Monday, December 30, 2019

The Art of Retail Gaslighting

Trump boasts that this year’s 3.4% increase in holiday retail sales is the highest in US history, somehow ignoring the fact that only last year those sales increased 5.1%. You would think a very stable genius would understand that 5.1 is a bigger number than 3.4. You would think a president would have advisors who could explain this to him. Apparently not.

The 3.4% number comes from a report on holiday shopping published by Mastercard, which also revealed that online sales make up a record high share (almost 15%) of overall sales.  Trump likely latched onto the word “record” in media reports, like the one from Reuters whose headline read “Record online sales give U.S. holiday shopping season a boost.” Maybe Trump fixated on the word “record” and completely missed “online”. You can’t expect him to read every word, after all.  (A very plausible alternative theory is that Trump knows exactly what he's doing and willfully ignored the finer points of the report to suit his purposes.) 

So, perhaps without knowing it, Trump touts a record holiday season for e-commerce -- which, let's face it, ain’t nothing, and is obviously the undisputed and unstoppable trend in the retail business. Good for the likes of Amazon (which pays no sales tax, and incidentally is run by Jeff Bezos, whom Trump hates). Good for those communities where e-commerce firms operate (for example, just seven locations in Georgia, in the case of Amazon).  

Meanwhile, sales in brick-and-mortar stores, located in every community in America, didn’t look nearly as rosy, rising only 1.2%. But Trump doesn’t brag about that. Actually, it’s nothing to brag about.



Sunday, December 8, 2019

Vindication Denied?

I suspect that many Trump followers are not well served by their preferred media, which have led them to believe wholeheartedly in various scandals that haven't panned out, even after much investigation, like Benghazi, while not believing in other scandals that are real and unfolding before our eyes. 

A steady diet of Fox News leaves these MAGA folks ill-prepared when the "scandal" of the moment turns out to be a nothingburger. Of course, they will never admit to this.

One of the scandals that may not pan out in the way the Trump cult hopes is the origins (or "oranges", as POTUS might say) of the FBI investigation into Russian election interference in 2016.  

For months, Sean Hannity has been touting that the FBI  Inspector General's internal investigation into the matter will deliver earthshaking revelations into the Bureau's corrupt role in the Russian "hoax", breathlessly promising proof that the investigation was illegitimate from the beginning. Sweet, sweet vindication of a sweet, benevolent prince.  As if anyone not on the Fox payroll could imagine Trump that way. 

The IG's report comes out tomorrow, and already there are signs that Hannity's flock will be disappointed in the report's main findings. I'm crossing my fingers that their expectations will be dashed. Sean has even been hinting at such in his recent radio broadcasts. Guess we'll see. 

Anyway, the lucky thing about having a conspiracy-minded mentality is you always have a ready excuse when things don't turn out like you expected -- namely that the oh-so-deep-state is at it again. If your main source of news is the likes of Sean Hannity, you can hardly think any other way. 


Sunday, December 1, 2019

This is a Cult

Okay, the level of crazy during the Trump presidency has always been high, but boy in the last week or so, it’s been upped a couple of notches. Some of the highlights:
Lindsey Graham claimed that the witches of Salem were treated better than Donald Trump has been during the impeachment investigation. He’s talking about women accused, imprisoned and sometimes hung because some of their neighbors acted hysterically. Until I see Donald Trump on a scaffold with a noose around his neck (which for the record I do NOT for a moment wish to see happen), I’m going to say it’s Lindsay Graham who’s acting hysterically. And ahistorical. Graham belongs to a cult.
Tucker Carlson admitted that Trump did indeed lie about how many people attended his inauguration. The president lied to the American people on Day One. But, Carlson basically says, this is okay because Trump is a “salesman” and, as we all know, salesmen lie all the time. My take-away from this is that we should never trust anything Trump says. Of course, this has been my conclusion for years already, but now Carlson has given his Fox News audience permission not to believe anything Trump says. In fact, they would be foolish to do so. Carlson belongs to a cult. Or else Carlson is just cynically playing to his most devoted fans, who do belong to a cult.
A recent poll shows that 53% of Republicans think that Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln, the man who led America through a civil war. This is mind blowing. This is mass delusion. Next, they’ll want to put Trump on Mount Rushmore. These people belong to a cult.
Donald Trump retweeted a picture of his head photoshopped onto the muscular body of a boxer (Sylvester Stallone from the movie “Rocky”). Juvenile and not exactly presidential, if you ask me. What’s worse, when the Washington Post -- stating the obvious -- mentions that the photo was “doctored”, the Trump reelection campaign hits back, accusing the Post of having no “evidence” the photo was doctored. As if, without some proof to the contrary, we are expected to believe the body of a 73-year-old obese man looks just like that of a 30-year-old champion boxer. This is a cult.


Friday, November 22, 2019

Tony Channels Donald Trump


Listening to Donald Trump's "on the nose" denials of a quid pro quo in his phone call with Gordon Sondland the other day, I couldn't help imagining a similar kind of exchange...

A phone rings. Tony Soprano picks up.

“Hey Tony, it’s Paulie. Listen, you were talking about Lefty Caputo the other day.”

“You mean my long-time friend Johnny Caputo, who, out of a no doubt sincere, but badly misguided sense of civic duty decided to tell the FBI some very exaggerated stories about our past dealings, completely out of context I might add. And thereby misled the dedicated public servants at the Bureau into wasting tax payer money on unfounded, not to mention unfair, investigations of my business and personal life.”

“Yeah, that guy. What do you want to do with him?”

Tony sighs heavily. “Nothing. I don’t want to have nothing to do with him. In light of his unexpected recent actions, causing me considerable unnecessary legal expense and harm to my reputation, I feel our friendship has ended. I have decided to put him completely out of my mind.”

“So he’s dead to you?”

“I didn’t say that. I did not say that. No. Look, what I’m saying is...though I wish we could have parted on, ah, better terms and I am saddened by this, ah, turn of events, I wish nothing but the best for Lefty and hope he will have a long and prosperous life.”

“Okay, I understand. Like you always say, a peaceful life is the least anyone deserves.”

“That’s right, Paulie. And, as you know, it is a sick indictment of the society we live in that not everyone enjoys that luxury. Even the most innocent citizens are sometimes the victims of senseless, horrific violence. For no reason. A real shame. Needless to say, despite our differences, I would never wish anything of the kind for Lefty. Or his family. Not even his dog.”

“Got it. Yes, and I agree. I too hope the best for Lefty in his future endeavors, and I wish him a prosperous and long life. A long life.”

“Yes. And peaceful. Very peaceful. Okay, Paulie, I gotta go. See you on Sunday...in church.”

“Church? Oh, yeah, yeah, church. Got it. Bye, Tony.”

Friday, November 15, 2019

Law and Disorder: Criminal Distraction


Public hearings in the Trump impeachment have now started, something sure to keep me the edge of my seat for the next couple of weeks. 

In the lead up to all this, one thing I’ve found especially exasperating is how Donald Trump and his followers obsess so much on the whistleblower, as if the whole case against impeachment hinges on whether an investigation sparked by  complaint from an anonymous source is legitimate. Unsurprisingly, this argument makes no sense. Here’s an analogy of the way I look at it.

Let’s say Jim lives down the street from a 7-Eleven. His son Billy runs in to say the neighborhood bully Jack just cold-cocked Mrs. Bailey, a local retiree, from behind in the 7-Eleven parking lot. Jim didn’t see it, but he trusts his son. He's sure it happened. Jim, here, is the whistleblower. 

Jim assumes the police have leads and will immediately arrest Jack, but when that doesn’t happen Jim decides to inform the authorities himself. It's true he biased against Jack, but he's also biased in favor of Mrs. Bailey, a nice old lady. He's also biased against assaulting old ladies. He calls an anonymous tip line because he doesn’t want to give his name. He’s had trouble with Jack’s family before and wants to avoid retribution. Who could blame him?

The police start checking up on Jack, find some people who hang around with him. Some of them saw the whole thing, and one or two are willing to confirm the attacker was indeed Jack. They also like Mrs. Bailey and agree Jack crossed a line in hitting her. The witnesses, in this case, are Alexander Vindman, Gordon Sondland, Jennifer Williams, etc.

Jack is arrested and prosecuted. At this point, the DA doesn’t care who left the anonymous tip. He has eye-witnesses now and other evidence uncovered by detectives. The DA is the House of Representatives. The detectives are the three committees investigating Trump’s dealings with the president of Ukraine. The whole House is the Grand Jury that will hear the evidence and decide if there’s enough to indict Jack, I mean Trump.

To stretch the analogy out further, half of the jury (the Senate) hearing the case against Jack (Trump) happens to be opioid addicts and loyal customers of Jack's backstreet  painkiller retail business. Despite the undisputed evidence, they refuse to find him guilty. Judge G. O. Patterson declares a mistrial, and Jack goes free.

He is still tainted with an arrest record, but no conviction. In the end, he’s an unrepentant scoundrel, but one who’s admired by enough of the townspeople of Dipshitville that they even elect him mayor. To celebrate, Trump (I mean, Jack) goes out on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone. And no one cares. Jack is special. 

P.S. Someone in the DA's office illegally reveals Jim's name to the local paper as being the anonymous tipster, and naturally Jack gives him a horrible beat down. So much for anonymity. So much for justice. 

Monday, November 11, 2019

Bottom-Line Valor?

I don’t normally note Veteran’s Day, since I’m a liberal, and liberals tend not to valorize the military the way conservatives do. And by “valorize”, I mean the kind of conspicuous virtue signaling of patriotism that American conservatives love to plaster across their social media. Flags, eagles, that sort of stuff.

However, to make a blatant political point, I thought it might be interesting to talk about the veterans who are currently running for president. What makes this especially relevant is the recent publication of a book by Donald Trump’s son Junior, titled “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us”. (The very long subtitle kinda gives away the plot, doesn’t it?) 

In this book, out just in time for Veteran’s Day, Don Jr. recalls visiting Arlington Cemetery just before his father’s inauguration and how the rows and rows of graves of fallen soldiers movingly reminded him of all the business opportunities his family was sacrificing by coming to Washington, all the revenue they have foregone for the country. Call it “bottom-line valor”. Crass and tone deaf doesn’t even begin to describe it. 

You would think a political family with no history of military service whatsoever would shy away from making those kinds of comparisons. Donald Trump famously avoided the Vietnam War thanks to student deferments and a bogus “bone spur”. What’s more, neither of his sons have served in the military. That’s not surprising, of course. The only prep-school scions of the American elite who join the military are those who really want to (I’m thinking here of John Kerry, Robert Mueller, etc.), as opposed to lower-class folks who have fewer economic options. 

So, I wondered how do the other candidates stack up? 

Let’s start with the Republicans. And, yes, there are some besides Trump, namely Mark Sanford, Joe Walsh, and Bill Weld. The first two were born in the early 60s, and thus too old for any major war event that you might expect would inspire people to join up, like Pat Tillman did. Tillman was the NFL player who retired at the height of his pro ball career to join the Army in response to 9-11. He died in Afghanistan in 2004. He was basically the same age as Don Jr. Hmmm. 

Back to the candidates. Bill Weld was born in 1945, a year before Trump, so he, like Trump, was of a prime age to fight for his country. He did not. Just like Trump. 

On the Democratic side, there are currently 16 candidates. No, 17. I know, it’s hard to keep track. Five are women. I hope it’s not sexist to say women aren’t normally expected to serve in the military, so no one would look askance at Elizabeth Warren not having military credentials to flout. 

The punitive frontrunner Joe Biden, born in 1942 which makes him a bit older than Trump, was in his mid 20s at the height of the Vietnam War. He stayed out of the war with the help of deferments and a history of asthma. His son Beau joined the National Guard as a JAG officer in 2002 at the age of 33. Obviously, that’s serving part-time in the military, though he did serve one year in Iraq. He remained in the Guard until his untimely death in 2014. Younger brother Hunter also joined the service, the US Navy Reserve in the case, somewhat late at the age of 43 (it’s not too late for the Trump boys!), but was discharged after only a year after testing positive for cocaine. Hunter, it seems, is turning out to be a problematic child. 

That leaves 11 other male candidates. Bernie Sanders, even older than Biden, could have served in Vietnam if he’d really wanted, though no one would expect a young leftist political activist who took part in anti-war protests at the time to volunteer to go kill Viet Cong. In fact, Sanders applied for conscientious objector status, which was ultimately rejected, though by that time he was too old to be drafted anyway. 

Tom Steyer is about my own age, too young for Vietnam, too old for the next war. Not that you have to wait for a war. Joe Sestak, who I admit was not on my radar at all, went straight from High School to the Naval Academy, following the example of his father. He graduated as an ensign in 1974, just after the Paris Peace Accords ended the US involvement in Vietnam. Sestak spent 31 years in the Navy, rising to the rank of Vice Admiral and commanded an aircraft carrier battle group operating in Persian Gulf during the Iraq War. 

John Delaney, Michael Bennet, Steve Bullock, and Cory Booker were all children of the 60s. That put them well into their 30s during the Iraq War and borderline “too old” even for the Gulf War a decade earlier. On the other hand, Booker was only 22 when Norman Schwarzkopf led the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, though the whole thing was over so quickly, Booker would not likely have seen combat even if he had rushed to join up. 

Julian Castro, Wayne Messam, and Andrew Yang were almost 30 when George W. Bush launched his unnecessary and cursed invasion of Iraq in 2003. Again, a bit too old to take part in any case. 

Pete Buttigieg, the youngest candidate, joined the US Navy Reserve at the age of 27, retiring as a lieutenant after eight years. I guess Reservists, like National Guardsmen, are mostly “weekend warriors”, and for his monthly stints of duty Buttigieg was assigned to a post on Lake Michigan, within driving distance of South Bend, Indiana, where part of that time he was mayor. He did take a break from running South Bend to ship overseas to Afghanistan for a six-month tour as a naval intelligence office and armed driver for his CO. 

Another Democratic candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, is the only female vet running for the White House, maybe the only one who ever has. She joined the National Guard just weeks after the opening “shock and awe” of the American hostilities against Iraq. She continues to serve, currently with the rank of major. She served a year-long tour in Iraq in a medical support unit and a second tour in Kuwait in an MP (Military Police) unit. I’ll leave the question as to whether she’s a Russian asset to another time. 

So, for folks keeping score... 

The current president and his three GOP challengers: Zero military service, though when two of them where of draft age there was a rather hot war going on. 

The 17 Democratic candidates: Of the 12 men running, seven came of age between the Vietnam and Iraq wars, during a time of relative peace. Of the remaining five men, two did serve, one as a career Navy man. Of the five women candidates, one is currently still serving in the military. That’s a total of three vets

It’s a good thing Republicans don’t look for military experience in their leaders. Otherwise, they’d have to switch parties. Or maybe that would be a good thing.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Law and Disorder: Special Stupidity Unit


Defense attorney: "Your Honor, while it is true that my client was present in the 7-11 on the night of the 24th and that he did point a loaded revolver at the cashier while requesting him to empty the cash register, I'd like to point out that -- as the surveillance video from the store has clearly shown -- my client did not ONCE say to the cashier that this was an armed robbery. He did not once use the words 'armed robbery', and therefore, Your Honor, he cannot be charged or convicted of the CRIME of armed robbery."

Judge: "Very well. Case dismissed!" 

This seems to be the way Trump followers think about the words "quid pro quo" or "abuse of power".

Sunday, September 22, 2019

What Would Trump Do?

On the local Finnish radio this morning they had a long segment (for some reason) about the time John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.
I remember there was a backlash over that, especially in the South, with folks burning Beatles records with the same kind of enthusiasm that some people used to burn Tyndale Bibles (sorry, couldn't help that -- been reading "Wolf Hall" and thinking about all the Christian-on-Christian hatred that was going on back in those days when Henry VIII decided he wanted a new and better queen).
Anyway, I got to wondering how Trump's supporters would react if Trump said he was more popular than Jesus. (And judging by the actions of Trump's base, he probably IS more popular than Jesus with those folks.)
I wish some reporter would ask that question. Are you now more popular than Jesus? I would love to see him stumble over his answer. He might understand that the "correct" answer is no. But he might also be so happy with the comparison that he might flip into Trump-mode and say something idiotic. "Look, they say Jesus walked on water, but I'm building the wall. Jesus never would have done that, what I'm doing. He wouldn't keep those immigrants out."

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Old-Timey Camps and Wagon Trains


It’s often interesting to take a step back and look at recent events through the lens of history. And, boy, is this ever true today in the US when it comes to the illegal immigration issue. A couple of examples come to mind. 

Take the reaction of some conservatives when confronted with the harsh conditions in which the US government is holding young migrant children along the southern border. I’ve seen some of these supposedly good Christians on social media trying to blame the immigrant parents for putting their children at risk by making a dangerous trek through Mexico to find a better life in America. We shouldn’t feel bad about children sleeping on concrete floors, they would say, because it was their parents’ choice to put them in harm’s way! What kind of parent would subject their child to an arduous and dangerous journey like that? 

And then we have the wagon train. 

By that, I mean the groups of American settlers crossing the continent by ox-drawn wagons in the 1840-50s to start a new life in Oregon or California. For the sake of safety during this 2000-mile trip, these emigrates formed groups that today might be called “caravans”. Sometimes they paid “wagon masters” to lead them across the plains. Maybe we’d call them “coyotes” or “people smugglers” today. 

The first major trek of this kind was the Great Migration of 1843, in which a thousand-odd emigrants traveled the Oregon Trail, a legendary route that all American schoolchildren learn about. Years ago, on a family road trip to Yellowstone National Park, I insisted on making a detour to South Pass, the relatively low swag in the rugged Rockies that gave Oregon-bound emigrants easy passage over the mountains. 

Another storied mountain pass in American lore is Donner, along the California Trail in the Sierra Nevada. That is where a party of emigrants, taking to the trail too late in the season, were stranded in an early snowstorm and -- as everyone in America, maybe even Donald Trump, surely remembers -- had to resort to cannibalism to survive. 

Okay, that was an extreme form of hardship, but it’s fair to say that the typical trip for these families looking for a better life wasn’t a walk in the park. It’s estimated that one out of ten died along the way. They were trudging across desolate stretches of land, passing through hostile territory, always on the lookout for Indians who didn’t take kindly to Europeans invading their land. And the environment itself could be unforgiving. I’ve heard that, as sensational as Indian attacks on the open, treeless plains could be, more emigrants died from lightning strikes than from arrow strikes. 

When I was growing up in the US, these wagon trains still held a special place in the popular imagination. There was a hit TV show about them when I was a child. In my youth, a highlight in my hometown of Ellijay, Georgia, was the yearly “Wagon Train” festival, where dozens of people, often in cowboy getups, rode horses and wagons across Fort Mountain from the town of Chatsworth. I believe they’ve long since stopped doing that, but it was a feature of our lives for many years. 

In short, white European settlers putting their children through the ordeal of a five-month journey in dangerous circumstances in order to reach a new and better home is celebrated – even cherished -- in American pop culture. It no doubt warms the hearts of those conservatives who get nostalgic over John Wayne Westerns. Meanwhile, mestizo Central Americans doing the same today are to be condemned, demonized. Could it be there is a double standard at play here? 

The other example I had in mind was “concentration camps”. This is how some Democrats have been referring to the detention centers along the southern border where migrants -- children as well as adults -- are being incarcerated, often in deplorable conditions. Conservatives have taken umbrage at any suggestion that these overcrowded facilities can be compared with the notorious concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Others have argued that using the term “concentration camp” outside the context of the Third Reich somehow insults the memory of Holocaust victims. 

A side note to this issue is the little history lesson that some folks have provided, namely that the term “concentration camp” was in fact coined some decades before the Nazis, during the Boer War in South Africa, an ugly enough episode of history where different tribes of white Europeans fought each other over the empty Veld. This factoid was even mentioned in the BBC-HBO miniseries “Years and Years”, about a Trump-like figure rising to power in a post-Brexit dystopian Britain of the near future. I highly recommend it. 

The term “concentration camp” may be modern, but the concept is not, and my own historical connection to it is the fact that my hometown in Georgia was the site of a real, actual concentration camp, Fort Hetzel. This was in 1838, when the state of Georgia, with the help of the US Army, was undertaking a gigantic land grab, a campaign of ethnic cleansing. 

Up until then, Ellijay, located in a shallow valley surrounded the Southern Appalachian Mountains, was part of the Cherokee Nation, which had been doing its best to assimilate to the invading Europeans by, for example, adopting Christianity and a US-style of government. Not that it did them much good. 

By 1838, whites had already been settling on Cherokee land in Georgia, even more so after gold was discovered there, sparking America’s first Gold Rush. Pressure had been building for the Cherokee to give up their homeland in exchange for a reservation in faraway Oklahoma. One faction of Cherokee leaders did eventually agree to this, but against the will of most of their people, who had to be removed from their farms under threat of force. Those rounded up in the mountains surrounding Ellijay where brought to Fort Hetzel, to be gathered there, or “concentrated” if you will, until time for their forced migration west. 

As far as I know, there is no historical plaque in Ellijay commemorating this event. Nothing marks the site of the stockade where over a thousand Cherokee men, women and children, forced off their land, forced to abandon their fields and livestock, were imprisoned in a confined space for months. 

Growing up in Ellijay, my only real source of information about this tragic event was "The Annals of Upper Georgia: Centered in Gilmer County" a chronicle written by a local amateur historian (and husband of my second-grade teacher) George Gordon Ward. Here’s a passage from that book about the roundup of local Cherokee: 

“Touching incidents were common during removal. An unnamed Indian mother, her violent protestations evidently having been unheeded, was driven into camp at East Ellijay, then Fort Hetzel. Her frenzied condition continued but the white soldiers could not understand her. 

“Then they called an interpreter, who translated the startling fact that when she was seized and forced from her home, some of her small children, in a panic of fear, had fled to nearby thickets and were probably still there.” 

Desperate children separated from parents being held against their will in a concentration camp. Sound familiar? 

According to Ward’s account, the soldiers returned to the woman’s home with her to locate the children. The family was reunited – in the concentration camp. No word on whether they all survived the forced march to Oklahoma. 

It goes without saying that the Removal is a particularly dark stain on American history, which isn’t that pristine to begin with. As events of the last week have shown, things haven’t necessarily gotten better.

Sunday, August 4, 2019

Fun with Ladders and Doctors

I don’t usually talk about health issues on social media, but I recently became (once again) a health care consumer when I fell off a ladder at the mökki about a month ago. You could say I fell off the roof, since I was still at roof height when the ladder slid out from under me, dropping me like a rock flat on my back onto our porch. The fall fractured one of my shoulder blades, and it hurt like hell. Considering the kind of health issues some folks have to endure, it was no big deal. Still, it required a hospital visit and, just to be on the safe side, an ambulance. And did I mention, it hurt like hell.  

To go into a bit more detail, my latest little episode of careless ladder usage required:  

  • a forty-minute ambulance ride, during which I got three doses of fentanyl (once again, it did hurt like hell)  
  • a CT scan of my head in Malmi Hospital  
  • seven X-rays of my back and shoulder in Malmi Hospital  
  • blood test in Malmi
  • a cross-town ambulance transfer to Töölö Hospital for more specialist examination  
  • two more CT scans in Töölö, including a full-body scan to rule out internal injuries  
  • another blood test, before being discharged from Töölö around one in the morning 

Luckily, the cracked scapula was the only body part damaged. My pride, from once again falling from a ladder like a klutz, is another matter.  

And the point of me talking about this at all now is the costs. The accident resulted in two medical bills. The ambulance bill was €25 ($28). The bill for everything done at the two hospitals, all the examinations, X-rays, CT scans, came to €32.70 ($36). Total. 

This is the kind of health care system we have here in Finland. I did not have to fill out any forms. I do not have any kind of private health insurance. I do not pay insurance premiums. I did not have to worry whether the doctors or radiologists treating me were “in network”. I did not have to worry that the hospital where the paramedics took me had some prior arrangement with my insurance company, which doesn’t exist anyway, since I don’t have insurance.  

I did have to give my Kela number, equivalent to the Social Security number in the States. This allowed the paramedics to access my medical records already before the ambulance ride. It is also proof that I am part of the Finnish health-care system and entitled to its highly subsidized services.  

Private insurance does exist here, as do private clinics and hospitals, but I’ve never seen the need to use them except when they were provided as part of my employer’s health benefits for routine doctor visits.  

The public system here is fine with me and is typical of European-style universal health care, or “socialized medicine”, or Medicare for All, or whatever you want to call it. Some variation of this kind of public health system is what Democratic candidates for US president have been discussing in recent debates. Universal health care should be a winning issue for the Dems, since it sets them apart from the Republicans, who are doing their level best to dismantle the imperfect, but needed, reforms in the ACA (AKA Obamacare). 

Listening to the debates, it’s clear Democratic proposals for changing US health care are still taking shape, like whether private insurance should be banned (in my opinion, no). But, if you ask me, the Finnish system would be a good model.

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Nothing Is New Under The Sun

A couple little books that have often occupied my nightstand (my dusty nightstand) for at least twenty years or more are Colin McEvedy’s history atlases, published by Penguin Books. I have read (and often re-read -- I have trouble retaining information, it seems) these brief summaries of Western history accompanied by simple maps that help to illustrate the constantly shifting geopolitical jigsaw puzzle of Europe from the Stone Age to the times of Napoleon. 

Every so often reading about the complicated history of Europe, I run across a passage describing long-forgotten leaders or world events that, well, seem to resonate with  leaders and world events of 2019. 

Here is one such passage from McEvedy’s “The Penguin Atlas of Modern History” describing Louis XI, King of France from 1461 – 1483. 

“Because he was both treacherous and successful, his admirers have called him Machiavellian, but his intellectual abilities were strictly limited, his natural impulsiveness poorly controlled and his qualities, good and bad, really those of a peasant. His strongest suit was tenacity, and the only modern quality of this otherwise credulous mind was a recognition that money was the measure of power.” 

Sound familiar? I highlighted the parts that reminded me of the current, and thankfully momentary, leader of the US. Notice, I didn’t highlight “successful”. 

Another such passage concerns Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty of Roman emperors. Nero’s reign (AD 54 - 68) suffered from thorny conflicts in Britain and Palestine and a disastrous fire in Rome (the folk-legend of which has Nero blithely fiddling away while the flames raged). But, apparently, beyond these calamities Nero had personal shortcomings that meant he was not up to the job of Emperor. 

“His position," according to McEvedy, "required of him little more than the appearance of gravity, yet this was a role that Nero, the self-declared actor, was never able to sustain.” Again, sound familiar? 

After various missteps of mismanagement by Nero, the Roman governor of Spain had had enough and marched on Rome. With the tide turning against him, even his Praetorian Guards would not defend Nero, and he had no choice but to die, in McEvedy’s words, “by his own shaky hand”.  

Of course, throughout history, violence has often been the method of unseating unsuitable and unpopular rulers. The Founding Fathers of the United States, throwing off the legacy of undemocratic monarchies, devised a more civilized and humane way of replacing such leaders who are, without question, wholly corrupt and unfit for their high office. And that method is impeachment. 

I’m beginning to wonder, why on Earth, are we not using that civilized and humane method today? 

Friday, July 19, 2019

Swearing by Trump

An interesting little detail from Donald Trump’s rally in Greenville was the fact that during his speech, Trump twice said the word “goddamn”. 

That may not seem like a big deal, but in the Southern Baptist household I grew up in, one of the worse things you do was take the Lord’s name in vain. I remember as a boy admonishing a friend who had said “Goddamn”, telling him that he would go to hell talking that way. Once a family member called me out for saying “Mein Gott” (“My God” in German – I was showing off.) This was long before “Oh my God” became such a ubiquitous expression that no one bats an eye. OMG.

Anyway, surely most presidents have used “goddamn” frequently enough, at least in private. They are, after all, men of the world. There are tapes of Nixon doing so. LBJ for sure. Obama likely. Jimmy Carter might be the only exception. I can’t imagine him doing it. 

But Trump is no doubt the first US president to utter that blasphemous word in public. You can be sure Obama never did. And if you ask me, it’s about goddamn time. Trump is just talking the way grown people talk, saying what he thinks, no holds barred. He's not afraid to tell it like it is, without worrying about offending someone’s tender sensitivities. Just imagine politically correct Obama throwing out a "goddamn" here and a "goddamn" there! No goddamned way!

As someone who says goddamnit a lot myself, I find it refreshing that Trump has now, in a sense, given license for the rest of us to feel comfortable enough swearing in public. I’m sure all his followers, from Franklin Graham to Lindsey Graham (and any other Grahams in between), fully agree. Goddamn right!

Saturday, July 6, 2019

Man the air, ram the ramparts, take the airports!

This is the most memorable thing I've heard about Trump's "Salute to America" show on Independence Day (other than the fact that Melania was wearing a white dress without a bra, which became see-through in the rain -- well, at least it had sleeves, unlike that slut Michelle, am I right? 

The rain caused the teleprompter to malfunction and the text of Trump's speech momentarily to disappeared. Apparently, it was at this point that Trump was talking about the tenacious nature of George Washington's Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. During those troubling times, the Army -- Trump told his drenched audience, eager to learn from their president -- "manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do." Rammed the ramparts? Rammed them with what? 

So, because he couldn't see his prepared text, Trump just had to dip into his knowledge of military history and speak off the cuff. About airports. In the 1770s. Except they didn't exist. Surely, he was confusing this war with a different one (most American high schooler no doubt do the same thing, mix up Iwo Jima with Valley Forge, etc). 

Without the teleprompter, Trump went off script. Except. Except, he didn't. Probably remembering how he has blasted Obama in the past as a sissy for relying on teleprompters, Trump quickly assured his people, his AMERICAN people, that HE didn't really need the teleprompter anyway and that HE knew the speech "very well".and was able to do it without a teleprompter. 

Which must mean that Trump --- with his flawless memory -- correctly recited the speech from heart, including the line about the airfields that the colonials defended against the Redcoats. Which means that WAS part of his prepared remarks. Which means it must be true. Because he said it. 

Could there possibly be any other explanation? Any?

Friday, May 31, 2019

Obstruction of Logic

We’ve now all seen Robert Mueller on TV. I, for one, still haven’t read his report. But I have been thinking about Attorney General Bill Barr’s argument that Trump couldn’t have obstructed justice because there was no underlying crime, or at least not enough evidence of an underlying crime.

I’ve tried to think of a simple example to explain this to myself (keep in mind, I’m not a lawyer, so I have about as much insight into these matters as Rudy Giuliani does.) Here’s the hypothetical I came up with. 


Let's say the police in Bedford Falls have a confidential informant who knows that some guy, Brad, has 3 pounds of heroin under his bed. This CI (or "this rat", as Donald Trump would call him) tells the police, as confidential informants do. The police get a warrant to search Brad's apartment. Brad sees them coming, quickly bars his reinforced steel door, refuses to answer the police’s pounding on it, while his girlfriend, Beverly, flushes the heron down the toilet. Brad successfully prevents the cops from entering the apartment until all traces of the smack are gone. Whew, that was close! 

Voilà! Brad did his damnedest to delay the police searching his apartment, but he didn’t “obstruct justice” because, at the end of the day, the police found no evidence of a crime. No evidence of a crime means no crime, means no justice to obstruct. Perfectly logical, I guess.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Gain, or Just Pain?


The Dow has dropped almost 1000 points (-3.6%) in the past week due to worries about Donald Trump’s trade war with China. To be fair, that’s not as bad as the 11% drop the market suffered on the eve of Trump’s government shutdown last December. But, the trading week is still young.

Anyway, it’s been fascinating to follow what some Trump supporters have been saying on Twitter and other media about this escalating war. Of course, Trump himself has said trade wars are good and easy to win, that his tariffs are forcing China to pay back billions of dollars that it has unfairly taken from America. The picture he paints is gain, with no pain.

At the same time, Trump critics -- and others who are not ignorant of economics -- have been happily pointing out that, in fact, it’s American companies or consumers who pay the costs of tariffs. Even Larry Kudlow, Trump’s TV economic adviser, had to admit something like this on Fox News over the weekend. And now I’ve been seeing some comments from Trump supporters pop up on Twitter conceding the point that Trump’s trade policies do hurt Americans, but that this pain is an acceptable cost of a trade war. As they see it, Trump voters -- for example Midwest dairy farmers -- are happy to sacrifice their livelihood, if that helps to punish China for its infringement of US intellectual property rights. It goes without saying that compulsory pain and sacrifice for the greater good is not what Trump promised them. Maybe Trump should have been more honest with them. But who are we kidding? They probably still love him anyway.

Make no mistake, the stealing of IP by China is a serious issue. And perhaps we should be grateful that Wisconsin dairy farmers are willing to risk losing family farms to put a stop to it. On the other hand, they are also being rewarded for their sacrifice with billions of taxpayer money, so that surely helps.

And as Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has reminded us, it’s not as if anyone is sacrificing their lives (yet) in this trade war, the way US soldiers do every day for the cause of...something...not sure what, exactly...but something anyway.

So, if anyone suffers a loss in the stock market (and I don’t mean just Wall Street types, but also the forgotten men and women of forgotten West Virginia), they shouldn’t take it too hard and just be happy that they’re doing their part in Trump's unstinting campaign to stick it to the Chinese and make them share America’s pain.


Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Pining for a Paling?


I’ve been reading “War and Peace” lately. In fact, for the last couple of years. Or has it been more like three years? A long time, in any case, and during that long, long journey, I’ve sometimes encountered words totally unknown to me, words in my own language. Many of these have to do with different kinds of horse-drawn carriages or military gear used in the early 19th century. I should look up the meaning of these newly discovered bits of my native tongue, I know, but often I don’t. One that I did look up recently, or rather, Googled (who uses a physical dictionary these days?) was the word “paling”.

This word appeared around page 1080 of “War and Peace”, as the book is beginning to wind down. Only a couple hundred or so pages left to go! At this point in the story, Napoleon’s Grande Armée is evacuating Moscow, carting away troves of loot and herding along in its exodus hundreds of wretched Russian prisoners, including Pierre (Count Pyotr Bezúkhov), one of the main characters. 

As this unhappy mass of militarized or subjugated humanity slowly pass through the Khamovniky quarter, one of the few districts of Moscow that had not been incinerated, Pierre’s fellow prisoners surge to one side of the road to look with shock at something at the base of a church.

Pierre also strains to see the object and learns it is “… the body of a man, set upright against the paling [around the church], with its face smeared with soot.”

Paling. I had to look it up. Turns out it’s a wooden fence made up of pointy tipped slabs. Or slats, if you will. Basically, a picket fence.

Now that the US is in the midst of a government shutdown over Trump’s border wall -- with the semantics being bandied around of what is and isn’t a wall, a steel-slat fence, a barrier, or a what have you -- “paling” seems a good word to know.

Maybe in his fitful dreams deep in the night Trump sees before him a concrete wall morphing into a fence morphing into steel slats morphing into a paling morphing into anything, anything he can point to and claim protects America. Anything at all. And I doubt it would bother him one bit if there's a dead body propped up against it. Maybe in his mind that's the only way you can know it's working.