the original document it was not clear if the Vice President was to be the successor. So that needed straightening out.

Also, there was insufficient guidance about what would happen if the president were alive but disabled by, say, a stroke or mental breakdown and how that would be determined. They took great care about this as the amenders did not want to encourage coup d'etats based on false diagnoses.

It is this latter circumstance that is addressed in Section 4 and was alluded to by Mika and Joe.

In its entirety, it reads--

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [Cabinet members] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

This has never happened, but if the amendment had existed during Woodrow Wilson's presidency, it would not have been possible, when he had a massive stroke early in his second term, for his wife, hiding the extent of his disabilities, for all intents and purposes, to serve as acting president for his remaining three years. Section 4 would have been invoked and the VP would have assumed the presidency.

And during Richard Nixon's final days in office, with the 25th Amendment in place, with the president substantially incapacitated because of the drip, drip, drip of Watergate, because he was so out of rational control, a number of his senior advisers thought seriously about enforcing Section 4.

Though they did not do that, he thankfully resigned, but before he did so, among themselves they agreed to tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff that if Nixon late one night, while reeling and raging from too much alcohol, transmitted the nuclear codes that would send nuclear missiles and bombers on a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union, that they should risk treason and not comply.

We are currently not at that point, perhaps, hopefully, far from it; but Joe and Mika spoke the words of deep concern and none of their guests demurred.

But then, a day or two later, from this current scandal that keeps on giving, we learned about Susan Rice's alleged role in "unmasking" Trump aides and secret meetings with the Russians in the Seychelles prior to the new administration taking office to establish a "back channel" connection between Trump and Putin.

Myself, I prefer Claire Danes and Homeland.

It's only an hour an episode and it's fiction. Though by the day it is feeling more and more like reality.

Claire Danes

March 16, 2016--Snowbirding: Radio Havana

"You ask me if I'm angry?"

I hadn't asked him that or anything else. I hadn't looked his way. We were simply seated next to each other in the waiting area where I was waiting for Rona to finish an eye exam. I was reading the paper and had not even been aware of him. I was reading about Russia maybe or maybe not pulling their troops out of Syria.

"More than angry. I'm fed up." I continued to ignore him. "You probably think I voted for Trump." It was primary day in Florida. "Well, I didn't." He tapped the I-Voted sticker they give you after submitting your ballot.

"I hate him and everything he stands for. I voted for Hillary Clinton. She's not perfect but I think she'll make a damned good president.  Been a lifelong Democrat."

Out of the corner of my eye I looked over toward him. He looked like a retired lawyer or college professor. I wasn't in the mood for more talk about the campaign. I needed a break from all this politics business. I know I've brought a lot of it down on myself, but I was feeling enough. I was tired of it all, including the sound of my own voice. Or, more honestly was saving my political attention for later in the evening when there would be actual results. Enough speculating, analyzing, and projecting. I knew, though, that whatever I tried to do to keep myself calm I'd get all riled up. I am that addicted.

"Here's a little story for you." I put my paper down and half-turned to him. The rest of the Syria story would have to wait. Let's get it over with, I thought.

"Late at night, I like to listen to the radio. AM radio. You know, to listen in to all those crazy rightwing talk shows. Sometimes sports talk too. Anything to distract me. I'm not much of a sleeper and am prone to middle-of-the-night anxiety attacks. Suppose it comes with getting older." He took a long look at me.

"I'm like that too," I finally said.

"You a conservative?"

"No. The opposite."

"I suspected that. What with you reading the New York Times."

"But like you, I try to keep track of what's going on in the conspiratorial world of the true believers."

"My name's John, by the way," he said extending his right hand. I took it and introduced myself.

"In the old days, when I was a kid growing up in Philadelphia, I used to like listening to the radio late at night. I'd lie in bed and turn the dial slowly from station to station; and because at that time of night with the ionosphere all charged up, in Philly I could get stations from as far away as St. Louis and even Florida. I could get Phillies-Cardinals games with the local St. Louis announcers. I loved that."

"I did the same thing," I said, "in my Brooklyn bedroom, clutching my big Emerson radio to my ear, with the volume turned down low so as not to wake my parents, I would listen to Yankee games also coming in from St. Louis when the Yanks played the Browns. I loved that."

"The radio was a great way to excite your imagination back then and pulling in stations form hundreds of miles away contributed to that."

"I agree," I said.

"So here's what's making me crazy." At this point I was eager to hear what he had to say. "I do the same thing living in Florida. We've been down here a couple of years, and have gotten used to a lot of things which in the past we didn't like. Like all the talk about the weather and having to get used to eating early-bird dinners at 5:00. You know, all the snowbird clichés."

"I know what you mean."

"But one thing I still do is listen to the radio overnight and then early in the morning before Sally gets up. In the morning, at 6:00, I like to listen to Imus In the Morning. For old time's sake. He's no longer as compos mentis as he used to be--who is, by the way--and a lot of his old heavy-hitter guests have abandoned him and moved on to Morning Joe. After he got in trouble making fun of the African-American basketball players on the Rutgers women's team. It was disgusting what he said, but what can I tell you, I still on occasion like to tune in the see what he's up to. I like his grumpiness."

"And?" I was growing a bit impatient.

"Well, there are two ways to get Imus down here. The first is on the New York City station that carries the program--WABC. 770 on the dial. On some mornings I can pull in their signal. And then there 'The Talk of the Palm Beaches' station, 900 on the AM dial. That's only 25 miles north of where we live."

"And so . . .?"

"So, most mornings I can't get either signal. Froget ABC from New York. That's more than1,000 away. But the nearby Palm Beach station? You would think that wouldn't be a problem."

"Is it?"

"Indeed it is. And that what's making me crazy."

"So what's the problem? What's the story?"

"The reason I can't get AM 900 is because its signal is overwhelmed by one from Cuba. From Havana, Cuba."

"But that's 250 miles away while the Palm Beach station, as you say, is a short drive."

"What can I tell you. It's the truth. And that's also true for half the other stations in South Florida. Including some from Miami. Mind you, this is anecdotal. I haven't done a study. But trust me, what I'm saying is true."

"I have to check tonight on my own radio."

"Look, as I said, I'm quiet a liberal. I hate all the scapegoating going on. Blaming immigrants for our problems and getting people all agitated about them supposedly here to go on welfare. In the clubhouse where we live all I hear is this and how they don't want to learn English. Baloney of that kind."

"I feel that same way," I said.

"But this radio business is outrageous to me. Why doesn't someone, maybe even our government, block these signals? It's one thing at night to hear Radio Havana or what have you. As I said the ionosphere causes AM radio signals to bounce hundreds of miles, but to block out Palm Beach and Miami stations? This doesn't feel very good to me."

"I get your point," I said.

"It feels like an invasion. You know how in war or a revolution the first thing troops or rebels do is try to seize control of radio stations. A little like this maybe?"

"Well, I  . . ."

"No need to say anything. I sense we might agree. Then again, maybe not. Who knows. We just met. But this does get under my skin."

I shrugged as if to say, "What can I say?"

"But my bigger point is that, though this is admittedly a trivial example, so many Americans have other things that are making them crazy. Much more substantial things. As a result, they're turning away from conventional sources where they traditionally used to find relief or help or fairness. From governments to churches to schools to their neighborhoods to the places they work. People are feeling manipulated and afraid. That's really my point. In my own little way, even from the trivial radio example, I get it. But it doesn't make me feel good to have these thoughts. Quite the opposite. But I do. What can I say."

By then, Rona had emerged from the examination room and it was time to leave. I was hoping to have five peaceful hours before Super Tuesday III results would begin to come in. It promised to be a long night. Even a long afternoon.

January 12, 2016--The Art of the Deal

I didn't catch her name. On Morning Joe last week a Republican pollster, not well predisposed to Donald TRUMP, said she had spent the weekend reading Donald TRUMP's Art of the Deal.

"It was all there," she said, "Back in 1987, when it was published, he laid it all out."

"What out?" one of Joe Scarborough's other guests asked.

"How he operates. How he does his thing. To use one of his favorite words, how he wins."

"I'm not sure if I ever read it," Joe confessed.

"Well, you should," she said. "In fact, everyone in the media covering the election should. This may sound harsh, but any major media person who hasn't read it should be fired. I mean, taken off the campaign trail."

This seemed harsh, but when I related it to Rona, she said, "She was right. If you're a serious journalist, or pretending to be, you should do your homework. If not, you should be fired."

"I guess that pertains to me too," I said, not the least bit modestly. "But in my case I would have to fire myself."

"Rather than do that why don't you get the book and read it?"

Well, I did, and sure enough it's all there. What TRUMP's been up to and why he thus far has been successful beyond anyone's expectations. Except his own, of course.

To prevent nausea, I suggest reading only chapter 2, "Trump Cards: The Elements of the Deal." The rest, about his growing up and details of some of his biggest deals, do not add much insight.

And of course, in The Art he is talking primarily about real estate deals, but it's obvious that some of his maxims, insights, and urgings are applicable to other situations--such as running for president!

Since I know most of you are unlikely to read even that, here are some of the highlights that pertain to what he has been doing as candidate TRUMP since I suspect that he is playing things as if he wants to strike a deal with Americans--for them to make a deal with him to be their president.

The chapter is subdivided into 10 or so parts--

Think Big--This one goes without saying. In this case thinking big means thinking about winning the presidency.

Protect the Downside and the Upside Will Take Care of Itself--Here he reveals that he believes in the power of negative thinking. He represents himself as the opposite of a gambler, very conservative in practice, always being prepared with options and fallback positions if he can't get exactly what he wants.

Early last week, for example, when asked about the extravagance of some of his claims, he revealed with self-insight--"I can tone it down." And note that recently he has. He's even released a few position papers and promised that if he's elected he'd change his hairdo since he would not have time to tend to it since he'd be "working his ass off as president."

Maximize Your Options--This is related to the previous point. Never get painted into a corner by not having alternatives to propose. The bottom line it to get what you want directly or indirectly.

Know Your Market--Now we're getting closer to the heart of the TRUMP approach. You need to "know what the public wants and deliver it." Few would argue that he hasn't figured out what much of the voting public wants.

Use Your Leverage--Know you strengths and vulnerabilities. Use your strengths to overcome your vulnerabilities. Most important, "The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it . . . . Leverage is having something the other guy wants."

Enhance Your Location--The ultimate cliché about real estate is that it's all about location, location, location. For TRUMP this is only partly true. Locations can be enhanced by the right kind of marketing and branding. TRUMP's name on something makes up for a less than ideal location.

A cousin of mine couldn't by a place in TRUMP Tower--the best location of all of The Donald's buildings at Fifth Avenue and 57th Street--because all the apartments were sold. But he was willing to pay the same top-dollar per-squre-foot price at TRUMP Plaza, "all the way over" on Third Avenue. A TRUMP name and amenities trumped sacrosanct physical location.

Get the Word Out--The TRUMP heart of the matter. See if any of this sounds familiar:

You need to generate interest, and you need to create excitement. . . . One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It's in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you. I've always done things a little differently, I don't mind controversy. . . . 

The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business. . . .

Pay close attention to this--

The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. 

I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration--and a very effective form of [self] promotion.

There you have it. Direct from the source. Put out there nearly 30 years ago.

August 27, 2015--TRUMP: Swimsuit Competition

Barack Obama's former senior political advisor, the savvy David Axelrod, posted a clever Tweet on Tuesday.

Attempting to sum up the TRUMP phenomenon, especially TRUMP's continued surge in national and local polls, knowing that The Donald has owned the Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, Axelord said--

"In a parlance Trump would appreciate: We're still in the swimsuit competition. It gets harder in the talent rounds."

Now, I don't know if TRUMP knows how to play the harmonica or can pull off a hula hoop routine, but so far he is looking good and I think will continue to widen his lead over all the other candidates because his talent may be the swimsuit competition.

Not talent of the sort traditional political strategists such as Axelrod respect and feel is essential to a candidate who wants to be taken seriously as a potential commander in chief.

Ditto for James Carville and Mary Matalin. On Morning Joe yesterday, when asked why TRUMP is doing so well they both in effect agreed with Axelrod--TRUMP's electoral balloon will burst soon because of his lack of substance. They both said that once the public begins to pay attention they will want to know his specific policies about the Middle East, strengthening the US economy, fixing the education system, balancing the budget. His shtick will wear thin, they say, and the public will discover that the emperor has no hair.

Or, if you will, there's no there there. Or that there's sizzle but no beef.

They failed to note that the public they claim is not yet paying attention to the campaign is turning out in droves for his appearances and the largest TV audience in history, 24 million, tuned in to the first Republican debate. Four years ago, the initial GOP debate was watched by 3.2 million. Eight times fewer.

The next thing we'll hear from old-school political analysts is that these numbers have little to do with TRUMP but reflect voters' deep interest in Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Oh really?

They don't get the fact that in addition to liking TRUMP's tell-it-like-it-is style (a quality that huge numbers of potential voters like to think they have), his can-do enthusiasm and optimism (Make America Great Again! is his campaign slogan), and his track record as a business man, a large part of TRUMP's appeal is that he seems to have just stepped out of a reality show.

In fact he did.

But beyond starring in The Apprentice for 11 years, he and his glittering family share many characteristics of the Kardashians. They are beautiful, smart, successful, comfortable with themselves, exhibitionistic, quirky, titillating, and intriguing in a Modern Family sort of way.

If you doubt this, wait until bionic wife Melania, extraterrestrial-looking daughter Ivanka, his three perfect boys, his second Daughter Tiffany (named after the store), and I suspect his previous two wives, Ivana and Marla Maples join him on the campaign trail. There hasn't been as glamorous a political family since the Kennedys.

This mix is very powerful political medicine in our celebrity-sodden culture.

Melania Trump

August 5, 2015--GOP Debate

I've got a six-pack of cold beer ready for Thursday night's GOP debate. It should be a good one.

First, there's the matter of who will be invited to debate. By Fox News no less.

With at least 16 announced candidates, to make a good show of the 90 minutes, Fox decided to invite only 10--the top 10 based on the most recent polling data.

Thus, Donald TRUMP, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Ben Carson will participate but not Rick Perry (his smart glasses will soon be available on eBay), which is too bad since last time around he was dependably hilarious; or Rick Santorum, who last time around was the last man standing when Mitt Romney secured the nomination; or Carly Fiorina (the only woman running--oh, how I pine for Michele Bachmann); nor of course will we hear from George Pataki (who?) or Lindsey Graham (though thanks to TRUMP we have his cell phone number), the latter two polling at less than one percent. It's never a good thing when you're favorability rating begins with a 0, as in  0.15 percent. Their number.

Everyone's attention will be focused on the star of the show, Donald TRUMP--what he will blurt out and the zingers the others are desperately rehearsing to launch his way. The first debate and, who knows, maybe the entire lumbering nomination process, will be about TRUMP, unless he gets bored having to hang out with John Kasich and Ted Cruz. How tedious would that be.

Speaking of Senator Cruz, little is expected of him but he could turn out to be one of the unanticipated winners. Chris Christie as well and maybe Ben Carson. These three have at least some jizzum and come across as sort of spontaneous. Compared to the ever-boring Jeb Bush and the over-managed Scott Walker these three appear to be at least alive and breathing.

Then there is TRUMP. Yesterday I caught him on Morning Joe. They had him booked for a quick phone call interview that was set to last perhaps 10 minutes. He was so good that they skipped commercial breaks and kept him on air for what felt like half an hour.

And what a half hour it was. I didn't catch any gaffs (though his trashing of John McCain and his subsequent additional surge in the polls suggests he has a get-of-out jail gaff card--for example in South Carolina, McCain's pal Lindsey Graham's state, where TRUMP has at least a 20 point lead in the polls: 34% compared with 10-11% for Bush and Carson.

More than anything else, at least for the moment, in contrast with all the other GOP candidates, he sounds actually enthusiastic about the prospect of being President. Not winning the nomination and then the general election but being the President.

The others (Hillary included) feel interested only in the process of being elected. TRUMP already sees himself sitting in the Oval office telling people what to do, as he previewed on Morning Joe.

"I'll tell Carl Ichan, a friend of mine, 'Congratulations, Carl. I'm sending you to China. Handle China.' And I'll send someone like that to Japan to handle Japan. Can you believe Caroline Kennedy is our ambassador? She said she couldn't believe they gave her the job. Speaking of jobs, I'll create jobs. I've created tens of thousands of jobs including for Latinos and African Americans. Let me tell you something, I'll win the Hispanics and blacks. Mexicans love me. They buy my apartments."

As I said, Thursday evening will be fun.

May 5, 2104--Confirmation Bias

For years I enjoyed early mornings with Morning Joe. But, since it is beginning to feel predictable, lately I find myself switching back and forth between Joe, CBS This Morning, and even CNN's New Day. Never mind the conservative zombie cyborgs on Fox News' alliterative Fox and Friends.

Charlie Rose on CBS feels about as grumpy as I, like me not entirely happy to be up early. So I can relate to that. New Day, on the other hand, is more or less devoted to news, but it is disconcerting to watch Chris Cuomo on CNN, who looks just like New York governor Andrew Cuomo's twin and sounds just like his father, former New York governor, Mario. Again, not fully clearheaded that early in the morning, this can be confusing.

My drifting from Morning Joe appears not just to be an isolated phenomenon but is reflected in the ratings of these four morning shows, especially the cable networks' three. According to a report in the New York Times, Joe has slipped to third place among the cable shows. F&F continues to be number one with ratings that equal both New Day's, which has taken over second place, and Morning Joe's. Especially among younger viewers who, for some reason, are considered to be the more desirable.

Cantankerous, good-ol-boy, Morning Joe Scarborough, is not being diplomatic in his reactions. He is quoted as saying, "CNN has made itself a punch line on the Daily Show for its phony breaking-news headlines and breathless coverage of random ocean debris." (He failed to mention that Jon Stewart on the Daily Show devoted an entire segment to making fun of . . . Morning Joe, for being so cozy with the powerful.)

But Joe has a point.

New Day, and the rest of CNN, vaulted over Joe and all other MSNBC programs by devoting almost all of its time to a constant stream of alleged breaking-news about Malaysian ill-fated flight 370, with much of this breaking news really a constant rehashing of "news" that "broke" hours or even days before. It seems that on CNN there is no statute of limitations on anything they deem to be new news.

On the other hand, MSNBC itself gleefully devoted dawn-to-dusk coverage for weeks to the political downfall of Chris Christie. And now are spending most of their time expressing outrage about estranged LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and the botched execution in Oklahoma.

While over at Fox, it has not been all-news-all-the-time or we-report-you-decide: it has been all-Benghazi-all-the time in their attempt to preemptively bring down the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

But, in addition to noticing myself drifting away from Morning Joe, I am also finding myself losing interest in Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, late evening hosts of their own shows on MSNBC.

They are feeling to me as doctrinaire and strident coming from the left as the hosts of Fox's evening lineup are from the right. Yes, their views are more fact-based than Fox's and Fox's are more opinion-based, but both are becoming unwatchable because their views are more and more predictable.

In talking with others, liberal as well as conservative friends, they are saying much the same thing; but, for the most part, all are continuing to watch their favorite shows on Fox or MSNBC.

I've been wondering why they, and I, continue to tune in if in fact so much is repetitious and predictable.

I have come to conclude we watch because pretty much everyone on Fox and MSNBC, is predictable. We tune in to have our views confirmed.

In cognitive theory this is called confirmation bias. How we search for new information and interpretations that confirm our perceptions and avoid information and points of view that contradict prior or already formed beliefs.

Since genopolitical research is finding that there may be a genetic basis for our political perspectives and attitudes (see The Righteous Mind), the pull to have these deeply-based views constantly affirmed fits right in with the drumbeat programming on the most ideological TV talk shows.

This is not unlike the need to eat. Feeding the mind a steady diet of ideological views is perhaps not so different from feeding the body.

The body human and the body politics.

April 29, 2014--Career Politicians

Congressman Aaron Schook, Republican from Illinois, was a guest on Monday’s Morning Joe.

His current claims to fame? He just returned from a trip to six European countries accompanying Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. And, more interesting, he had recently posted an Instagram photo of himself surfing in what looked more like Waikiki than Kiev.

When pressed about the photo, the former Cosmo model said that since nothing is private any more, wanting to control how he is perceived by the public, he is now posting things about himself to get control of his own "narrative."

As if there is pent-up desire for anyone to want to know more about him, much less how he looks in a bathing suit. Actually, quite hot, which, I was imagining, was why he was booked for Joe in the first place since when asked about anything involving public policy or foreign affairs, he sputtered innocuously, with a vacant but handsome look from standard Republican talking points.

When asked about immigration reform he said, correctly, that nothing will happen this congressional session unless Republicans and Democrats work together.

“Why is that so difficult?” he was asked.

He shrugged his shoulders and with a sigh said that when you think about running for Congress and then during the early days if elected, your desire to do “the right thing” evaporates when you realize this is “a hard thing to do.”

To this glimpse of insight there was no follow up.

Neither Mika nor any of the others (Joe was not present) asked why it’s hard.

Perhaps because they already knew the answer—new congressmen quickly learn that in the House to get along you have to go along with your party’s leadership (Democrats as well GOPers). And, in order to give yourself the best chance to be reelected every two years you have to tow the party line and not alienate the money people who will provide the cash to fund your campaigns.

Debriefing with Rona over coffee we talked about why neither of us has ever heard a reporter or cable news host probe why seemingly every member of Congress sees getting reelected time after time as his or her highest priority.

Rather than seeing this form of public service to be just that—service—all seemingly are primarily interested in building congressional careers.

Our Founders envisioned participation in the government to be a responsibility, not résumé building. They didn’t call for members of Congress to be paid (for years they weren’t) much less have retirement and health insurance benefits. Or, congressional barbershops, restaurants, and gyms.

They would be horrified to see people lingering in Congress for decades.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting for someone on Morning Joe to have asked Congressman Schook, who is a conservative and reveres the Constitution, how he reconciles his own congressional careerist ambitions with the vision of those who fought our Revolution, wrote our Constitution, and called for citizens to play limited and temporary roles in our government.

I’m not sure there are talking points for that. Either for congressmen or, for that matter, talk show hosts.

January 27, 2014--Chris Christie Is Not a Bully

Pretty much universally New Jersey governor Chris Christie has has been declared a bully.

If you tune into MSNBC, beginning early with Morning Joe, it's been wall-to-wall Chris Christie and the Christie coverage does not end until 11:00 when Lawrence O'Donnell finally signs off with the Last Word. Although Joe Scarborough is a proud Republican and has attempted to find ways to see Christie in the best light, even he has made note of what even he refers to as bullying tactics.

For the rest of the MSNBC crew, it's case closed. Curtains for Christie. As one said, "He's toast."

Admittedly it's a juicy story and a politically important one, especially for Democrats and Independents who want Hillary Clinton elected president. If Christie, seen to be her most powerful challenger, can be brought down, it clears the way for President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But in my household, someone is saying, "Hold on."

That would be Rona.

"I do not think he's a bully," she said to my considerable surprise.

"You say that in spite of the claim that when he allegedly had his lieutenant governor tell the mayor of Hoboken that unless she supported Christie for reelection he would hold back Hurricane Sandy relief funds? Isn't that being a bully?"

"Let's assume he did that," Rona said.

"That assumption is an easy one for me."

"How different is that from how Lyndon Johnson operated when he was Senate Majority Leader and then president?"

"He didn't bully people?" I said. "I read all the Robert Caro books and from what I learned I would say LBJ exerted forceful leadership."

"Really? Forceful leadership? Ask Earl Warren who didn't want to serve on what became the Warren Commission that looked into the assassination of John Kennedy. Johnson had the goods on Warren and threatened to expose him if he declined to serve. Warren, Caro reported, broke into to tears and agreed. You don't call that bullying?"

"I guess I do. But, I'm confused. What's your point? You just said Christie isn't a bully and compared him to LBJ who you seem to be saying was a bully?"

"I intentionally confused you since I think the situation with Christie is more complicated than has been represented in the press and on TV."

"Go on."

"Let's begin by talking about bullying itself. Tell me, just what constitutes bullying? Forget Christie and LBJ for the moment. What's the agreed-upon definition of bullying?"

"Let me look it up so we can be precise." I googled bullying and found the following--

Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include: 

An imbalance of power. Kids who bully use their power--such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity--to control or harm others.

"You see," Rona said, "as I expected, it's mainly about gaining dominance per se. Someone more powerful bullies to gain dominance over someone weaker. It's an end in itself. It doesn't usually seek to require the person being bullied to behave differently or agree to do something against his will."

"By that definition it's not what Christie is being accused of doing. At least in Hoboken. The bridge thing was more about revenge against the Fort Lee mayor who didn't support him for reelection."

"Exactly,"Rona said, "In Hoboken he supposedly tried to extract more than an endorsement from the mayor or just to dominate her. He wanted to get her to do something against her will. There's a big real estate development project proposed there that he apparently wants the mayor to help get approved which would benefit some of his big-money supporters. People who would be helpful to him if he runs for president."

"So," I asked, "if what went on there is different than bullying, what are we talking about?"

"Maybe blackmailing?

"That could be what Johnson did to Warren. There was a secret the Chief Justice didn't want revealed. But I don't think Christie was blackmailing the mayor."

"Strong-arming then?" Rona asked.

"I'm not sure about that either. That's a mob term that . . ."

"Though folks on the left enjoy suggesting a mob connection to Christie. You know, he's governor of Tony Soprano's state. Newsweek, for example, had Christie's picture on a cover last year, really a version of a mug shot, with the headline--The Boss. Get it? I don't thing they were referring to another New Jersey 'boss,' Bruce Springsteen."

"So what then is it with Christie?" I asked.

"I think more arm-twisting," Rona said.

"Let me look that one up. It says--'Persuasion by use of physical force or moral pressure.'"

"I think that's closer to what's been going on in New Jersey and in governments in general. The pressure part, not the physical force. And, back to President Johnson, that's what he did as well--arm twisting. In addition, of course, to using various other kinds of techniques to get people to go along with his agenda."

"So . . .?"

"So, maybe we all need to be more precise. If it isn't bullying and is a version of arm twisting we should call it that."

"Maybe."

"Furthermore, maybe we should be a little more consistent in they way we look at these tactics, these political tools."

"Meaning?"

"Meaning that if we like a politician's agenda--say Johnson trying to get Civil Rights legislation passed or Medicare--if we like what someone is doing, we're more inclined to look the other way in regard to the tactics used."

"And if we don't?"

"We call him names."

"Like bully?"

"Christie may not be a bully," Rona smiled, "but politically he's still toast."

January 16, 2014--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb

I am reading about the Cuban Missile Crisis in Robert Dallek's excellent biography of John F. Kennedy, An Unfinished Life.

During the 13 days that it lasted, as the United States and the Soviet Union came eyeball to eyeball, facing the all-too-real possibility of a massive nuclear exchange, the unanimous advice JKF got from his military leaders, including Strategic Air Commander Curtis LeMay, the inspiration for General Jack D. Ripper in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, was to take the opportunity to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on the USSR. They felt that we still had the military edge but only if we attacked them preemptively.

Thankfully, for the sake of human life and civilization, JFK resisted that advice and here we are living to tell the tale.

Kennedy had been burned by a version of the same kind of advice 18 months earlier when the CIA and his generals advised the new president to support the invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles in an ill-fated attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro.

From that fiasco, JFK learned to be suspicious of his military advisors. Their job, he realized, was to wage war. Not peace. And as commander in chief, with the wisdom of our Founders that the military should be under civilian control, he needed to be leery of predictable advice to attack and invade.

I was reminded of those fateful times the other morning when former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared on Morning Joe to promote his memoirs, Duty.

As has been widely reported in the press, not only does Gates take frequent swipes at Joe Biden (inaccurately claiming that in 40 years of public life he has always been wrong in his policy recommendations) but also one of his presidential bosses, Barack Obama. Obama, he claims, not only did not "passionately" support the mission of soldiers mired in Afghanistan, but also was to "suspicious" of his generals' advice.

To that I say, "Thank you President Obama."

Let us recall that it was his generals who pressed him to send more troops to Afghanistan in another ill-fated effort to defeat the insurgents and stabilize the Afghan government under corrupt President Hamid Karzi. And beyond that, as Obama became more aggressive in declaring that we would withdraw all combat forces from there by the end of this year, it was his generals who went public, advocating that we leave a residual force in Afghanistan for 20 more years.

As JFK said in January, 1961--

When at some future date the high court of history sits in judgement on each of us, it will ask: "Were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates?"

Gates should know that history as well as that of the Eisenhower presidency before taking a too causal look back on his service under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. At least eight times during his presidency, former Allied Supreme Commander, General Dwight Eisenhower faced down advice from his generals to preemptively wipe out the Soviet Union with massive strikes. They pressed what became a familiar mantra--that the U.S. would for only a few more years have the nuclear edge and that since war with the USSR was inevitable, we should get it over with while we had the advantage.

And at least eight times, Eisenhower, who more than any president was skeptical about such military advice, declined to launch the nukes. Better than anyone else, Ike knew that as surgeons will more often than not say, "Operate," generals will invariably say, "Bomb. "

Under the radar right now, while focusing most of our attention on Governor Chris Christie's exquisite agony, members of the U.S. Senate are quietly advancing legislation to ratchet up the sanctions against Iran. At the very moment that for the first time in decades there is a glimmer of hope that we may be able to negotiate our way to some sort of accommodation with them about their nuclear weapons program. Iran has already signaled that if this new sanctions bill is approved by Congress, overriding what would be a certain presidential veto, they will back out of further negotiations.

Maybe this is a geopolitical example of bad cop (Congress), good cop (Kerry-Obama); but with the Israeli leadership doing what it can to derail negotiations and Congress, very much including many Democrats under the influence of the Israel Lobby, we would be faced with another dangerous situation where bombing not negotiating threatens to become policy.

April 22, 2013--We Report, You Decide

For the New York Times, it's "All the News That's Fit to Print"; for CNN, it's the self-congrtualtory, "The Worldwide Leader in News"; at MSNBC it's "Lean Forward" (whatever that means); and at Fox News, there is the best tagline of all--"We Report, You Decide."

I mean it, Fox's is far and away in the best tradition of journalism--the news is to be reported, not interpreted; and it is for citizens, not reporters, to decide what's important, true, or urgent.

So what to make of the fact that when the Senate last week was considering expanding background checks on gun buyers, Fox not only didn't report about it, but literally ignored it?

What from this are we supposed to conclude?

First the facts, then you decide--

The morning of the vote, watching "Fox and Friends," one would not have known that it was scheduled for later in the day. Pretty much the entire show was devoted to the explosion at the fertilizer factory in Texas. A big story indeed, with visuals of the sort TV news can't resist; but as the New York Times reported, there was not one sentence about the impending vote in the Senate. Nor was there much through the rest of the day. And, considering the amount of time Fox devoted to the fertilizer plant disaster, it is striking that they failed to report that the last time it was inspected was in 1985.

Over at MSNBC, though, "Morning Joe" divided its time between the Senate vote and the explosion. Host of "Morning Joe," former conservative Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, is a born-again advocate for legislation to expand background checks and other efforts to enhance gun safety. In truth, as an advocate, he also was far from an objective reporter; but at least on his program, considerable time was devoted to the subject and a variety of points of view were represented.

Later in the day, after the Senate voted not to require background checks at gun shows, President Obama made comments in the Rose Garden. All the networks carried it. All but Fox. Viewers were told, if they wanted to watch it, they should look elsewhere.

So before Obama could complete one sentence, Fox cut away to its innocuous afternoon program, "The Five."

When questioned why they did not air the president's speech, Michael Clemente, Fox's executive vice president for news, said that they had covered many presidential speeches on the subject and did not consider this one especially newsworthy.

I get it. Fox News, in spite of its impressive tagline, is not news, it's propaganda.

It was ironic, though, that at the very moment the president was speaking the subject under discussion on "The Five" was media bias. No surprise, liberal media bias.

Not ironic, considering Fox's devotion to the NRA's most radical views, was the missed opportunity for them to spent time on the air gloating about the vote: about how the Senate voted as Fox had advocated--to prevent doing anything more to interfere with alleged Second Amendment rights.

But, I forgot, that would have been untrue to their self-proclaimed mission--reporting so we can decide. Gloating, of course, is not reporting.