June 22, 2020--Flushing

Just when I thought I had assimilated everything I needed to know about avoiding the coronavirus, leave it to the New York Times, the "paper of record," to come up with more things to worry about.

According to the Times, I need to do more than wash my hands 20 times a day while singing "Happy Birthday." I need to do more than maintain a social distance when among people and wear a mask 18 hours a day. It seems I now also have to be careful about how I flush the toilet.

Yes, it's come to that.

In case you missed the Times article, here's what you need to know. 

First, like so much else, it's a gendered issue. Men and women potty differently and since one form of virus propagation is the product of launching infested water globules when flushing, the height from which one does that is critical. Women sit, men stand. Does more need to be said about that?

Scientists have found that flushing a toilet can generate a cloud of aerosol droplets that rises nearly three feet. Those droplets may linger in the air long enough to be inhaled by a shared toilet’s next user, or land on surfaces in the bathroom.

In addition, this toilet plume can carry infectious coronavirus particles that are already present in the surrounding air.

For the science-minded, there is more to know--

A computer simulation of toilet flushing showed that when water pours into the toilet and generates a vortex, it displaces air in the bowl. These vortices move upward and the centrifugal force pushes out about 6,000 tiny droplets per flush and even tinier aerosol particles. All waiting to ensnare us.

So, what is one to do?

Thankfully, people can easily prevent the spread of infections from the toilet plume.

To do so, it is suggested that one should close the lid first and then trigger the flushing process. Though the Times acknowledges this isn’t always possible in public bathrooms. But at least it's a start.

I wonder, though, what the Trump people in Tulsa did. Obviously no face masks, also no social distancing, but after a couple of six packs . . . flushing?

This is where my curiosity ends. There is a limit to what I'm willing to do to try to stay healthy.

September 3, 2019--King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun

Did you know that the King of Thailand, Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun, has a "consort"? Maj. Gen. Sineenat Wongvajirapakdi.

When I read about this official consort in the Gray Lady New York Times more than anything else I wanted to share their names with you and the pleasure I took when trying to get them typed without any errors (forget pronunciation).

I can't begin to tell you what SpellCheck did to my efforts. The king's first name, Maha, for example, became Mama.

Now that you're interested, to quote Paul Harvey, here's the rest of the story.   

The position of noble consort, which typically refers to a companion of the monarch, is separate from that of queen. The queen title is held by Suthida Vajiralongkorn Na Ayudhya (more SpellCheck opportunities--Suthida became Soothed), a former flight attendant who is the king’s fourth wife. Queen Suthida later became a general and helped command the king’s bodyguards. 

General Sineenat was named a noble consort last month, on the king’s 67th birthday. It is a title that has not been conferred since Thailand abolished its absolute monarchy in 1932. Before taking up her consort duties, General Sineenat graduated from the Army Nursing College. She is now a member of the king’s bodyguard corps, with the rank of major general.

Both Queen Suthida and General Sineenat participated in the consort's coronation ceremonies, a catered $30 million affair in which the king received a 16-pound Great Crown of Victory.

On the official website of the Royal Household are photos of the consort sitting in an airplane cockpit, wearing a camouflage-printed sports bra, others are of her aiming an assault rifle and standing in combat gear with the king’s pet poodle in her arms. The dog is wearing what appears to be a black leather top.

Not exactly The King And I. But is a puzzlement.

May 24, 2019--Jack: Youngstown, Ohio

We were having a quiet morning at the diner when the door burst open and there, framed in it, grinning ear-to-ear, making an entrance was Jack. 

"Am I ever glad to see you," he bellowed.

I stole a glance at Rona, thinking, just what I needed. Now my morning is complete. 

"Yessiree. My two favorite Commies." He liked that and rolled with laughter. "But I still love you guys. Why, I do not know. But I do."

"I hesitate to ask," I finally said, "I know I'll regret it, but what's got you all jazzed up?"

"How you Dems are doing it again." Rona signaled for a heater of decaf and perhaps the check. She's had it with early morning political talk.

I said, "Doing what again?" Rona glared at me.

"Let me read it to you. From your New York Times. I have it with me. To quote it directly. From the paper of record. That's what you call it, right? I've been carrying this around for almost a week, hoping to run into you two."

He had plopped down on the banquette next to Rona and was searching for whatever it was in his pockets.

"I got it. I got it." He waved what looked like a newspaper clipping. "It's about what's going on in Youngstown. Ohio. Right in the heart of the Rust Belt. In Trump Country."

"You mean Biden Country," Rona said under her breath.

"That's a good one," Jack said. "It's never going to be Biden Country as long as he goes around denying our economy is threatened by China. Let me read something to you. From the Times." He squinted at the clipping. "I want to get this right so I quote--'On the campaign trail Mr. Biden has downplayed China's global economic threat. "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on man. They're not competition for us.'"

Jack made a face as if he was offended, "Saying these things in Ohio which has lost not just jobs to China but whole industries is crazy. He may in some ways be right, but politically this is a disaster. He expects to carry that state? Dream on. It could turn out to be his 'deplorables' moment. Remember that? I can see what he said featured in Republican TV ads."

I said, "It wasn't a politically smart way to put it. I'll grant you that. But the polls show Biden leading his Democratic rivals as well as Trump in Ohio and the other swing states."

"As I said, dream on. Let me read you what an Ohio Democratic strategist said before, out of frustration, resigning his position--

"My party has lost its voice to speak to people that shower after work and not before work. [I love that.] All we're saying is that Trump refuses to turn over his tax returns. He's saying, 'I'm fighting China to get you better jobs.' Trump's people don't care about his taxes--they just don't."

"But they care," I said, "about all the jobs that have been lost in Ohio. Including very recently, in nearby Lordstown. General Motors shut down its assembly plant and 1,600 good jobs were wiped out. On Trump's watch, after all his promises to save jobs and bring back manufacturing."

"OK but listen to what Democratic congressman Tim Ryan, who incidentally is running for president and represents Lordstown, had to say. Again from your favorite newspaper--"

Jack read, "The president is punching China in the face while the leading candidate on our side is saying China is not even an issue. If we go into the election with that as our message we'll get beat again."

I said, "As you pointed out, Ryan's running for the Democratic nomination and he is trying here to bring Biden down. To clear a path for himself."

"OK," Jack said, "So let me tell you what the vice president of the United Auto Workers union had to say. He's not running for the presidency by the way. Again, I'm reading from the Times."

With a hint of attitude, Rona said, "Glad to see you weaned yourself from Fox News."

Jack let that pass and read--

"The UAW vice president said--'Very few union members are abandoning the president even after the plant that made the Chevy Cruze laid off thousands of workers in three waves after Trump's election. I don't think these Trump people are going to flip back, even for Joe Biden, who has a lot of support in this area. I think they're dug in on Trump. Whatever happens, they're going to go down with the ship with him.'"

"Now finally that's something I can drink to," Rona said, raising her coffee mug, "Here's to Trump and his people together on a sinking ship." 

Trump Rally In Youngstown

May 1, 2019--Black Women

How sadly ironic that the spouse of our first black president and the first women to secure the nomination of a major political party lost the election because black women did not turn out in traditional numbers to vote for her.

The "her," of course, is Hillary Clinton and the "first back president," designated as such by Toni Morrison, is Bill Clinton.

So, if Joe Biden is to have a chance to win, especially in the hotly contested Electoral-College-rich Midwestern states--Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan--he needs to do better with black women.

Initially in the primaries and then, if he is nominated, in the general election.

It is very early to make responsible predictions but since this is a critical issue, following the lead of the New York Times, which published an article Monday about how well Biden might do with African-American voters in these swing states, here are a few observations--

The Times dispatched a reporter to Pennsylvania, where there are many minorities, to get a sense of how Biden is faring with black voters.

Supported by recent polling data, it seems quite well.

At Bobbie's Coffee & Books in Germantown, when talk turned to politics, patrons said that Biden was either at or near the top of their list, mainly because of his partnership with Obama. 

Clara Walker, a small-business owner, said that Biden would have her vote "just for assisting Barack."

This was a common theme--Biden's support for Obama's agenda and how his presence and assistance contributed significantly to Obama's success.

Kerry Chester, a network engineer, said, "I'm going to be completely honest: I think with the country going the way it is, I think we're kind of safer on the Democratic side going with a white man right now."

Working class white folks said much the same thing--

For example, Kevin Frantz, a retried firefighter, said, "I like his sincerity, his personality, his experience. I think he cares."

No wonder worried Trump sent out a stream of nasty tweets about Biden as he made his way successfully across his home state.

One further thought about Biden's appeal to black voters--

In most work situations African Americans report to white people. But in Obama's White House, white workers, beginning with Biden, reported to a black man--the president.

Biden was known to have had nothing but fondness and respect for Obama and was as loyal a second banana as a vice president has ever been. This has been widely noticed among African Americans and contributes in uncountable ways to his rapport with the former president and through that relationship to black voters.

We will learn more as the campaigns develop, but at this early stage it appears that Biden will not have a Hillary problem.

April 29, 2019--Biden Steps In It

Joe Biden for me is the Democrat most likely to be able to defeat Trump in 2020. Perhaps the only Democrat. 

His announcement Thursday began well with a three minute video posted on line where Biden, announcing his candidacy, powerfully and persuasively said that at stake in 2020 is a struggle for nothing less than the "soul of the nation." And by not-so-subtle implication demonstrated he is best positioned to take on Trump on that issue and win.

But later in the day, without prompting, he revealed he had called Anita Hill to express regret about the way the confirmation hearings he chaired had gone when Clarence Thomas was being considered for a seat on the Supreme Court. He acknowledged that the conversation with her hadn't gone well. 

He really needed to call Anita Hill a couple of weeks ago to, sort of, apologize, after 28 years of silence and inform the public about it on the day he launched his campaign? 

Not that she doesn't deserve an apology for what he, in 1991, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that was conducting confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas allowed his colleague senators to get away with as they trashed her credibility and personal reputation. 

It was one African-American women facing 15 white men, who, among other things, mocked her.  She had stepped forward to courageously accuse Thomas of sexually harassing her when he was her supervisor at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The way Biden allowed her to be mistreated is the worst blot on his record so it is understandable that, as he considered running for the third time for president, he would be thinking about how this would play out for him politically. Perhaps, too, he was thinking about an inner need to try to make heart-felt amends.

He knew it would be perilous to begin his campaign with an "apology tour" that would inevitably be more than about the Thomas hearings--it would also include needing to explain away his support for increasing the mandatory jail time for drug dealers and, more disturbing, why he voted to endorse the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Republicans love beating up on what they perceive to be wimpy liberals' alleged inability to be tough. Apologizing, therefore, is about as bad a thing a Democrat aspiring to be commander-in-chief can do. Girls apologize, real men plow ahead.

So what was Joe up to?

Whatever the range of his intentions and feelings about calling Anita Hill they must have included the hope that she would grant him absolution and, as a result, his problems with women who have long memories about his chauvinism would be one troubling thing he would no longer have to worry about in the middle of the night when he and his goblins are churning.

So what did he wind up with as a result of misunderstanding, miscalculating the depth of Anita Hill's residual issues and feelings? 

Did he think she would casually put aside the meaning of the defining moment of her life to throw him a cheap lifeline? This should have been an easy one--if he were serious, she said, he should have expressed more than "regret" for "what she endured."

What he tried to get away with is the classic non-apology apology. Not that he was sorry for his behavior. Instead he said that he was sorry she felt that way. Putting it off on her while taking responsibility only for how he made her feel. She told him this and refused to say never mind. The time for that for women is over.

So on this special day for Biden, he made one of his famous gaffs. Quite a big one. Friday's New York Times had his announcement as its front page lead--"Biden Joins Race, Invoking Battle for Nation's Soul." But abutting it, stepping all over his launch, was the story, "Biden's 'Regret' for Hill's Pain Fails to Soothe."

None of this is fatal, but being clueless on his first day suggests not just insensitivity but poor strategic thinking. 

More of this kind of behavior, though, could leave moderate Democrats and Independents bereft.

April 5, 2019--Plenty Gay

In a must-read opinion piece in the New York Times, openly gay columnist Frank Bruni writes about how some gay activists are asking if openly gay presidential candidate Pete Guttigieg is gay enough to garner support among homosexual voters to win the Democratic nomination.

The concept of "gay enough," Bruni pushes back, is anathema to gay people of his generation who spent their formative years fighting the homophobic perception that gay people display stereotypical mannerisms that mark them, stigmatize them as something abnormal. 

Bruni writes--

"I’m worried because there was an actual mini-debate on the left recently over whether Pete Buttigieg is gay enough. Do his whiteness, upper-middle-class background and Harvard and Oxford degrees nullify his experience as a minority and undercut his status as a trailblazer? This question is out there, in both senses of that phrase."

He continues--

"It’s nonnegotiable that Democrats hold their presidential aspirants to high standards on issues of racial justice, gender equality and more. It’s crucial that the party nominate someone who can credibly represent its proudly diverse ranks. But it’s also important that the party not demand a degree of purity that nobody attains." [My italics]

Bruni chides those on the left who consider Guttigieg, just "another white man" because it is alleged "he doesn’t come across as particularly gay, meaning . . . what? That he lacks stereotypical mannerisms? That his voice isn’t high-pitched? I’m kind of floored, because I and other gay people around my age (54) or older spent most of our lives educating people about the bigotry and inaccuracy of those very stereotypes and trumpeting the message--the truth!--that gay people can be every bit as buttoned-down and strait-laced as, well, Pete Buttigieg! Now his divergence from those stereotypes is deemed remarkable and in need of dissection?"

He continues--

"Democrats should reclaim the word 'freedom' from Republicans, who have tried to reserve it for their brand."

In an interview, Guttigieg told Bruni--

“You’re not free if you have crushing medical debt. You’re not free if you’re being treated differently because of who you are. What has really affected my personal freedom more: the fact that I don’t have the freedom to pollute a certain river, or the fact that for part of my adult life, I didn’t have the freedom to marry somebody I was in love with? We’re talking about deep, personal freedom.”

Bruni concludes--

"He sounds sufficiently gay to me. His powers of empathy seem plenty informed by his sexual orientation. And we need to stop making assumptions about how well someone can understand and address what minorities go through based on his or her looks or vocal inflections or anything of the sort. That’s the quintessence of prejudice. And it’s the antithesis of enlightenment."

Then, the question is, viewed from 30,000 feet, how do Democrats properly vet their presidential aspirants without cannibalizing them? 

Absolutist Dems are afflicted by a propensity to consume those with whom they disagree. Especially this election cycle, that is a ruinous strategy. If we can't figure out how to avoid this intraparty self-sabotage, get ready for four more years of Trump.

March 20, 2019--Trump: How It Will End

On July 27, 2017, nearly twenty months ago, I posted a piece of informed speculation about Donald Trump's ultimate denouement. 

As with everything else having to do with him, it will be about the money.

I thought, with the blockbuster piece about Trump's relationship to the Deutsche Bank in yesterday's New York Times, I would repost my piece because the paper of record forgot to include one thing--where the bank's money came from. 

About that, here is what I wrote--

No one should be surprised. Least of all Donald Trump. It has been clear for a half year or more where all this is headed.

It's always been about the money.

The denouement will not be about Paul Manafort's money or Michael Flynn's or Jared Kushner's or Ivanka's money, nor even Don Junior's.

It will be about Donald Trump's money.

A good question--if he is so proud of his wealth how come he has refused to reveal his tax filings?

On the simplest level, he has resisted because he lies about how much money he has. He has a lot, about a billion or two, enough for most of us, but not the 5 to 10 billion he has long claimed.

Remember how Marco Rubio's crack during the primary debates about his small hands got under his skin? Well, this is the same sort of thing. Manhood. Size always mattered more to guys than to women.

But, he somehow managed to get elected and reluctantly moved to Washington and into the White House. Back in New York, in his Trump, Inc. operation, which was and still is a mom-and-pop business, he was used to being the only one whose ideas counted and he had no one ever pushing back on him when he went off and did something stupid. Like getting involved with gambling casinos in Atlantic City and Miss Universe pageants.

Over time, with the big boost The Apprentice gave to his image, he effectively became a brand. Selling his name and endorsement to the highest bidders, raking in the licensing money with little effort other than keeping his name and gold-foil life style in public view. Thus, even the parade of girlfriends and wives, as he aged and swelled, ones younger and younger, were a part of that charade.

Zeroing in--

When Trump needed to ante up money for a project or bail himself out of an impending bankruptcy, where do we think he turned for money? Citibank? Chase? Wells Fargo? Goldman Sachs? No chance.

We're talking chop shops like loan sharks, offshore money, and especially money from laundries such as Deutsche Bank, which until a few years ago was a favorite place for Russian kleptocrats to sanitize their dirty lucre.

In 2008, Trump Jr. on the record said that, "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

At least someone in his family is capable of letting the truth slip out.

Even a casual perusal of Trump's tax returns would reveal the sources of his money and income. Would it surprise anyone if we in this way discovered that he engaged in all sorts of shady deals and shenanigans with lots of money coming from Russia?

So when it finally dawned on Trump that special counsel Robert Mueller has the power to demand his tax and other financial documents, something Trump incredibly seems to have begun to pay attention to just this week, bells and whistles went off and that immediately became Trump's line in the sand--he told the New York Times he might fire Mueller if he pressed to scrutinize his or his family's finances.

We know for sure following the money trail is looming. It's Special Counsel 101.

And then, of course, Mueller would also see son Junior's and son-in-law Kushner's tax filings, which would make matters even worse.

What we'd be likely see is the inner financial machinations of a crime family.

Donald Junior is reported to be whining that he can't wait for this presidency to be over.

Well, he may soon get his wish. He may not have to wait an endless three-and-a-half years.

If Junior is unravelling as quickly as it appears, Trump's oldest son, feeling squeezed by the implosion, may follow in the footsteps of one of Bernie Madoff's sons. I can't bring myself to spell this out. If you don't remember the details, you're on your own to look them up.

So, here are the final steps. They will happen quickly because we have a talented and mobilized press corps. Much more so than during Watergate. Trump is getting back in kind for what he dished out to the "fake-news" press. I wouldn't have recommended messing with that sleeping giant.

I suspect he'll skip the firing-Mueller step and move right to the pardons. Sacking Mueller, assuming Trump has the power to do that, would bring down the wrath of not only Democrats (that would be predictable) but also rouse the up-to-now hypocritical Republicans who despise Trump but support his agenda, such as it is.

Thus, Trump has been asking about what pardon powers he has and boasting about it. They are constitutionally wide ranging. He'll pardon Flynn and Manafort, which should keep them from throwing Trump under the bus (elegant metaphor), and he'll pardon all his family members. Then, and he is looking into this as well, unlike Nixon who had his successor Jerry Ford pardon him, Trump will try to get away with pardoning himself.

This will go to the Supreme Court and, who knows, with Gorsuch recently nominated by Trump, he might prevail, 5-4. Remember Bush v Gore in 2000. Or then again, he may not.

Then we'll see what happens in the streets. Progressives will demonstrate once or twice but use most of their energy appearing on and watching CNN and The News Hour.

Trump people (that hardcore 35 percent) will go crazy. They'll see this crucifixion of Trump (that will become their preferred point of reference) as part of the ongoing liberal conspiracy. Tune into late-night talk radio if you want a preview of that. It will make Benghazi look like a tea party. 

February 8, 2019--Climate

The one thing I am incapable of reading and writing about is the planet's perilously changing climate.

I pride myself on my ability to identify and solve problems. I made a long career doing just that from the City University of New York to New York University to the Ford Foundation.

But about the climate I able to offer only a sense of hopeless despair. No solutions. Therefore, I run from the subject.

Not proud of myself, I have difficulty following or participating in global warming discussions. I confess this means I've given up hope that there are ways to bring about meaningful remediation. Though I know it is critical that we urgently do all we can to try.

What can one think, more, what can one do when greeted as readers were two days ago by a headline and story in the "New York Times" that the "'Climate Crisis' May Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100"?

I ignored my own practice of running from the subject and read how at least a third of these glaciers will melt by the end of the century, even "if the world's most ambitious climate change targets are met."

If these goals are not met (and most experts agree this seems likely) by 2100 the world's highest mountain range will lose two-thirds of its glaciers.

This would mean that the Himalayas could heat up by 8 degrees Fahrenheit by century's end, bringing "radical disruptions to the food and water supplies, and mass population displacement."

"Normal" Himalayan glacier melt, I read, provides water to about a quarter of the world's population.

And then yesterday, the "Times" in an above-the-fold front-page graph and story about rising global temperatures, reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year since 1880.

Though I will be long gone, all I can think about is what kind of a world I am participating in bequeathing to my one-year-old niece. 

January 28, 2019--Joe: "I Like Republicans"

Writing these as I frequently do in real time, sometimes my words tumble out faster than my brain operates and I wind up embarrassing myself. 

Friday was such an occasion and so I want to apologize and set my version of the record straight.

I wrote a snarky piece about Joe Biden speaking in October to a "Republican-leaning" group in Michigan for which he received a $200,000 fee.

I can make myself live with the fee. Ex-president Ronald Regan raked in an astrological $2.0 million in 1989 dollars for addressing some Japanese group and Michelle and Barack Obama are in the process of becoming wealthy with money flooding to them from Netflix and various book publishers.

In addition to playing golf, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, it's what former presidents do after leaving office.

But what I couldn't abide was Joe Biden's shout out at the event shortly before Election Day to Fred Upton, a Republican congressman who was in a tight reelection battle. With the outcome too close to call, helping Upton win could have upset the Democrat's move to retake control of the House. As it turned out Upton won as did the Dems. But still . . .

In my piece I more than implied that Joe pocketed the 200 grand with the, wink-wink, understanding that he would help Upton, who is a big supporter of cancer research, a subject understandably close to Biden's heart.

I get it, but Biden did overlook the fact that Upton is also a leading and ongoing opponent of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, legislation for which Biden helped work through the system by twisting congressional arms. Then, after it passed, at the signing ceremony a hot mic picked up Biden whispering to Obama, "This is a fucking big deal."

But confronted by the Times front-page story, rather than backing down, claiming as politicians almost always do, that he was quoted "out of context," Biden doubled down and wth a light spirit said he has no inclination to "blunt his instinct toward bipartisanship and compromise."

"I like Republicans!" he said, staking out a moderate position as he thinks about running for president in a field already full of very progressive candidates.

He joked, "O.K., well bless me father, for I have sinned."

Upton said that the praise for him was unexpected and that "it was an immense honor."

Since politically I care only about weakening Trump and defeating him in 2020, if this helps Biden win the nomination and then the election, we can deal with other policy issues subsequently.

In the meantime, I apologize for speaking too soon.

January 24, 2019--Trump's Day

Peter Baker of the New York Times reported yesterday about what Trump's presidential life is like now that he is ignoring his domestic and international agendas while focusing exclusively on how to manage the politics of the government shutdown.

On Tuesday, for example, the president's public schedule listed only two things--his daily intelligence briefing (we know from other sources that he does not read the written summaries and spends perhaps 10 minutes listening to his National Security Council briefer before drifting off in boredom) and lunch with Veep Mike Pence (how long does it take to gobble down a Big Mac or two?)

Baker sees this to be a bad thing and cites what critics, for example, are saying about Trump's cancelled trip to Davos. It's the place where governmental and business high rollers gather annually to hobnob and come away feeling good about themselves and each other after, for a couple of days of not talking about exerting more power or making more money, they commit themselves to also doing some good in the world. 

Others are saying that this is also traditionally the time of year when a few days before the State of the Union address presidents and their cabinet members float ideas for new domestic programming to see if thy will fly before inserting them in the speech. Like what Trump's plans for infrastructure would look like.

But do we want Trump to be more engaged in the world and domestic affairs than he currently is? That would be not engaged at all.

The last thing Trump wants is to have to share the world stage with the likes of Jami Dimon of JP MorganChase or Bill Gates. He showed up at Davos last year for half a day and after insulting a few people, including Angela Merkel, headed off to Mar-a-Lago. 

Loner Trump doesn't do group.

And thus isn't Davos the last place in the world we'd like Trump to be? Or worse, at a NATO meeting? And shouldn't we be happiest when he is not saying anything about his domestic agenda? 

In Trump's case less is much more. 

I'd be thrilled if he locked himself away in his bedroom all day to watch Fox&Friends and reruns of The Apprentice. Like it says in the Hippocratic Oath, so he would do no harm. A totally disengaged Trump is thus the way to go. 

Therefore, I wish the New York Times and CNN would stop chiding him for doing so little since Trump doing nothing should be the plan.

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."    

June 22, 2108--Beyonce & the Mona Lisa

Rona said, "Isn't this the stupidest thing you've ever seen in the New York Times"?

She read from last Sunday's Magazine--

Every week the magazine publishes the results of a study conducted online last June by the New York Times's research-and-analytics department, reflecting the opinions of 2,903 subscribers who chose to participate.

"Doesn't sound uninteresting," I said, "It would be nice to know what Times readers have to say about Russia or the Middle East."

Having said this, to be honest, I tuned out as I was deep into the Sports section, trying to make heads or tails of what was going on with the soccer World Cup.

"Not even close," Rona said. "Here's the question they sought opinions about." Again she read from the NYT--

Dear Reader: If you were invited to lick the 'Mona Lisa,' would you do it?

"What?" I said, now paying attention.

"Listen to the results."

"You mean there were actual results?"

"Ninety-seven percent said no, 2% said maybe, and 1% said yes."

"You probably could get 1% to say they'd slash the canvas with a linoleum knife."

"I agree," Rona said, "But isn't it incredible the lengths the Times will go to try to be relevant?"

"Maybe they asked this question because Beyonce and Jay-Z recently shot a video in the Louvre, in the room where the Mona Lisa is, for their latest self-indulgent album."

"What?" It was Rona's chance to be incredulous.

"I saw a piece about it last week, also in the Times. Nothing inscrutable about that. Though of course this isn't quite the same thing as licking it."

"I give up," Rona said.

"You started this," I said.

May 31, 2018--You Say You Want A Revolution . . .

. . . Well, you know.

At breakfast the other morning John asked, "Have you heard anything about the Revolution?"

"God knows," Rona said, "There's good reason why there should be one."

"We're living in a second Gilded Age," John said. "What with 1 percent of the population owning 40 percent of the nation's wealth. That should be enough to get one going." 

Rona said, "Did you see the long piece in this weekend's New York Times about CEO compensation? Among other things, company by company, it calculated how many years workers earning average salaries would have to work to earn as much as their CEO makes in just one year."

"I did see that," I said.

John indicated he had as well and how outrageous the data were.

"My memory isn't perfect," Rona said, "So, John can you look the article up on your smartphone? I remember the title, 'Want To Make Money Like A CEO?'"

He did and cited some of the statistics--

At Walmart, for example, the world's largest employer, the median salary for workers is a paltry $19,177. Last year the CEO received $22.2 million in compensation. This means it would take average employees more than 1,000 years to earn what the CEO earns in 12 months.

"Unbelievable," Rona said.

Listen to this one," John said, "At Time Warner median compensation is a hefty $75,217 but since the CEO makes $49 million it would take typical employees 651 years to earn that."

Now I said, "Unbelievable. From the Times I remember the earnings numbers for a company I never heard of, where things are even more unequal. And that's saying a lot."

"Maybe Live Nation?" John said. "They are in the concert and ticketing business and the CEO last year made a whopping $70.6 million while the median salary there was $24,406. That means the workers have to live and work 2,893 years to earn that much."

"They should live and be well," I said, feeling my blood at full boil. 

"So, you asked about the Revolution," Rona said, sounding ironic. "Numbers like these should make everyone but CEOs crazy and take to the streets in anger to protest and, who knows, revolt."

"I hate to sound cynical," I said, "But who's more likely to make a revolution--Bernie's people or Trump's?"

We sat in silence for a few minutes not wanting to answer since we knew what we were feeling and it didn't make us happy.

May 4, 2018--Elvers

In a few days we will be heading to Maine. 

One thing we look forward to is spending six months with the TV turned off. We do get the New York Times to keep in touch with the news but even more for the crossword puzzle. We try to keep things there as simple and peaceful and deeply soul-satisfying as possible. To help with this we do some disconnecting from the wider world and some of its problems. This helps. Especially now when things have become so ugly and raw. 

In Maine for us it's about pursuing happiness Declaration of Independence style, where the happiness being pursued is more about contentment than jollity.

And, we find, if we want to, there are other ways to stay connected to that larger world other than paying obsessive attention to what's going on with North Korea, Syria, trade wars, and the dislocating and agitating effects of globalization.

But, then, since globalization presumably affects everyone and everything, there should be evidence of it in the Midcoast. And indeed there is.

Take baby eels for example. Elvers.

In a few places on the planet they spawn in the ocean and then migrate to fresh water where they grow to adult size. More than anywhere else these elvers find their way across the Gulf of Maine and then enter the tidal estuaries and fresh water streams of the coast just 15 miles from where we spend the season.

But before they are allowed to grow to adult size they are netted by a fortunate one thousand fishermen who have state permission to fish for them. "Fortunate," since this year elvers are expected to go for up to $2,800 a pound. Great news as last year they brought less than half that, just $1,300. 

It is. estimated that the total yield for the elver fishermen will reach a promising $26 million by the end of the season. 

The record prices this year are the result of poor winter harvests around the globe. The elvers in Maine thus are part of the globalized market in baby eels.

That globalized market is complex and spans the oceans. The reason prices are so high in Maine this year is because captures of japonica eels in the western Pacific have been low and this in turn has boosted prices for Atlantic eels. But catches in Asia are surging and that soon will result in a price decline in Maine. 

Elvers are sold to Japanese buyers who fly them to Japan where they are allowed to become adults and after that find there way to only the best sushi restaurants where they are, as unagi, in great demand.

In fact, in the fall, our local New York City Japanese restaurant  Sharaku, serves them as very special delicacies. 

Before knowing about the Maine connection and the triangular trade route that circles the globe and brings them via their unique supply chain from up the road from our Maine place and then some months later to Sharaku, just two blocks from here, fresh eel unagi are my favorite kind of sushi, served on rice, sauced by a slowly reduced blend or mirin, sake, sugar, and soy.

April 4, 2018--Cincinnati Ben-Gals

Sensing that their readers may need cheering (include me in that demographic), the (all the news that's fit to print) New York Times continues to stay on top of the NFL cheerleader story.

I previously took note of a Times story about a New Orleans Saints' cheerleader who was fired for posting a picture of herself in a modest swimsuit.

On Tuesday there were other less cheery things to report. For example, how Carolina Panthers TopCats must arrive at the stadium at least five hours before game time and when in uniform are required to remove or cover all tattoos and piercings. Water breaks are allowed only when the Panthers are on offense, and Cincinnati Ben-Gals are not allowed to change into their street clothes in the stadium. I suppose they do so in their cars.

The Times further reports that Baltimore Ravens cheerleaders need to be weighed before games to make sure they "maintain ideal body weight." And BenGals are warned that they cannot be more than three pounds heavier than their "ideal weight."

Here's where Donald Trump's personal physician, who claimed that Trump weighed only 239 pounds, could come in handy.

Many NFL cheerleaders must spend hundreds of their own dollars on uniforms though they are paid little more than minimum wage. They also are required to sell raffle tickets and calendars and appear at local charity events and golf tournaments. For this they receive none of the proceeds.

Cheerleader handbooks include tips on personal hygiene, including shaving techniques and the "proper" use of tampons.

I'm depressed.

March 27, 2018--Still A Long Way, Baby

Until yesterday I didn't pay much attention to NFL cheerleaders. Not the ones that Debbie did, but the actual ones such as Bailey Davis who was recently fired by the New Orleans Saints.

As reported by the New York Times, here's the story--

 
She was fired for allegedly not following team rules, which, among many other prohibitions, forbids its cheerleaders from having public social media pages. In Davis' case, she failed to make her Instagram page private and on it posted a picture of herself in a slinky one-piece swimsuit.

As silly as this may seem, considering what NFL cheerleaders are expected to do and look like on the filed ( a lot of T&A), it is beyond silly that the NFL and most of its teams have two very different sets of rules for the deportment of its players (many of whom are sexual and spousal abusers) and its cheerleaders (who, at their worst, since it is forbidden by team rules, have dated a player or two).

The Saints have to avoid contact with players, though players are not disciplined for equivalent behavior with cheerleaders. They are required to block players from following them on Facebook and the like though, again, players are not required to do the same.

Incredibly, cheerleaders are not allowed to dine in the same restaurants or speak to players if they find themselves in the same watering hole. If a cheerleader shows up and a player is present, she is required to turn around and leave. Most outrageous, if a cheerleader is already seated at a table and a player appears, she is required to stop eating, immediately get up, and leave!

The team says, these and other similar rules are designed to "protect cheerleaders from players preying on them."

Knowing their players all too well, protecting cheerleaders from them is not that bad an idea. But the Saints' rules put the onus on its cheerleaders to protect themselves from testosterone-suffused players.

To view this another way, while 350-pound players make millions a year for slamming into each other and administering concussions, cheerleaders basically make minimum wage (in New Orleans, $10.55 an hour) for jiggling around even in freezing weather half naked in team-designed outfits. 

Again, think about the Dallas Cowgirls, not Bailey Davis on Instagram. 

February 14, 2018--Hence, Donald Trump

In case anyone is still wondering why Donald Trump was elected, in a few words, in her Sunday New York Times column, Maureen Dowd, who has recently turned more attention to interviewing celebrities (Uma Thurman last week) than writing about our depressing politics, returned to biting form and supplied as good an answer as I have seen. 

Here are the first few paragraphs--

Donald Trump slipped into the Oval Office through a wormhole of confusion about American identity.  

We weren’t winning wars anymore. They just went on and on and on, with inexplicable and deceptive aims and so many lives and limbs and trillions lost.  

We couldn’t believe in our institutions, with breaches of trust and displays of ineptitude.  

We were moving from a white-majority, male-dominated country and manufacturing base to a multicultural, multilateral, globalized, P.C., new energy, new technology world, without taking account of the confusion and anger of older Americans who felt like strangers in a strange land.  

Among many, the allure of Barack Obama’s brainy nuance had given way to a longing for a more muscular certainty.  

With the Russians sowing confusion, Trump surfed those free-floating anxieties, that fear of not knowing who we are, straight to Pennsylvania Avenue.