Pottery Barn Status: Just a Crack?

One thing that the realization of the Venezuelan Gambit makes clear is poor Venezuela will be "run" no better than the US is "run" by these clowns.  That being said, the military and CIA had their act together impressively for the capture mission, and we are grateful for that. 

I do appreciate Rubio's expressed point of view, that this is just the removal of a corrupt, criminal leader*, and not a signal for massive violence or political upheaval.  It at least gets most of it over the hurdle of the questioning of the whole sordid affair and into the courts.  "It" being the complete disregard for the formalities before beginning the large-scale hostilities. 

It won't work, though, in my opinion.  Trump will give it a try, as the negotiations continue on his share of the oil revenue and on the mass return of the refugees. I have doubt whether he can succeed with this approach toward the current regime, the best outcome for him politically--a clean operation, declare victory, take the bump, move on--but we all know he has other options, as long as they don't involve a prolonged ground presence.  In his case, he might call up and use the poor National Guard of some compliant state to maintain security for oil workers. 

Having described the best possible outcome, we now have to consider the alternatives.  First is trouble from the official government and military of Venezuela, which so far has had a mixed reaction there: some are ready to cooperate, some take a more resistant stance.  It could merely be that they are not yet bought in to the new Trump system. So to speak. If they don't play along over the key transitional period of a few months to a year, though, it could get ugly. 

Next consider the opposition, as Trump Co. may end up having to do. The Trump approach surprised me by freezing the organized opposition out, after all the mutual flattery and the Nobel Prize nonsense for M.Machado.  In the long run, this could end up looking more like Cuba or Afghanistan than Iraq or Libya, especially if the general impression is that the Yanqui imperialists are stealing their money, once again, and meanwhile the bad deal they are getting from the government is continuing to bankrupt the nation. One thing I have yet to hear is the cost in Venezuelan lives of this initiative.   

Finally, the real deals.  What he's doing is effectively to help knock out one criminal narcotics conspiracy, on behalf of a larger, more organized one.  And what percentage is the Don going to get up front and from whom?  The oil project is a more long-term one that could end up working or falling disastrously short.  The reserves are there, if you can keep them.  In the very short term, there should be a drop in the commodity price for oil.  

 If he's smart, he will do what they did in Iraq, but more consistently and successfully, and "invite" the top 100 of the power figures of the formerly-Chavismo power structure headed by A. Maduro to depart, with a bar of gold bullion each.  Being very experienced in dealing with rampant inflation, they'll want that instead of questionable dollar assets. But depart they must. Then it'll be easier to impose his will and get his cut.  

Finally, it should help Dickhead Don in the continual battle to find domestic political distractions from the Epstein Files virus and from affordability. Gas prices should continue to help though the summer as a reaction to this.  Foreign affairs give Trump a lot more leeway to do his will when the courts can't or won't intervene. Congress will squawk but do nothing, and they already are disadvantaged because it happened while they slept.  If he doesn't watch it, though, he could become subject to arrest abroad at some point. The criminal.  

I have to admit that they brought this to a head faster than I thought they would.  I thought it would take more clear signs of impending recession to spark the attack. There was a little uptick in unemployment and continued Trump jawboning the interest rate, but we are all poorly-informed on the real prospects for the economy in the near future.  A big risk, but the phrase "world's largest crude oil reserves" was vibrating in Trump's feeble but cunning mind. 

My big question is:  how many fronts are we going to be dealing with, by the time this faux isolationist fait accompli artist+ is through?  I see four, easily: apart from potential rebellion in America South,  Israel trying to dominate in the Middle East, China squeezing Taiwan and disrupting the rest of East Asia, and Russia in the former Soviet Union, or even Eastern Europe.   And probably a politically weakened, physically collapsing, seat-of-diapered-pants driving greedmonger.  Think Baron Harkkonen going for the "spice", if you permit a "Dune" reference.   

  

 Epilogue: 

My draft response to Adam Kinzinger's video, which he taped just after Trump's press event, in frustration as the news kept changing early:  

I'm afraid I must resist the appeal not to jump to outcomes--which, after the safe return of the US capture operation personnel, and the count of Venezuelans lost in it, is all there are:   
I don't agree that "this is not Iraq"--there is the same lack of a clue of a plan.  Instead, this time it will be transactional negotiation at the point of a gun.  The main topics are the US cut of oil profits (and our loan will follow agreement) and allowing return of refugees on a large scale.  The current regime will not come to agreement, so they ("we") will move on to the next.  

Finally, the person who won the presidential election was not Nobel-prize winner Machado but the person the opposition put up when she was not allowed to run.  Gonzales.   Why not stick him in and then supervise elections, rather than invade and bomb?  (and help the oil industry there get back to production, of course) 

My response, edited: 

 I don't agree that "this is not Iraq"--there is the same lack of a clue of a plan.

the person who won the presidential election was not Nobel-prize winner Machado but the person the opposition put up when she was not allowed to run.  Gonzales.   Why not stick him in and then supervise elections, rather than invade and bomb?   

 

* I would suggest that the indictment should read, or should have read, "Conspiracy to distribute narcotics outside of usual cartel channels. "    I know the grand jury had to do it in a hurry.  

+Two French expressions in one sentence.  Is that too many?  

The 60 Minutes Interview was Fire

 Or, it was must-see TV, if that is clear.   

At least the part I saw. 

Norah O'Donnell had him on the defensive on the domestic issues, the ones that matter for the election this week.  OK, he could look haggard, black-circled eyes and bad makeup and hair, but his face looked Trumpian.  That's just jet lag, basically. 

The side view, though, that CBS went back to show time and again, showed a sodden, pyramidal Jabba-the-Hut-ish pile, sitting oddly on a high-backed chair with he fully six inches in front of it, spouting nonsense.

I saw her hammer him on his violations of law and order, ICE, the tariffs, and especially the shutdown.  He got aggressive, threw out the usual bullshit, and showed himself extreme and unwilling to compromise.  So, he didn't come back any wiser than when he left. 

He may have compensated in the last part, with the more softball questions that he could answer by throwing in his foreign affairs successes, his great relationship with Benyamin Netanhahu, how he could destroy this and that if he wanted to.  He got a chance to brag about Iran and look Presidential. He looked brutal and scary. But that was too late to save his numbers. 

He got a few digs at the Democrats, staying with the tired line about how "all they have to do is vote" for his bullshit, no changes, he won't be coerced. As for the Senate Republicans, he both threw them a bone ("nuke" that filibuster) and threw a bone at them, depending on your point of view.  

This was his last-minute shot at the elections this week:  pump the base's turnout.  The limitations of this approach show it to be very much short-term, basically a bet that 2026 will be OK, or a war. 

2028: The Final Question

Trump's blowing his cool was evident, particularly in the first part of the interview, as what was shown (edited; this time with his permission, I'm afraid) more than sufficed. It will definitely hurt the Repubicans' cause, if not in 2025, in the larger, later contests. I give CBS a little credit for asking some of the tough questions, a situation he rarely faces in a public setting. His answers were definitive, defining insanity itself.  He took great pains to saw his lines, pains to all, in fact. 

I had to go out for a minute, so I missed the part about destroying the environment, or about the Epstein File.  Maybe that's when they happened. 

But I did come back when we saw that we can finally stop worrying about 2028.  He basically admitted he won't do it, so why talk about it?  

Anyway, if he did find some underhanded way to do it and run, then Obama could counter it and do the same, even starting after the convention if necessary. I know just how he could do it, too--it would be to use the Electoral College for the Democrats cause, for once.* I think the White House's team of soulless skunks** realized that Obama could kick any of the Trump clan, or any other of the other guys in a fair fight. They're pretty much all the same, now.

The 2025 Preview, and to 2026

The Democratic response to the inputs that suggest the Republicans are making general-election level effort in Virginia and New Jersey, instead of off-year election level, then, is President Obama's appearance on the scene there.  Let's just make sure we get that extra 2-3% that didn't show up for Kamala. 

It's a very basic, sticking-with-fundamental strategy, if Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill represent the national Democrats' bid to regain the center in swing states, ones of the type that will absolutely be needed in 2028. It's a serious approach, with good, well-known candidates--a true test. 

There's a lot of talk of Mamdani, and the future he represents, and Gavin Newsom is the leading candidates for the states' resistance through the gerrymandering vote, which he seems sure to win.   Those last two weren't the target of the GOP's guns, though.  They are of relatively limited importance nationwide, unless Newsom fails somehow to deliver the numbers on the referendum, which would be career-ending and a significant handicap in Democrats' ability to counter the Republicans' power play for the House next year.  Finally, Andrew Cuomo looks ready to take the dive into the Hudson. 

I'm looking at two states in particular next year, beyond individual congressional races in a few states and an interesting shot at picking up a Senate seat in Alaska.  They are Texas and Ohio, two states given up as hopeless after the 2024 voters there gave  Kamala/Biden's administration the heave-ho by ten percent or more.  James Talarico (or Colin Allred or Beto, if they surprise me) in the Lone Star State represents a more convincing case to get that extra 5% or more the Democrats have been seeking in statewide elections since the turn of the century, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio is looking to reverse his 2024 Senate loss by tackling the appointee (elected only to whatever) Governor Dewine picked to fill J.D. Vance's hole. So to speak. We're going to need wins there; if we get them, we can take back control of the Senate, filibuster or no. 

 

*You know, the states' Electors--they can be pledged to vote for Obama or the Nominee of the Democratic...)    

** What's left of the White House, that is, the dank dungeon parts.  The soulless skunks, they remain a-plenty. 

The Shutup

I'm taking off the filters and calling the thieves and reactionaries for what they are in this post, so please excuse the blunt and uncouth language, if you can. 

This ending of approved Federal government funding is a "massive opportunity", as King Dickhead I himself said, but for different reasons than the ones he cited.  The Democrats are holding many government activities hostage, as a weaker force surrounded by hostile enemies is wont to do (see Hamas).  The hostages should not all be released, but only in exchange for real benefits to our people, and for real political damage to Trump 2.0 and its attempts to steal the 2026 elections, our last real hope to save our polity.  

The continuing resolution ploy proposed by the Republicans in Congress is a trap into which our Opposition must not fall, even though its allocation of spending is undoubtedly much better than the alternative, the painstaking working through budget negotiations which is going to produce only terrible outcomes, which the "CR" approach would allow to happen (though the time frame originally proposed for it will be over before you know it).  

Instead, some budgeting should be approved and others blocked. Military pay and air traffic controllers  should get paid.  The alternative to paying our soldiers is not only unjust, but also quite dangerous:  history tells us that soldiers who are not paid are likely to rebel.  In this case, Dickhead and Kegbreath having pissed off the top brass tremendously, the coup threat of that outcome is multiplied.  A regime headed by our military, though disastrous to our constitutional republic, would likely be less oppressive and dangerous than what is happening now, to our nation and to the military itself.  But that's short-term thinking:  pay our military, we will give you the votes.  

Same with the air traffic controllers:  we want them to show up for work.  The alternative there is bloody, for certain.  And while you're at it, add funding to get more of them. 

No money for ICE--forget about the Big Stupid Bill's provisions, entirely. No money for the State Department, which is doing us wrong in the world.  No money for EPA, FTC, CFPB, Energy, all of which have been captured by our opponents and are working diligently to eviscerate their stated missions.  The eventual funding for the DOJ and the FBI could be restored, after the full and mostly unredacted Epstein Files virus is spread upon the land.  Protect only the names of the victims.  I for one do want to see the video Jeffrey took of some young girly jacking off our future Dicktator with her face blurred beyond recognition. Other Homeland Security provisions could get approval, on the condition that ICE Barbie is replaced with someone who knows what is right and wrong, nothing more. 

Funding for the IRS should be approved--we don't want the rich grifters and conmen to get away unaudited--but the price for that is something that will benefit us all in the long run and hurt the Republicans in 2026:  an agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, a regressive tax that benefits only the high-income people and will eventually imperil the whole program. Suck it up, tax cheats! 

As for funding our judiciary, the price for that is some reasonable term limits on future appointments.  We can promise not to stack the Supreme Court when we get power back in 2029 in exchange for that.  Right.

Budget negotiations ultimately can begin--say, next year, when the pain becomes extreme, but on the conditions that Congress pass legislation removing Presidential immunity (in particular, we need personal accountability in the form of civil damages) for illegally impounding funds or spending unauthorized ones, and that electoral ratfucking of the 2026 elections will be criminally prosecuted. I'm sure those are both illegal areas of proposed Project 2025 evil, but it needs to be restated.  Make Trump veto them. 

The tough call is really the healthcare question, the hill Congressional Democrats have decided to defend at all costs.  We should all be fully aware that, if we get into negotiations with the Republicans on restoring the cuts, doing so in a way that can become law, they will put a variety of asterisks on the funding that will make it painless for theirs and painful for ours.  It's all or nothing--rescind the cuts in their entirety, or no deal.  

Yes, the Republicans may ultimately counter by removing the 60-vote requirement for ending Senate filibusters.  I'm OK with that, as it has been weakened tremendously already as a safeguard.  It will cause a lot of bad in the short run, but when we get the trifecta back in 2029, and that is already on the table, we will be able to reverse their illegality with the force of law.  For all its noise and fury, Dickhead 2.0 has operated almost entirely through Presidential orders, the majority of which violate the law, though the emergency lawsuits and restraining orders often can only close the barn door too late to prevent harm.   

While we're at it, give the judiciary some enforceable force. It won't cost very much, and it would make a big difference.  Basically, make US marshals answer also to Federal judges, with their jobs and more, and provide gun-toting protection for Congresspeople (when they ask for it) and courtrooms. 

More Domestic Disgrace

 

 I am annoyed that the latest news from the US' political quagmire must take precedence over subjects that are much more fun, like sports, music, film, the beauty of this season, or more consequential, like preserving that which remains of our planet's beauty and bounty. Some subjects in the US' current disaster and recent escalation of violence, physical and verbal,  need to be addressed, even if their importance is transitory. 

Unforgiven 

In the above film, without a doubt one of the greatest in the history of the genre called "Westerns" the Clint Eastwood character makes the following statement as he rides to an expected violent confrontation in a lawless town: 

It's a hell of a thing to kill a man.  You take away all that he's got, and all that he's ever gonna have.

That is my main reaction to the murder of the man, Charlie Kirk, shot down as he engaged in political debate at a Utah college. It is the same I would have for anyone unjustly killed, like the students in too many schools, or other victims of politically-motivated violence in the US.

 I mourn for his family, and that he will never have the opportunity to redeem himself from his hateful, bigoted rhetoric.  Because I do believe it could have been possible; he seemed sincere in his beliefs, but he needed that critical human encounter that might have changed his mind and his tone. Enough about him, though.  I reject the attempt to make him a martyr for his cause, because his cause is not just.   And I never followed him or read any of his words when alive, so his death is no personal loss for me. 

One thing more I want to say:  we should not assume anything about why the killer did it, not until we have more evidence or capture the perpetrator.  I would submit that the shooter was either extremely lucky, or more likely a highly skilled marksman, given the range and angle indicated for the single shot that pierced Kirk's neck.  

We Should Let it Shut Down for Awhile 

The product of this Trump final term is all bad--all of it.  This, once again, is no surprise, and this is all part of his evil plan.  We who oppose it have no reason to facilitate its continuation. 

The Republicans in the Senate need seven Democratic votes (at a minimum) to continue normal operations of the Federal government beyond the end of September.  My position is that we will not call them, they must call us, and what they have to offer to get any support is a major change in direction, one that will force Trump to sign, or veto, and thus accept that his power will be diluted, or that he will own the shutdown that results. 

My suggestion, once again, is that in order for Democrats to fall in line with a resumption of government function, there must be a reversal of tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for consumers.   The best way to do most of this is through a bipartisan agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, which end annually at about $160k of income per year. The resulting revenue increase will fund the program indefinitely and scale down the budget deficit problem.  Direction on tariffs should follow; Congress could give Trump some authority to set them, subject to Congress' oversight.  Finally, the measure must include language which restates what the Constitution demands: that money cannot be spent without Congressional authorization, and that spending approved by Congress and signed into law must be spent (with strictly limited exceptions). 

Democratic Senators who do not show toughness in this moment must be voted out. By us. 

More About Migration 

In a very recent post, I went over some of the basic, global principles that govern the movement of people, those that should apply, and those that will remain regardless of the obstacles. The current immigration policy violates all of them, but it is really the enforcement policy, with its violence and unnecessary cruelty, that makes us cringe. 

 We need to rethink the whole attitude toward our treatment of undocumented immigrants and stop the outrageous violations of our own laws.  If we have fair policies on the treatment of those here without the rights of citizens or of residency or visitation, if they are understood, defended by our citizens and implemented with respect for individuals and consistency,  then, maybe, we could move toward an intelligent strategy, one which will then end excessive migration into the country and allow for a true reckoning of those who reside here.  

The main point is that the US should not be the nation where people can burrow into hiding indefinitely without the knowledge of the authorities, which is the root of the issue today.  

We must accept true refugees from the Americas, seeking political asylum or escaping cataclysmic economic or environmental failures, for as long as is necessary, and we should apply sound judgment to those whose move here would be voluntary, not forced by circumstance, in order to enhance our society.  

 

Debacles #2

Everyone has their favorite complaints about the Administration now, even if you are still supporting it in some way, which is to say doing its bidding. 

Whether it's recurring inflation, the stagnant job and home markets, the spread of the Epstein Files virus and flailing efforts to contain it, that stupid bill that was last month's story, the destructive effects upon almost every Federal agency not committed to a mission statement imposing nationalism by force, failure to properly observe legitimate court orders,  the debt limit increase and the upcoming budget-driven shutdown threat...and did I mention the lack of "release of the Epstein Files"?   We all have several. 

Number One for me, the domestic issue most dangerous for the future of our nation, is the fate of the aggressively provocative redistricting effort going on in Texas, prompted by Trump and endorsed by despicable Governor Greg Abbott.  This one has the potential to lead to major conflagration, particularly if the mentality of "avoid being the loser" continues to cause escalation.  

Essentially, the rethink on the Republican side is that they didn't gerrymander aggressively enough when they had the chance.  They went for safe districts, instead of maximizing potential wins. That response was after completion of the 2020 Census, during the Biden Administration, when even red states believed they had to pay attention to propriety and national public opinion.  

Factually, new districting boundary lines only had to be approved by state legislatures and governors, unless there was some other review required by law (one downside of the Democrats' retaliation strategy).  The Supreme Court had already shown a lot of tolerance for redistricting done with an objective of partisan gain. That was a very big first mistake; the second was eliminating the requirement that redistricting in certain Southern states subject to the Voting Rights Act of the sixties be consistent with that law, one of its main provisions. 

The way it works out, Republicans still want to create districts with majorities of minorities within large cities, because they can surround them with competitive or safe red districts; in medium-sized cities they want to break those center-city districts into pieces outnumbered by adjacent suburban areas, or even better, rural ones.  Texas Republicans are using those strategies, along with one to break up some Hispanic seats near the Mexican border by mixing them with more Republican areas inland.  It could gain the Republicans 3-5 seats just from Texas in 2026, which could make the difference if the count on House seats is very close.  (And in the House, majority control, with even a very small margin, is everything, as shown by this Mike Johnson House.)

The response from the Democratic side is led by Gavin Newsom, who as Governor of California is in a position to say that there are a number of seats in his state that he could gain for the party through a counteracting move. It would be very controversial, and would take a while with an uncertain outcome, but it could be done.  There is a similar possibility in New York, and there are additional Republican ones in some of their states with large partisan majorities. 

It's quite easy to see where this form of nuclear war would go in the end if this continues.  Those with large statewide partisan margins would end up with state contingents entirely of one party or the other, and generally less contested seats.  Ironically, though, the Texas maneuver, if successful would do the opposite: safe Texas Republican seats would become more competitive, and this could backfire if Democratic turnout is strong in 2026 and Republican faithful and their leaners do not turn out as well. 

These short-term opportunities are huge:  Texas Democrats should use all means, as they are doing now, to resist this anti-democratic measure, even to force the Republicans to make shameful authoritarian moves to get them to come back and vote.  I think Democrats can delay this measure for months, months in which the Democrats in a couple large states can prepare their counter-measures. 

I see the following possible outcomes, perhaps in order of likelihood:

1) Republicans get away with their maneuver, significantly more than Democrats.  That does not mean the Democrats will come up short in their strong case to take back control of the House. 

2) Every Republican maneuver will be countered by equivalent Democratic ones. The PR battle would be fierce. This one should be a net positive for Democrats, despite going against their own principles.  

3) Both sides see the possibility to coexist, with these big-state powers being a mutual deterrent, and Texas doesn't do what Trump wants.  Everyone chickens out, and our President reluctantly TACO's, as well.  This is the best possible outcome for all, even Trump, because one way or another he would have to live with the Democrats after 2026, quite possibly with their having a majority.  You see how low I think the odds are for this. 

4) A California Republican Representative has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for states to redistrict for partisan purposes during the period between census updates, after each state gets its shot at the beginning of the decade.  If that passes, Texas would be blocked from the change, and so would the other states.  I see this as having little chance, as Republicans will not go against Trump's wish.  

5) Something goes wrong.  Let me give an example:  one of the Texas Democrats is roughly handled and injured by Federal marshals coming to capture them, against the local authorities' own orders.  There is now a martyr; Texas Republicans respond by imposing the new map without a quorum after they change the rules. It would be something comparable in its arrogance to South Carolina passing secession in 1861, except the secessionists would have the White House.  I can only hope this is not what will happen. 

There is one clear winner in this escapade (a lot of potential losers)--his name is James Talarico.  He is a Democratic State Senator from Texas, and his potential as a political leader has now been discovered by several journalists with national credentials.  He speaks well, understands the complexity of the situation, and he is walking the walk by challenging the Republicans and leaving the state.  His is a name to watch, and he may end up leading the statewide charge in the Democrats' desperate 2026 Senate race there*, against either incumbent John Cornyn, but more likely against the (even more despicable than Abbott) Attorney General there, the corrupt and evil Ken Paxton, who is running against Cornyn from the Trump-side in the primary.   

A good outcome is possible, both in public sentiment and practical results. The most important thing is to establish that gerrymandering--like this exceptional case, but even in the normal course of affairs--is contrary to real democracy.  It's a tricky objective for the Democratic party to pursue, to avoid seeming hypocritical, especially if some states will tit for Texas' tat. 

Transitional:  Tariffs 

 I pose this as a transition from navel-gazing at domestic issues to what is even more important to me, the importance of what the USA does in these years in the world, for both the short-term security of us all as well as the long-term course of history. 

Tariffs may seem a foreign policy issue, and thus under the direct control of the Executive, as foreign policy really is, but it is really a domestic one, and that is reflected in the Constitution--the legal power of raising revenue is with Congress.+ The taxes will end up being absorbed domestically, either by businesses afraid to raise prices in response--perhaps viable in the short term--or by consumers.  What I think more likely is that the larger businesses will raise prices, now, before they absolutely have to do so.  In this case, the spoils are there for the quickest and most greedy.  This will be noticed, though!

From the international side, though, if we just look at it for a moment, it's quite different--if and when the USA ever stops changing the tariff rates and compensatory investments Trump will require.  Or if the courts realize that his whole scheme is unconstitutional and illegal, until such time as Congress goes along.  Which they would, maybe even relatively quickly, but there would be some comical unwinding and rewinding involved.  This is just one example to say that the chaos is not yet over. 

I saw an email the other day, on the occasion of the agreement with the European Union, one which has been roundly criticized as too favorable to Trump and too unfavorable to the EU.  I was sent an email in response to that with the subject line "Bye Europe: Buy America".  Let's think about the reverse:  "Bye America: Buy Europe".  If we just split for Europe, we don't pay the US tariffs there, and we have access to American goods without tariffs. ** Just sayin'. 

Anyway, from what early evidence is being produced now, and still before TrumpThink takes over all our Federal economic reporting, the effect of tariffs domestically will be a few hundred billion dollars of windfall revenue, as long as it lasts.   Which would not seem to be very long, unless Trump gets tired of winning his tariff extortion game. Inconsistency is the hallmark of Trump 2.0, along with incompetent execution. A tax on all citizens, one Congress has not blessed.

The problem for the rest of the world with Trump's regime is not necessarily that there are tariffs on goods sent to the US.  Except in the case of Brazil and a couple others with the punitive rates, the US' market will remain a premier destination among many for exporters.  It's knowing that he can turn around and cripple your business for any reason. It produces overpricing and other harmful short-term strategies.  

*The principal names I have heard named to run as a Democrat against the Republican Texan nominee are not confidence-inspiring, in that they have tried and fallen short before.  Paxton winning the nomination against Cornyn, though, would give the Democrats a chance for an upset if they can push the Republicans to extremity and campaign like crazy.  It's the kind of upset Democrats will need to have any chance of getting control of the Senate in 2026.  

 + Let's not talk about Congress' abdication of foreign policy influence, probably as well-deserved as states' abdication of the death penalty would be. If you can't possibly do it right, just kick it upstairs.

 ** There may also be attractive base pricing of US products over there in some cases due to the drop in the value of the dollar since the beginning of the year, something like 15%.  

Domestic Debacles

 Nevermind

 In over their heads, they flounder.  Apologies to bottom fish for the verb; I mean them no disrespect.  After destructive acts toward agency after agency providing services to the public, incompetent reforms, and flat-out hand-outs, they are doing it to themselves, and that's what will really hurt (them). 

Though the content of the scandal is merely sordid and hardly mysterious, the rise of the Epstein Files conspiracy at this moment is one of those flukes of history. It has already broken the unity of the MAGA movement, and the power of the raging controversy, due to the ongoing cover-up, may end up rivaling Watergate as revealing a flaw in the Republicans' defenses leading to a catastrophic result. 

The current story cycle arose suddenly when a routine probing question from a White House presser hit a nerve that went straight to our President's lizard brain. His response revealed, in a moment, all that we will learn as facts over time. There's a deeply hidden scar on his record from his playboy days, his political tertiary syphilis.  

   Two phrases central to understanding the Epstein Files Scandal

Pedo-Adjacent -   This label is the minimum we can confidently hang on Trump in relation to this scandal.  It is fact that he hung out with him, not once but over a long period of time, which means that he was fully aware--at a minimum--of Epstein's decadent form of entertainment, and he did nothing about it. The files, whatever they are and what they contain, will confirm all that. Trump was in with a real bad group, whether he was all-in will be determined over time, primarily in the public mind. 

Reputation risk - This is the term for what is at stake for those who will end up implicated in the documents which will come out one way or another.  Saying that, I am assuming and hoping desperately that the privacy of the victims will be protected throughout.  Trump has a lot of public reputation to risk (somehow, after all this), he knows it, and the efforts to prevent the names, dates, and degree of offense coming out are only going to make it worse.  That risk is really the only one that I think is critical here; though there is no statute of limitations necessarily for the kind of criminal allegations potentially arising, there's no evidence Trump's DOJ will cause any charges to be brought.  On the other hand, the possibility of pardon if Ghislaine Maxwell will go the full line-toeing route would bring even more disrespect for the practice of justice in this case.* As for civil suits, maybe additional ones will result, but I think there are quite a few already.

Reputation, though, is what electoral contests are all about.  So, this is something to make political benefit from, with again the caveat that we put the interests of the many victims before all else.  So far, what I've heard, mostly through their legal representatives, is that they want the facts to come out (without their own names, of course).  As for Trump, Bondi, Patel and the loyalists, they are not so avid about disclosing facts, though Trump keeps talking about it, while the other two are trying to stay mum. 

Distraction that Matters 

Epsteiniana is one of those side stories that come to rule the airwaves, but is it just a distraction?  Not if it causes the Drumpfenreich electoral pain in 2026, which I think it will, in the form of reduced turnout for their side in swing districts and among Trump-leaning independents.  So, let it take its full course, and the inevitable secondary industry products as well, like books and movies.  Democrats have little to do besides demand to see more, at every opportunity. 

The Big Bogus Bill, on the other hand, was a colossal waste of energy.  Instead of a simple bill to fund a ramping up of immigration enforcement and military expansion, while leaving the 2017 tax cut and subsequent debt increase, for the same kind of $3.8 trillion hit, they had to mess with everything.  As should be expected, all bad.+  Typical Trump 2.0, furious expenditure of political capital for no good purpose except favoring Trump's allies and hurting those he disfavors. 

Yes, the first is our rich and the second is our poor, but the target that will feel the pain above or below all others is, to use the name given by Peter Gabriel some time ago, our Big Blue Ball.  What is this thing Trump has that makes him so crazy-bad about the environment, or anything that might preserve it?  The damage he is doing will be hard or impossible to undo, and it will take too much time, once it becomes feasible again (that looks like 2029, and that's maybe).   So that is one for which we will all feel the result. 

Like most of his "successful" outcomes, it will be "OK, that's what I wanted and expected" for a few who benefit, but disastrously bad for some. Most, though,  won't feel all the pain right away because many of the effects on the public are delayed or indirect. As for the tax cut, most will not feel anything different, because it won't be different.  Medicaid? SNAP?  Those cuts are for the losers, they deserve it, right? Medicare?  That's a little more tricky, as is Social Security, neither of which is addressed in any of the legislation, though there are apparently cuts in Medicare spending implicit in the projected numbers. On the whole, it's more money doing less for the public, with pork for the human hogs the main product. 

Running against this legislation should yield some results with the working-class voters the Democrats claim to be building their message towards, but because of its subdued short-term effects I don't think BBB will have the visceral impact in 2026 that  Dobbs had in 2022 to charge up their Democrats' own turnout, something which will be absolutely necessary to win back Congress.  There's still time for that killer issue to emerge clearly, but I'm thinking now it will be fear of Big Brother. 

As for the two real winners in the bill--the profiteers of the military and deportation/prison industries--I will take that up soon, in a rant about our foreign affairs.  Both of those are not domestic problems at their root, though we fool ourselves into thinking that they are.  (the environment, too)  

 

 * My prediction would be a partial commutation of her sentence, say from 20 years to 10, after a rather anticlimactic testimony.  It won't please anyone, but any other outcome would not work in this delicate situation. 

+There was one worthwhile thing in the final bill, from my study of what's been reported to be in it.  A deduction of $1000/$2000 (single/joint) is possible for those who do not itemize (now, most of us, except the wealthy and business owners) for charitable contributions.  This will help these charities fill the gap caused by the lack of government support for worthy causes; more people will give.  A good policy for a time marked by stinginess and greed.  

What Is To Be Done?

Kamala Harris' Presidential campaign, and that of President Biden before her, focused their energy on the cause of defending democracy.  Millions of potential voters turned away.  That, and the betrayal of RFKJr made the difference in a close general election in 2024. 

Democratic post-mortems, of which there have been way too many, proposing a variety of solutions, seem to agree that the problem was the lack of a substantial alternative to that being proposed by the Trump candidacy, that moronic, lying, hateful, fearmongering proposition backed by a narrow plurality, just short of a majority, of those who chose to vote.  And it's true, our democracy, as it is practiced today, is barely defensible.  Defending this status quo proved to be a loser. 

The answer to Democrats' lack of a credible alternative is not an economic one, really.  The US economy was not so bad in 2024, or in 2016.  In both cases, the Democratic-led administration had made real progress, with its limited real means to control the economy, in digging the country out of deep holes created during the Republican-led administrations of W Bush and Trump I.  It didn't win the election for them. 

There is talk of the Democrats developing some kind of vision of Abundance as a policy to campaign upon.  That's pretty much just apple pie thinking--yes, we would all like to be wealthy, but promising that is only going to backfire in the long run, as the realization sets in that it isn't happening.  The failure of that promise of super-abundance is pretty much happening in real time to Trump's promises of MAGA.  Frankly, the US already has abundance, and the likelihood that it will flourish ever more doesn't look so good as global commerce fades, climate change hampers us, global competition rises around us, and AI eliminates jobs all over.  Just ask the young about the prospects. 

Yes, the economic failure that is coming at us rapidly will likely cause a reversal in the political fortunes for the Republicans, whose hold on government is strong, but electorally very thin, and getting thinner week by week.  That would just be another swing of the pendulum, though, and will not bring us any closer to a more successful, stable polity that we can believe in. 

Bernie Sanders was right when he said, recently, that the US is a "pseudo-democracy".  The fact of the matter is that the policies of this Federal government are not popular ones. I would accept that there are times when the collective judgment of our elected representatives should override the popular whims of the moment and pursue wise policies to benefit all of us, but that is not at all the case now.  The authoritarian, destructive policies being pursued incompetently now are harmful to most, but excessively beneficial to a few who control the power. This is not democracy; it is barely a constitutional republic. 

The Reinvention of Democracy is the Vision We Need

The reforms I suggest below are generally non-partisan (not bipartisan), and some will tend to weaken the Democratic party's power relative to what it controls today; however, because it will work to remove built-in obstacles to people's will, we can expect the Trumpist Republican cult would oppose them fiercely.  I am limiting myself to changes that can be accomplished without constitutional amendment, as that is out of the question in today's political environment, or any that we can foresee in the near future.  Once the people are back in control, though, I would think that we could consider it possible to utilize the Founders' other channel to change the constitution, a new convention, without preset limits.   

Number one of these obstacles to democracy is the obscene level of expenditure for political campaigns now.  There has been an exponential escalation of the costs in the past twenty years, and now it is on a scale where only the rich and well-funded lobbyists can participate meaningfully.  For the others, massive efforts are required, but as we saw in 2024, not sufficient.  For Federal elections, the only choices are accepting the implicit bribery of huge donations, constant fundraising, or, increasingly, self-funding by multi-millionaires.  2024 saw Trump's winning campaign funded by hundred of millions of dollars of support from Elon Musk, who's been rewarded by getting a free hand to steal the nation's personal data and re-jiggering any regulations that get in the way of his profit-making.  For the Democrats looking forward to 2028, their best chance may be billionaire J.B. Pritzker, whon I could support if and only if he agrees:  Ending unlimited campaign spending is the start of returning democracy to our electoral process. 

I realize that in the odious Citizens United case some ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that political spending fell in the category of free speech protected by the constitution, but the lines that were drawn between true campaign-support funding and parallel "nonprofit" organizations' theoretically separate activity have been blurred, then practically eliminated entirely.  "Dark money" contributions have eliminated any accountability for political contributors, and guardrails to prevent foreign interference or produce any limitations on direct contributions have had workarounds making them ineffective.

Congress does have the responsibility of setting the dates and broad outlines of federal elections, a prerogative they need to exercise.  My principal recommendations are to re-energize the moribund Federal Elections Committee, give it increased powers to monitor campaign activity, levying fines proportionate to the danage violations cause to elections--and remove all partisan appointments to it.  Congress should emulate some parliamentary democracies and declare a period of some 60 days immediately prior to the elections in which political activity should be closely regulated.  Restore "Equal Time" provisions for free media, penalize factual inaccuracy (also known as "lies"), and limit direct campaign spending by individual campaigns to some ratio to population (I'd suggest 10 cents per person, at current dollar valuations.)  

I don't have much to complain about the actual methods of voters' registering their choices, or about the counting of the votes; these are controlled within states and localities, and there is something to be said about their being decentralized, and thus not subject to centralized or hacked manipulations.  I do believe that the ongoing debates about voter suppression and voter fraud are totally unnecessary:  Congress should authorize the issuance of tamper-proof Voter ID's to every citizen of age, equipped with 21st-century digital technology and easily transferable between precincts, counties, or states as people move their residence.  Issued universally without charge to the individual, for the first ID at least.  Coming of age would then bring this privilege of citizenry, reinforcing the special, though universal, benefit of suffrage.  I do not believe the issuance of this credential to be a difficult challenge for this nation to achieve, either in terms of the cost or the technology. 

The Electoral College is an ongoing irritant and distorter of the popular will.  In past elections, it transformed close popular votes into electoral vote landslides; now it evidences a much greater problem, reversing the outcome itself with greater frequency, something which undermines the whole prospect of the democratic choice of our top leader tremendously.  It is something fundamental to the original constitutional framework, though, and could never be changed to mere popular vote plurality without a radical set of amendments.*  

What is not at all in the constitution is the "winner-take-all" electoral slate, in which the candidate with the plurality of votes wins all the electoral votes of the state, something in effect in every state except Maine and Nebraska. It is something that developed in the 19th century as states competed to have their votes count more than others, another escalation that distorted popular will.  Now, because of it, 40 states or more have all their electoral votes virtually  put up on the board before the election even starts.  The entire presidential election is focused on a few states, with the resulting effects on policy subtle but clear.  All serious contenders for the Presidency have to focus on the needs of Pennsylvania, above all others, with a few others like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin getting secondary attention, and the rest--nothing.

I would recommend that a compact of Congress prohibit winner-take-all, combined with enabling provisions. The Maine/Nebraska approach gives two electoral votes to the statewide winner, and the other electoral votes are determined by the candidate winning the individual House districts.  It's a good remedy, and one that would show no favor, if accompanying the measure is a resolution ending gerrymandering:  congressional district boundaries would be determined by nonpartisan analysis considering natural and significant man-made boundaries, trying to build around intact communities and metropolitan areas. 

The political parties' power of over elections, another "feature" which the US Constitution's authors opposed, needs to be reduced, and the narrowing of the field of practical candidates to the two parties' nominees, chosen through primaries which, though intended originally to give power to the voters, has resulted in recent times to intensify partisan division to dangerous levels.  The introduction of ranked-choice voting and instant runoff would address this problem.  In this, voters would be able to indicate the preference, in ranked order, for most or all of the candidates on the ballot (or write-in);  if no candidate gets a majority, then the votes of the lowest candidate, in first-choice votes, would be immediately allocated to the remaining candidates by the voters' second choice, and so on until someone achieves a majority.  It could be used for any and all elections of officials--even the Presidential one, which might head off the prospect of the constitution's infamous resolution method for outcomes without an absolute Electoral majority (voting by the House, with each state getting one vote).

The provision has settled in a few states' elections, but it is not clearly understood by most of the electorate--I would suggest that it is because opposing it is one thing both parties can agree to put aside.  It clearly gives greater opportunity to third parties and independent candidates. Most importantly, it would lead to the end of the discouraging prospect of having to choose between the "less-evil" of two, which so many decry in so many elections these days, with the winning candidate being truly chosen (to some extent) by a majority of voters. 

The final recommendation I'd suggest for now would be to extend the right of representation to all US citizens, through granting statehood to  1) District of Columbia, 2) Puerto Rico,  3) US Territories and expatriates.  Three new constituencies, and if possible, mandating voting rights to those citizens disenfranchised for whatever reason. 

Why should the Democratic party advocate this set of reforms, which as I say seem somewhat limiting to their partisan interests? Because they are necessary for our nation, because they embody the party's name and purpose, and because they will be politically efficacious. This platform for reinvigorated democracy would seem to be something broadly popular, difficult in the extreme to oppose without denying the fundamental principle that the political will of the electorate should not be suppressed or distorted beyond recognition. 

 

*The Popular vote initiative--to mandate that all electoral votes would be allocated to the national popular vote winner--is stalled well short of its needed objective of having 270 electoral votes' worth of states supporting it, and I see no chance of that being reached.  Even if it were, it would not eliminate the partisan firestorm that would occur if a candidate (let's say, Trump) would have 270+ electoral votes from the states under the current system, but the victory denied because of lack of a popular vote plurality. I can just see the rebellion that would result, and the chaos following when the Supreme Court throws out the popular vote-driven result.    

 For the title, I borrowed from Vladimir...Lenin, that is, and from 19th-century Russian idealist Nikolay Chernyshevsky, from whom Lenin borrowed it in his turn.

Own Goal

I have heard the phrase used a couple of times in the past 24 hours, with regard to the ongoing travesties being committed by Trump in the foreign policy arena. They were talking about Greenland, Panama, Canada, and now Jordan, even Israel (blindsided by Trump's loony Gaza initiative), and soon, Europe.  Basically, just stabbing our own allies--I'll admit he does it to their face, that being very much the point.

I think the metaphor is very much on target, though it may be somewhat unfamiliar to US.  It's a reference to soccer, when a goal is scored, not primarily due to the ball's vector into the goal coming from the attacking team but from the defenders.  There is some grey area, in describing the event, but it basically is defined by the defender having the last contact on the ball and in the process directing it toward the goal and away from the goalie.*  It's the kind of thing we need to understand if we hope to do a decent job hosting the World Cup in 2026 (about which I am less than enthusiastic at this point--recall that it will be hosted by three countries, not just the US but also our former friends Mexico and Canada). 

To go into it a bit more, I would divide own goals broadly into two categories:  the ones where the attacking team drove the ball near the goal, and the defender's accidental contact deflected it in, and the ones where the attacking team wasn't really involved at all--one defender hit it in, all by themself, or possibly with the accidental collaboration with a teammate.  

I would use the phrase more broadly in describing the Trump second term, and in the second sense.  We are doing it to ourselves.  In the case of our recent Presidential electoral own goal, the ball bounced off RFKJr, who supplied the 2% additional support Trump needed to win in a tight contest.  Basically, he's a winger who had no business being in front of the goal. 

The US has no business doing this thing trto ourselves.  We have the most wealthy nation, the most powerful nation, in the history of the world, and we are piddling around in our own half of the field, making bad passes and positioning ourselves incorrectly.  Think of the tariff nonsense, the things we are doing with our allies, with neutral and poorer countries with USAID, and with our own power structure, which we are assaulting indiscriminately, though it has mostly stood up so far. 

Despite the scoring we are producing against our own account, and in the favor of our adversaries, we have the ability to move the ball forward, with reforms that are bipartisan in their appeal and beneficial in their result.  We need some change in the personnel on the field, though. 

Continuing the discussion with the backdrop of football, this time the "American" version, I will briefly salute the Super Bowl-winning Philadelphia Eagles, Donald Trump's least favorite team.  And the explosive attention given to provocative Kendrick Lamar, whose halftime show at the game highlighted his huge 2024 success and his creative power.  He wisely kept it only a little provocative and political for the huge TV audience.

And, since I am now moving toward a lighthearted vein in this post, let's consider this weighty question of semantics: 

Donald Trump:  Dickhead or Asshole? 

I begin with a rough-and-ready definition of an asshole as "a self-centered, aggressive person".  As always, my inspiration is the seminal essay** in the Village Voice by a Susin Shapiro in 1979 called "Creeps and Assholes: Character is Destiny".  She asserts that all people are one or the other, although there are crypto types who conceal their true nature.  Thus, there are many, many assholes, most but not all male.  

For me, a dickhead--the cruder version of the "meathead" insult popularized by Archie Bunker in All in the Family--is a special sort of mentally-deficient asshole, one whose consciousness is unable to recognize reality.  Its implied meaning is the replacement of some key portion of the brain with a penile implant. Thus, the assholism they project and embody is unfocused, incoherent, though still of hostile character. 

So, the answer, for my purposes, is both:  he's an asshole and a dickhead, but I prefer the latter as being a bit more precise.  

I have decided, though, that, partly for purposes of posting on less free Internet sites, I will not use the full word, but use "D------d" to refer to him.  It might appear an abbreviation for "Donald", but note the extra blanks in there.  

Revised Labels

I was afraid some might have concluded from my Sharpie-tized Gulf renaming that I endorsed the renaming, when the point was to shatter Trump's exclusive claim to the brand "America".  So let me now be clear about my view of it:   See the future new naming, by Executive Order, by Trump's worthy successor:
 

A

 

 

If I need to refer to this body of water in the future, it will be by this name, "Gulf of King D------d I" in honor of our Dicktater. 

 

The concern I am raising is the demeaning of the brand "America" by Donald Trump and his MAGA movement.  The word's use usually refers to this nation, the US of A, though America is something larger. ( I admit to being often guilty of this imprecise use of the term.)  There is a greater significance to America--and here I'm thinking particularly of the Europeans who came to this New Land (16th century term), though there were also major arrivals from Africa and Asia--the promise of the New Land, the opportunity to make a new start, the liberty represented by the idea that one can live where they want!  It doesn't apply exclusively to the US of A. 

My intention going forward will be to use America to refer to the lands of the Western Hemisphere, and US or US of A for this nation.  The trick, though, is to restrict "American" to a broad set of the populace of this side of the globe and find another word to refer specifically to "people of the US".  For now, it'll be just that phrase, or something to that effect.    

 

 *In theory, it could be the goalie who makes the last touch, but that is extremely rare.  Just failing to prevent a shot going in doesn't make an own goal.  It would have to be something like the goalie's miscue accidentally sending it in from a few yards out. 

 

** The article, like the Village Voice, is out of print, but an intrepid person with the handle of "ottoventa" dug it up and posted it, if you want to read the text. 

Gulf of Understanding

 

 Let's Talk About America

This is about more than just the US of A, which is all that our new Dictator King claims so far to rule, though he pretends to want to extend its borders to Greenland.  It would "look so strong" on those spread out, 2-D  maps of the world which have to stretch that land mass out insanely.  I'm sure that's the idea fixed in his mind.  In this case, he's using this cute little head-fake of renaming the Gulf of Mexico, to help remind his undiscerning voters that this is part of making America Great.  

But what is America?  Most of the Western Hemisphere probably think it refers to them, too.  You know, Brazil and Paraguay in South America, Nicaragua and Belize in Central America, even the rest of North America (maybe Canada not so much).  Admittedly, the Gulf pictured and mis-named here has only three nations that it borders--Mexico, the US, and Cuba.  I would suggest that the truer American body of water is the Caribbean Sea, which is a big deal geographically for most of the hemisphere, at least on the Atlantic side.

It is fair to say that Donald Trump is an American President, but he is not the President of America.  One should not conclude that he has an intention to make great all of America; at best, his constituent interest--the ones unto whom he is legally accountable, if that means anything anymore--is limited to the borders of the US and its assorted territories (not colonies, we pretend).  And the District of Columbia, technically within the US' borders, but just to be clear:  I say he is a criminal allowed to roam the streets there only with armed guards.

I'm sure, if Trump were ever to consider the rest of the Western Hemisphere, he would just seek to dominate and intimidate, though it would be a worthy objective instead to give sincere assistance to all the nations of the hemisphere. 

Not-so-Loyal Opposition

 Recently I have been struggling with the meaning of a logical conclusion that starts with the premise that the Trump Restoration was not a fluke; that it is the prevailing voice of Who We Are.   If you feel, as I do, that this regime is up to no good, then we should be looking for the US to do as little as possible abroad.  Because what we do--apart from whether it is done effectively or not--is bound to be harmful.  Harmful there, and ultimately, because we are part of it all, whether we believe it or not, harmful here, as well. 

That is not a simple principle to execute without immense damage.  We saw it in Afghanistan, and we would see it in a whole variety of nations.  The vacuum of power resulting would be catastrophic in Central Europe, in Northeast Asia, on the borders with Russia, in the Middle East--though we can see that this administration seems willing to ignore the latter.  This suggests that one of the first dominos to be pulled out of play will be the contingent in northeast Syria supporting the Kurdish-led independent force there, a mini-regime in defiance of Turkey and holders of much of the land once ruled by ISIS. * I would expect that our forces in Iraq will be withdrawn.  Also, I think those who are eagerly anticipating the US war with Iran will be disappointed; as Trump will make a deal to keep Iran from exploding the nuke test they are readying. .

Like I say, though, it's probably for the better.  We do not want to be involved in Syria, though we wish them well.  At worst, it's Europe's problem.  From our opposing and limiting point of view, his withdrawal from the hot spots is pushing against an open door.  (Which is the opposite of an Open Door policy.)  But let's slow down the larger withdrawals in these first months to allow development of defense against our packing up and departing. 

Instead of the US and the CIA etc., which works out badly in the best of times, we should defy the Trump Administration and have shadow representatives from the USA in global conferences, specifically from states.  As an example, California should be formally admitted to the Global Climate Conference, in place of the US representative. Some other states should petition for that one, as well.

Speaking of windmills (I am in favor, and feel Trump's resistance is, at best, quixotic), I suggest myself for a contingent of Americans willing to bunk down in Denmark to support the resistance against expansionist, imperialistic American--and by this I mean the US, under King D------d I, may his stench be contained--trade representatives. 

We should all be working on Buying Not-American, especially now before the prices go up with tariffs. If I only cared for Molson beer....

We have to distinguish between those right there with the Mumps--Bezos and his charming, underdressed partner, Zuck, and some unnamed South Asian CEO type, from all of which we should seek to disengage, loudly and publicly--and those who would have to show up but not be seen in public with them. Can we credit Disney and Apple, who were not there and did not give a million, maybe?  The one that's hardest to see giving up entirely is Google.  And no nvidious distinctions, damnit!   

 

* Speaking of which, what has he done to make us safe from ISIS?  Snow is not going to make New Orleans safe. 

And, why hasn't the war between Russia and Ukraine been stopped yet?

 

Coronation Day

 The cloud of hangers-on and office-seekers at Mar-a-Lago resembles to me the courtiers and vicious court politics of past monarchy--imagine Henry VIII with a couple less wives, a couple more male heirs.  The new king will have the power to build up or cancel those who dare to question his arbitrary will.

The "electoral wisdom of the American voter" has brought us to this juncture, an embarrassment before all the world.  Oligarchy has been sneaking up on us, but now it's a stampede to give away the fiefs (in this modern time, the departments of the Federal executive) and their product to the highest bidders. 

The ceremony is being brought inside to the Capitol Rotunda because of cold weather.  Donald Trump should have been declared persona non grata by Congress and, rather than being invited inside to "celebrate" his ascension, he should have been banned from the building, upon pain of death.  The Senators should give him the Julius Caesar treatment. 

I have only one piece of advice to those who will observe or read the Trump's inauguration speech:  Do not believe anything he says.  Some of it may be true, some will surely be lies, much of it will express professed intention that will never come to pass.  All of it will be bluster, toxic, fake masculinity.  Yes, he's a dickhead--All Hail King Dickhead I and the Drumpfen dynasty!  Or else....

 

Photo credit to

Micolash Viesczy at Sound Cloud

The Bigger Picture

The Carter-Biden Parallels

The Presidential term of each was a moment of respite between periods of Republican mal-administration+.  Neither was ever good enough for all Democrats.  Both were supposed to be transitional toward something better, but ended up giving way to something worse. They were peacetime Presidents, and with Americans focused on domestic difficulty, found their approval levels underwater at the critical time for possible re-election. Both had major legislative achievements, and foreign policy successes, which were dimmed in the public view by electoral defeat.  Both governed as forward-looking moderates, but even that mild liberalism provoked a successful right-wing reaction.

Biden and Carter are truly linked in history.  Biden pointed out the other day that Carter had--recently--thanked him for being the first Senator to endorse him in his 1976 campaign.  (Biden was in his first term then, and not many noticed, but Jimmy did.)  They represent a standard of morality and respect that is rapidly disappearing. 

Biden's interview with the USA Today* is by definition self-serving.  Apart from the requisite bragging on achievements, I note that he failed to mention the mess he dumped on Kamala++, or even to mention her name, I believe. As someone with remarkably broad and lengthy experience, it is far more important to read what he is saying about the world.  He has a clear perception that it has changed, but the vision of what will become is a void. His focus in governing was simply to prepare the US for whatever was to come.

Almost enough about him, though I'm expecting a couple of good deeds from Joe, before he leaves: A  statement that the Equal Rights Amendment has the requisite number of states having ratified, so it should be considered law; Re-Scheduling marijuana (now known as cannabis, for marketing purposes) to make the awkward Federal stance on it less undermining of the rule of law.  

Don't let me down, Joe--I've been one of your great, hidden supporters, when it still counted. And, for the record, I don't blame you (or Kamala) for the electoral defeat.  The blame lies with our inadequately-engaged electorate, and if one insists on a name, RFKJr.

 Let's focus on some things beyond the domestic issues in our swath of land in temperate North America (plus Alaska and Hawaii) and our 4.3% of world citizens. 

 Global Gaslighting

It's so bright, I'd bet the astronauts stuck in the International Space Station can see it from orbit.  The Once and Future King Dickhead I has announced he intends to conquer Greenland and impose his will on the Panama Canal.  No doubt he's been getting briefings again, and then letting his imagination run wild.  Yes, these will be suitable distractions while his brutalist diplomacy produces meager results on the Russia/Ukraine front, or with China, or with Israel.  

I grant that both are strategically important, but we already have a base on Greenland.  We could try to negotiate something with Panama on the operation of the canal in the case of emergencies, but that should be in the form of an agreement, not a purchase or a conquest. It is a good example of Trump's version of deal-making: start with the impossible, whine and bluster a lot, and get something undeserved in the end.

I am expecting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu to pull the January Surprise gambit, in the mode of Iran and the US hostages back in the days of Carter and Reagan, . I could see him providing Trump with an inauguration-related present of a ceasefire in Gaza.  Hamas seems to be eager to be done with this, so it can heal itself. That may be the remaining issue: Can Hamas be allowed to heal itself?  I know the Palestinian Authority is seeking to show itself worthy of responsibility, but Bibi doesn't trust them, never has and never will. 

In terms of the Israelis' war aims, they achieved part of them, due in particular to their spies who knocked off Hamas' leader two different times and produced incredible acts of sabotage against Hezbollah.  They leveled much of Northern Gaza, maybe not as much as they'd like, but the aim of neutralizing it as a threat is somewhat attained.  Release of the hostages, though, is Bibi's vulnerability, and its continuing lack of resolution further reminds Israelis that it was on his watch they were abducted in the first place.  

Can Netanyahu survive in his job when the ceasefire is declared?  He's successfully building up brownie points with the hawkish Israeli political mood by destroying Hezbollah's leadership and coming out on top of long-distance battles with Iran and the Houthis.  Now he gets to rub it in against near-defenseless Syria in the Golan Heights, and running hundreds of sorties against Syrian weapons facilities.  The reveal on the hostages, when it finally comes, is going to be very rough for his chances, though. 

Syria Game-Change

No matter how the new ruling coalition in Damascus turns out, the lightning-fast defeat of Assad's brutal rule over Syria has produced two favorable results.  One is that there is now the possibility of return for the millions of political refugees.  That will be a boon to neighboring Lebanon and Turkey, and also for those who successfully gained refuge throughout Europe and in many corners of the US, giving them a choice and a chance. The second is that Russia got a poke in the eye, a "serious" defeat.  The deep presence of Russia in Syria's horrible recent history goes back all the way to Assad's father's reign, and Russian participation in the war crimes and crimes against humanity of Assad's reign is just a matter of how much can or will be ever be proved. 

The victorious HTS coalition has a clear leader, al-Jolani, who faces a daunting array of challenges. The normal approach for a leader who takes the capital of a riven country is to try to gain control over all of the nation, through any means necessary.  If he pursues that, it may put him in conflict with Turkey, which has sponsored one of the lesser forces in his coalition and has its own objectives. What's worse for him Turkey is also messing with the Kurds in the northeast of the country, who have control over some imprisoned ISIS fighters and over camps of those prisoner's kin. There is also a US contingent with the Kurds-a very volatile situation. As mentioned, Israel has gone beyond the Golan Heights, which they captured back in the day from Syria, and is encroaching further into Syrian territory. Finally, there is the coastal area, which still has a Russian base and is the stronghold of Alawites, the minority group of Assad's clan.  I'd say he needs to find friends, real fast. 

He could still be an upset winner in this competition, along with Syria and other countries in the region, and, so far, Israel as well--in the post-Gaza portion of their multilateral, multi-phase warmaking, at least. On the losing side, more even than the Russians and almost as completely as Assad, is Iran.  In particular, the Revolutionary Guards of Iran and their ambitions in the region.  As with Syria, though, there could be real opportunity for Iran to lower tensions and end the conflict, which has become endemic to much of the region and is now threatening Iran itself. If Trump were to do the unexpected, which he claims is his way, he could make a positive difference, conditionally, in both Syria and Iran, to the discomfort of Putin and Russia. 

But What of Ukraine? . 

Some believe that Trump's imminent arrival in the White House will lead immediately to the settlement and end of the warfare that we all want.  The notion would be that Putin is ready to settle, but he won't do it while Biden is in office, or alternatively, that he is waiting to make the deal with Trump.  I am not one of those people. 

My perception is that, even though Russia's resources are straining, particularly for manpower but also for armaments and willpower, Putin is not yet ready to accept an end to the fighting.  One more season to try to break the losing streak and crush Ukraine, I think is his thinking.  So, the regrets will come from both sides when the deal is finally made.  I'm thinking it will take a few more months, though the boundaries may not be much changed. 

What the US will or won't do for Ukraine under Trump's direction in the meantime will not be so decisive.  What is going to decide this war of attrition is whether Ukraine can hold on, more or less in the current lines, through 2025.  I think Biden's administration will give Ukraine enough of the arms that have proven successful in the current context to make it through this year without losing too much more territory or the key cities of the Eastern part of the country, and then both sides will be exhausted and ready for an armistice, if not a peace settlement.  Personally, I think the fair demands of Ukraine upon Russia are far beyond what merely giving them the assets confiscated from Russia would amount to, and so there may never be a true accord, but the war would cease for the time being.  I hope they prove me wrong, that they demilitarize the Donbas and the land bridge below Kherson that the Russians have taken, while Crimea is demilitarized and original boundaries are restored in other areas, and reparations are begun.  Doesn't seem too likely, does it? 

I'll tackle East Asia next time, and I really have nothing to say about the Southern Hemisphere, except that I will point out, with regard to the "Gulf of America" headfake, that the whole Western Hemisphere is America, not just the US.   If it were renamed with that in mind, I would mind less.  (Does this go for "America First", too?)

 

+  Reagan was perceived as being somewhat better than either Carter or his predecessor Ford; it was not his simplistic political worldview, but better choice in circumstances, tactics and key appointments.  Ford, in retrospect, deserves the same kind of praise that Pence does:  cursed by his partisan history to be boxed into failure, despite acting with virtue. Carter and Biden, cursed by current events.

++Who is looking very good as the current de facto Democratic leader. Until Hakeem gets control of the House.

*Go to your local Gannett newspaper, or to the USA Today.  They can't wait to plug their Exclusive. I do encourage reading it unemotionally. 

Developments

About the UHC CEO Assassination

As US assassins go, Luigi Mangione seems more intelligent than the others; in particular, he can articulate his thoughts.*  Some ladies seem to find him attractive.  If I were the authorities in PA and NY, I wouldn't rush the extradition, but rather bring forward the gun charges for which he was arrested--those are a slam dunk. I don't doubt that Alvin Bragg (my choice for Person of the Year, over Dickhead 2.0) will eventually get some kind of conviction in Manhattan, too, but going for the maximum might be a reach too far.  Mangione should have access to good lawyers and will have some kind of painful story to tell that might work to some extent. 

What I really want to talk about, though, is United Healthcare.  Yes, I'm a customer, I think--it's just Medicare's Part D, it costs little and currently provides comparably little benefit but whatever. Mangione is way off-base if he was pissed that he couldn't get all the treatment he wanted; that's such a First-World problem.  There is rationing of healthcare in all systems.  On the other hand, if it was the insurers who made his pain worse because they induced him to get sub-standard care--the result of which didn't look so hot on that X-ray associated with his back--then he had some beef with them.  But a gangsta approach does no one any good.  And, frankly, he was more Bernie Goetz+ than Unabomber material, but he might do well on the witness stand.

There's a real, enduring problem with our healthcare system, and it's called the profit motive of the middlemen involved.  UHC is probably the worst offender, though statistics can be biased easily depending on what is measured.  They are sucking the value out of the whole process with their relentless pursuit of more money.  They need to be more like--gasp!--utilities, with profit levels basically guaranteed but limited, strict measurement of reliability of customer treatment, and some mandatory regulatory oversight.  In fact, they should be utilities, full stop. We don't have to go all the way to eliminate them as profit-making enterprises, which was the real mistake of the Medicare for All movement.  The pharma/insurance lobby got its back up.  Not to mention all the jobs.

Trump's Cabinet and Other Nonentities

I don't get too worked up about the fate of the crappy nominees Trump has chosen, even for his Cabinet Secretary positions.  For the most part, anyway:  I do think RFKJr is the one who must be stopped, and I think his non-conforming policy positions on some subjects (not vaccines, but more like on corn oil, abortion pills, etc.) could end up sinking his chances with enough Republicans to deny him.

The ones like Gabbard or Hegseth, if they get the votes, it won't change things all that much.  There are overly well-developed organizations beneath them that will go around them, if they are too flaky. And can you imagine a Cabinet meeting of the clowns?  On the one hand, it would be a joke--a bad one--and wouldn't be a good use of time.  On the other, though, it would flatter POTUS--it better--so he might want to have more of them this time around. The betting notion would be the over/under on the number of Trump Cabinet meetings Rubio attends.  Preliminary line: 3.    

I don't mean to minimize the damage Trump will do, but he's got four years--two, really. This joke will get old, while still young.  And by "joke" I mean "scam". 

Playoffs:  College and NBA

I give some credit to the NCAA planners who have come up with a viable expansion of their college playoffs, which they roll out this year.  They are going from 4 teams (the critical cut happening at the #4/5 ranked team) to 12 teams (as it happens, that will be a cut from #10/11).  There is still not a great deal of satisfaction, particularly from the SEC, though their teams muddied up the waters by beating each other up somewhat randomly in the big games. Alabama is the team that gets gored this year, #11.  Seems strange, but Alabama did lose three games in its regular season.   

The correct answer is 14, as in 14 teams in the playoffs.  Two conference champions deserve byes, the SEC and the "Big Ten"+.  (The other two teams getting the byes were bad jokes I won't recite.) Those are the only two conferences that matter, and all the best football programs are migrating to them if they can. (Except Notre Dame, of course--they are special.)   Anyway, with 14 teams in the mix, the two losers from the conference championships get home field vs. #13 and #14, then the other eight teams play in neutral bowl locations and are seeded #5-#12.   That is where they will likely go before too long.  They are learning the lessons from the NCAA's other marquee event, the basketball championships (now both men's and women's), which have maximized participation to great effect. 

The NBA has hedged completely that critical cut by making two of them, one more absolute and the other more real.  Every competitive team's goal has to be to get into at least the top 6 of their conference, though 10 teams make the postseason in some form.  Teams 7-10 still have a shot in brief playoffs, though they will be disadvantaged.  It's a good design.  

They also seem to have done well, so far anyway, with their new early-season event the NBA Cup, now progressing through its second season.  It's created enthusiasm and the players have mostly bought in.  The result has been a lot of close, meaningful games with near-playoff atmosphere.  It's only the second season, though; the relationship between NBA Cup success and success in the real thing, the playoffs, has yet to be demonstrated convincingly.  The Lakers did win the Cup and reach the conference finals, though, last year; the latter was a surprise.  The Oklahoma City Thunder are the top team left in the final four, judging by regular season record; they will also likely be favorites in the playoffs, along with the Celtics, who did not make the final four, in the East. . 

 

*So to speak. I thank Ken Klippenstein for printing the manifesto in its entirety in his Substack, which the big boys chose not to do, though they selected quotes to support their hot takes. 

+ I will seek to refer to all college conference names other than the SEC in shock quotes, to draw attention to their transparent greed-seeking behavior. And because their names are such lies. Repeatedly. 

Some Gratitude

To start off, I am grateful that our family has been able to stick together.   No one in the immediate family is estranged.  Our sister's successful gall bladder operation this week, our children have been able to find work that suits them, our niece continues to build her sustainable fashion design work, even our cousin who's been forced abroad because her husband is wanted for questioning will probably be able to return with a new government and Department of Justice (bad as that will be in general).  I'm particularly grateful that our son returned safely from his overseas military deployment. That's about as much as I will ever say about those closest to me in this blog. 

Saturday I finally got over my mood and need for intensive "self-care" after the election debacle.  I woke up that day to find that my blessed Cincinnati Reds made a good trade:  acquiring a promising young starting pitcher (Brady Singer)--one can never have enough starting pitching--trading a good infielder, Jonathan India, who didn't have a position in the coming season and wanted out.  I think the Reds are ready to compete in 2025.  Next, that morning I watched an interview on MLB-TV between Greg Amsinger (encyclopedic memory of baseball, on demand) and Johnny Bench, the greatest catcher of all-time (core Red in the heroes' Pantheon), who rarely does that kind of thing.  Chelsea defeated Leicester, a signal result for the Blues' new coach, Enzo Maresca, who led Leicester to qualify for promotion to the Premier League last year.    

Currently visiting Newport, Rhode Island for the first time.  It's offseason here, a little cold and windy, but still has a lot of charm, as do the folks who live here.  The International Tennis Hall of Fame is a beauty (though the museum there is closed for renovation).  I'd suggest visiting here in April; still offseason prices but should be nice. 

I am grateful for my town, Taos, which maintains its defiant independence (better than 3-1 for Harris--a quick search indicates it has the second-best margin of any rural county in the lower 48); it should be one of the last places to feel the pain of the new hateful regime coming in.  At the same time, though, I am grateful that my wife and I have the liberty and the means to look abroad for some respite from the political circus.  2024 has shown us that our Constitution can't protect us, that the rule of law has been overrruled, so our freedoms depend on the people, and they aren't so dependable, electorally.   We plan to spend a lot of time away, at least for the next two years until Trump Clown Car 2.0 crashes to earth.  The best thing that can happen to Earth. 

We are past the precipice, pushed out the window, but as they say while falling, "So far, no problem!"

 

Have a good Thanksgiving!