January 15, 2018--Davos

Donald Trump is going next week to the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 

This is to say the least a little surprising because the people who attend are for the most part the kind of "globalists" he and his base of supporters abhor.

But treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin has his boss's back. He claims those who show up are not elitists but, according to a report in the New York Times, more akin to "Average Joes."

They quote him--"I didn't realize that it was the global elite. I don't think it's a hangout for globalists." 

On that basis alone, if he is sincere and thus that ignorant about some of the forces that shape the world's and America's economy, he should be summarily fired. How can a U.S. secretary of the treasury be so, how to put this, out to lunch? Or, out shopping with his wife?

For example, though neither Trump nor Mnuchin will have to reach into there own pockets to pay the $70,000 for a ticket--we the taxpayers will--this smacks of elite to me.

It does allow participants to hobnob with the likes of Bill Gates and the IMF's Christine Lagarde (assuming she's not in jail) and of course other pundits such as Bono, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Shakira.

Here, though, is my favorite part of the Davos schedule--

To help people keep their heads screwed on straight, to have the semblance of an authentic experience, to quote the Times, "for more interactive entertainment, one popular event is the simulation of a refugee's experience [where] attendees crawl on their hands and knees to better understand what it's like to evade an advancing army."

When I read this to Rona, she cried, "NOOOO. Please, tell me it isn't true!"

Sorry girl, but I checked other sources and it appears to be true, though I doubt Mnuchin and Trump will get down for that.   

December 1, 2016--Pelosi & Warren

Yesterday on display was the current face of the Democratic Party.

Just three weeks after getting trounced at all levels, from state legislatures to governorships to the House of Representatives as well as the Senate and White House, after falling further behind, who was being featured as the leaders around whom progressives are supposed to rally?

Nancy Polosi who at 76 was reelected to yet another term as House Democratic Leader and first-term senator Elizabeth Warren who was widely quoted for slamming Donald Trump's picks to head up his economic team--billionaires Wilbur Ross to be Secretary of Commerce and Steven Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury.

Pelosi one way or the other is on her political last legs--House insurgents managed to muster about one-third of their members to oppose her and this is likely, hopefully, to be her last hurrah.

Warren, on the other hand, is already propelling herself forward as the presumptive Democratic nominee for 2020. Yes, 2020. Thus, it is more important to pay attention to what she does and has to say.

Here is a glimpse--

Yesterday, in a media blitz, during which she railed against Trump's appointments--fair enough as they do not promise to be auspicious leaders, wired as they are into Wall Street--but also issued a number of more generic salvos that are worth noting. Minimally, they expose the full scope of her unbounded ambition and how when the camera is on even Professor Warren can get herself all tangled up in nonsense.

 On CNN, for example, after taking some well-aimed shots at Ross for Commerce and Mnuchin for Treasury (thankfully resisting mispronouncing the latter's name), she went on to rant--

"I mean, Donald Trump is the one who said one thing during the campaign and now has reversed that by180 degrees."

As a patriot, in the spirit of consistency, would she prefer Trump to stick to some of his absurd views about climate change, torture, and the alt-right, views he changed, among others, when he met with executives and reporters for the New York Times? Shouldn't she and we prefer this to Trump's clinging to his previously-declared extreme views? Not, I suppose, if one is already in full flagrant pursuit of the presidency.

It's going to be a long four years.