Mark Kelly for President

I'm not joking at all.  

I realize it's way too early, and there is no need to distract from the current imperative, which is a big victory in the midterm elections in '26, but the moment demands that we consider this man and the possibility. 

For those who consider that the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket in '28 should be a straight white male, Senator Kelly is your man.  He is a proven national hero, driven by duty and honor, who has braved the worst physical and mental challenges this era produces and kept his sanity and his nose clean.  Shot into space, shot at over Iraq, counseling the recovery of his wife after she was shot in the brain--these are a few of them. 

Most recently, he took on the terror that is Trump 2.1.  He was the front man for a group of military veterans in Congress who took out a public ad to warn our military not to obey illegal orders.  Trump called the action sedition and requested the hanging of all nine of them. Wrong, and not happening, and Kelly has been out front and open, saying both that his group's actions were legal and that he's not afraid of the Wherever Man.  

The veterans who made the ad--one can not call it a protest, nor was it anything more than a repetition of a portion of the training given to all military recruits, let's call it a Shout-Out--have been dodgy about whether they were thinking specifically when they made it about the criminal order to kill the survivors of one of the first bombings of Venezuelan boats on the high seas. They have not called the intrusion of the military into US cities an example of orders that were illegal, either, but they have stated simply that there is reason to think this administration may seek to misuse the military in the future.  No doubt of that, and one can easily think of worse abuses that the White House might order.   Trump may have criminal immunity for such orders, but those who carry them out do not.   We will come back to the "Venezuelan initiative" in a moment. 

Back to the point, though:  Based on his record, Senator Kelly seems to be a centrist Democrat, loyal, but not particularly partisan, and uniquely able to communicate on the need for responsible gun regulation. He is not a career politician, but after some years--he was first elected in 2020, in a special election--he seems to be finding his voice, which is an authentic one.  Not an intellectual-sounding one.  The only issue on which I recall his being critical of Biden's administration was on the lack of action on the border--his border.  Stop me if any of this is a negative.  

 I see only two drawbacks to his chances--apart from name recognition, which is suddenly flooding his way, right in his wheelhouse.  One is that he is not one for self-promotion, and he doesn't show that burning desire for Presidential power.  That, in reality, only makes him more attractive as someone truly fit for the job, but it could keep him completely out of the conversation (present company excepted).   The other is that, prematurely bald, he might seem older than his 61 years. It might not seem young enough for some, but it's hardly "too old". 

 As for being a sitting Senator and thus disqualified based on the recent experience of failed Democratic Senators as Presidential candidates, I think that's pretty bogus:  he's got more than his share of real-world experience, yet enough Washington time to know what is needed.. As far as I know, he is not owned by the corporations, and he has an amazing wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it won't take a Washingtonian draft movement (as in, George W.) to get him to run.  If he runs, the starting blocks for his run will be a sweeping Senate re-election win in the critical swing state of Arizona in 2026.  I see the argument for his candidacy along the same line as that for Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, but Kelly is a superior prospect.  

The Venezuela Gambit

What explains the recent rash of murderous attacks on boats coming off from the coast of Venezuela, heading north?  

The opportunity to drive toward regime change, removing a military dictator and usurper with blood on his hands who's caused millions to flee and impoverished his country?  No, that's more typical of Trump's foreign friends. He would emphatically be against that (then would go to sleep). 

Looking to grab the enormous Venezuelan oil production and/or reserves (nationalized) for himself/the USA?  No, not really any of those variations--we have plenty of reserves, and more being drilled domestically than needed.  The Venezuelans would hardly look to give away their ownership, but instead would look toward better domestic distribution of the proceeds.  Not interested. 

Searching for active kinetic action for  Pete Hegseth to use for military practice (after the domestic use failed to provoke sufficient resistance)?  Without war?   I suppose that is part of it, though why Venezuela? There are plenty of other alternatives still on the table, aren't they? (Greenland, Panama, Canada....) Certainly the continuing search for distractions contributes, and Trump is always ready to take credit for cruelty and brutality. He is also using this series of actions to probe a further extension of his powers to take actions beyond the rule of law and without any authorization beyond his own whim. 

No, I think there is something more involved, something even more sinister.  I look at the relatively minor Venezuelan component of the international drug trade, and its alleged association with current national government officials, and I draw a different conclusion.  These guys are horning in on the existing cartel operations, and Trump/Hegshit are assets working for their benefit against the Venezuelan outlaws.  See also the recent pardon of the Honduran government drug king.  

America > Trump

Of this I have no doubt, or fear.  Though we have allowed this person of the lowest character and subterranean behavior to be elevated to our highest political office, he does not rule over us in the way he thinks. Instead, he clings to the throne with underhanded means, writhing in his self-made bunker as his level of popular acceptance sinks further. Though I am observing him from afar at present, it only makes it easier to see him digging his sinkhole of madness ever deeper. His attempts to distract from his evil past actions only create more damage. Watching his underlings from a distance--imagine how they can possibly remain beneath him!--failing in their appointed tasks and drawing ridicule upon themselves brings gratification, knowing I am largely beyond reach of their putrid scheming. 

Truth be told, America is greater than just the United States of America, though I have covered that subject before.  It holds a great idea, that of the universal human goal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but the truth that is self-evident in the domain of mankind's affairs these days is:  power.  Nothing more. The USA's power is unmatched (still), but the national government's purposes in this time are not worthy of this great land.  Greed, indifference to the global community, and the shocking, reactionary impulses to subject other nations' to our selfish interests are the unmistakable content of our external actions, mirroring similar foul intent domestically toward those without power or the means to resist. 

Our Own Litmus Test 

Yet we, the people of the USA, do have the means, if we act collectively to fight back.  We have only one effective, substantive way to strip this evil regime of its power, and we must protect that chance with all our own powers of action. Though the forces of oligarchy and incipient fascism seek to make our votes meaningless, we have--so far--still our chance this November. Are we worthy of our unrivalled privilege as a nation? Let's not waste this shot. 

I know better than to appeal to the cause of saving our democracy.  We are far from being democratic--ruled by popular will--in our national affairs, and that appeal failed loudly in 2024--the response amounted to a big, lazy yawn.  Still, we can work within the limitations of our constitutional republic to overthrow part of the system driving us downward and begin the reclamation project.  All the corrupt maneuvering and manipulation is still unable to prevent us from expressing our will, if our numbers are large enough and broad enough.  What drives the electorate may not be such a noble purpose as dethroning evil, but it is enough that our sense of frustration and desperation at the destruction of our economy and the quality of our public life move enough of us for a decisive electoral victory.  

A "litmus test" is an objective measure, in chemistry a device to determine a binary result, acid or base, though it can also have a directionless result proving neither. So it will be with our election:  victory or defeat, though the result could end up less than definitive.  It is easy to define victory in 2026:  gaining control of both the House and the Senate. Plenty of associated results would accompany that victory, not least would be breaking the Trumpist cult's sense of superiority. Getting one and not the other would not be defeat, but it would result in two years of dubious stalemate before another climactic showdown in 2028, which would then be under less-than-favorable circumstances. The good news is that victory in 2026 is feasible; more than that, it is still attainable, despite the enemy's attempts to cheat us of our opportunity.  If the Republicans are defeated in Congress, the forces of authoritarian rule will be checked, put squarely on defense, and defense is something they really can't employ well; their only mode is attack.*

Somehow we will have to muster both our people's warmth and humane nature, and our revulsion at injustice and practical objections, all at the same time.  Both our moral sense and our common sense.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  The shape of this battle is now pretty well formed; I will have more to say about tactics in the 24 weeks to come. 

Light in a World of Woe

 Pope Leo's recent words are enough to make me a Follower, if not a Believer with a paid subscription.  I am so proud that our co-national, first ever to that high position of authority and grace, has chosen to speak wisely and confidently for us.  "Masters of war", indeed. Am I allowed to say "our Pope"?  Not from a nationalistic, possessive point of view, but isn't he supposed to be for all us humans, not just the Catholics who are bound to swear allegiance?  Of all the groups deserting the Drumpfenreich's support, it appears that Trump's blasphemous behavior has hurt him lately with religious observants of Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.  He'd already lost most women, the mass deportation fiasco reversed his gains with Hispanics, and his gross warmongering has undermined him with young men. Surely there can't be enough remaining for him to rig the election in his favor

 

*I give credit to Pete Hegseth for little, but he was right about that when he re-named his cabinet department.  A name is not everything, though, as he has proved that war is sometimes about more than killing more of them than they get ours, something we should have learned long ago. .  

 

 

Fury at Epic Deflection

 I have only a few minutes to comment on the Iran gambit, which I admit I did not expect to come to pass so soon.  It was so unnecessary to open this box of hornets* as the deal which restored a block on enrichment was available.  Instead Trump yielded to the persuasion of Netanyahu, who has a make-or-break election of his own very soon, and went for the war option. 

The success of killing Khamenei adds a lot of complication to the affair, which could've been executed in a less maximalist way, but it was perhaps the intelligence that the Supreme Leader was having an early-morning meeting with his defense leaders that led Trump to act immediately.  For this, no doubt we can credit an Israeli spy on site, or near it. 

I will say that one who will find benefit from this is Putin's Russia.  One more hostile nearby neighbor to subvert.  It will raise the price of oil, which also helps them.  China will protest the action, even in the Security Council, because they will raise the very valid point that assassination strikes against foreign leaders are not conducive to effective diplomacy or government. 

The fanatics among the leadership of Iran will seek revenge in unknown places and times, so we must be aware that risks of life and limb are associated with this stuff.  We can hope that someone--perhaps the President of the state survived?--will be allowed to surface safely and soon, requesting an end to the carnage.

He was Bored of Peace, I say.  But never bored with a piece of gold. 

 

*In the Greek legend of Pandora's box, after she opened it and released all the evils flying out into the world, there remained one small, glowing object--hope.  I think of that as a firefly.  

  

U.S. vs. The World

 That was the headline that the NBA, in its desperation to find a reason to create basketball involving its All-Stars in a way that would appeal, came up with for this year.  I think it was a lot better than recent efforts, because in fact there are a whole lot of All-Stars from countries other than the U.S., enough to make a team that is very credible--especially if you include Canada now as something foreign.*

 The NBA, like Major League Baseball, maintains a token presence outside our borders in Toronto, barely a couple hours drive beyond.  The NHL has maintained its traditional franchises in Canada but has overwhelmed their previous dominance with a host of US teams based in places like Arizona, Florida, Anaheim and Vegas. While in football, of course, Canadians have their own thing which is inferior to ours and we don't have to respect it. 

Baseball differs a little in that regard, though, because the source of its players is increasingly from various regions of the world, almost outnumbering those from the US.  Indeed, there is a World Baseball Classic coming up, with teams from countries all over competing with the US.  We are not the favorites, nor even the best American team--that would probably be the Dominican Republic.  Japan can also put a scare into us, with Shohei Ohtani perhaps playing both ways--maybe even in the same game!  

Snark:And what is this thing about Puerto Rico competing against the US? That should not be allowed.  Donald--speak up for the "ownership" of that territory, and let's seize their players.  The Venezuelans, too, since we're running that country; there's some significant players from both./s.

Not Quite Ideal 

I am a fan of the Olympics, and I watched a lot of these Winter Olympics just finished.  First, I want to commend the Italians for putting on a good show, giving the athletes the opportunity to do their things under the best conditions for their sports (they have the advantage that bad weather adds to the drama without stopping most events), for filling the arenas and locales safely, and for managing the local chaos which the event always produces.  The closing ceremony was intensely "bello"; that one, and the Japanese one from the '24 Tokyo Olympics have together set the bar very high for creativity to be supplied by future hosts. 

The Winter Olympics feature a bunch of sports about which I know relatively little, don't normally follow, and which I have no aptitude nor desire to participate in anymore.  That's okay, but I am a fan of most sports and these are a good change of pace to see different ones.  I feel the same way about most of the sports in the Summer Olympics, too.  The Olympic sports that I most follow--baseball and basketball--are there, but not particularly well represented by national teams.  Those sports, and others such as soccer, volleyball, ice hockey, field hockey, and Ultimate Frisbee,  I would put in a separate event for national team sports. It would be a major draw in itself and bring the rest of the games closer to the original idea. #

The nationality aspect is the worst problem with the games, with the TV coverage strategy the second worst.  Abolish the medal count; make the medal award ceremony private, without the anthems.  As for the TV coverage of the Olympics, I've watched it in other countries, and the problem is always the same. It's about "our" athletes and whether they win medals. If anything deeper is provided, it's usually not about the sport, but it's about life stories. To their credit, I suppose, they are still holding to the '70's Wide World of Sports approach:  "the human drama of athletics".  But if there's no patriotic interest, no special narrative, it's not worth showing, as it presumably won't draw ad revenue.   Less editing, more channels, please--nothing that hard to do.  All that patriotic gore and media hype detracts from the focus of the Olympics, which must be the games and the athletes' incredible devotion and skill.

The nexus of media fame and athlete sometimes resembles a car crash.  It's particularly intense for the US participants in figure skating, the only sport in the winter games that is a major draw. * US figure skater Ilia Malinin got T-boned by the intense expectations which got to him mentally, freezing him up extraordinarily. It's truly unfortunate that his greatest audience so far in his short career saw his worst--his skating ability is miraculous, as he's shown in the past.  Women's skater Alysa Liu, who had been through the wringer of the public eye years before, quit a few years ago in reaction, but then came back for the love of the sport and skated (a much less difficult program) with joy and won the gold medal.

There wasn't much anti-American sentiment (referring specifically to "USA!"), though there was a typical unhinged Italian riotous protest off-campus, generally against the expenditure and land-use decisions, but also specifically against the presence in Italy of the US paramilitary force called by the acronym "ICE".  What the hell they were doing there is unexplained and inexplicable:  I'm quite sure there were no undocumented immigrants to the US among the Olympians gone abroad, and if there were some in the support teams or the volunteers at the games who are self-deporting, fine.  I guess they want to take credit, if there are some units toward their quota to be accrued.  .

Terrible Tariff Mess  

We all knew that the tariff regime imposed by Trump in executive orders last spring relied on a legal basis which was unsound. The Supreme Court has done no less and no more than making that clear, without providing any remedy.  The money collected by importers following their perceived requirement to obey was until now paid to the Federal government's Treasury.  The expectation from the Court's decision is that the money, collected contrary to law, must be refunded by the government to those who paid it in.  What those importers are expected to do with it has not been seriously considered. 

I think that the amount they are going to see will be only a fraction of the number collected from those tariffs--I have heard that amount is $170 billion.  Trump immediately reimposed tariffs under a different shaky legal justification, uniformly at 15%, so almost as high as before.  My prediction is that those importers will only get the difference between the old tariffs and the new ones, and that the effort to get it will require piles of bureaucratic paper and/or lawsuits.  Instead, Trump will seek to distribute money in checks signed by him to every US citizen, which works out to about $500 per individual, minus the amounts he pays after short-changing the importers.  He will sell it to them that this way, they don't have to deal with the complexity of reimbursing consumers. He may not get away with it this time, though.   

Tariffs are the classic Us vs. World kind of policy, but the world outside the US doesn't have as much problem with them as one might think.  Consumers abroad don't have to pay for them.  The issue is mostly about the uncertainty, there and in financial markets, and this new tariff policy will not end that, and the mess will continue as Trump tries to layer in penalties above and beyond.  

 As for "Bomb Iran", Trump has boxed himself into a scenario in which he will end up having to act, to do what Bibi wants him to do, in spite of the Iran government's desperation to avoid getting bombed again--or worse.  Whatever concessions they can make, and they are willing to make some--essentially the same ones they agreed to long ago in the multi-lateral agreement Trump trashed in his first term--they will not be enough for Bibi, and therefore, for Trump.  What a dumbass loser!

 

 *The surprising thing is that the US won vs. The World in both semifinals and so played each other in the "So What?" finals.  I don't really know more than that, as I didn't watch any of it.   In general, though, if the US takes on the world, it will lose. Even in a nuclear war.

# I support most of the Olympic ideal, though I have to give the Moderns some credit for finally abolishing the myth of amateurism.  One interesting note is that I heard a podcaster saying they had heard there is an informal agreement among nations not to start wars during the Olympics. (see the timing of the Sochi Winter Olympics and the initial invasion of Ukraine) I didn't know there is such a thing, but I know that in the original (Greek) Olympics there was the tradition that the warring of city-states would cease for the period of the Games.  

 +I am intentionally dismissing ice hockey from that honor:  its following in the US is intense but not so huge, and it's not a sport that most TV viewers can take in.  I will say that the broadcasters in hockey have a special talent for following that puck and recognizing each player involved, made more difficult by the constant, unannounced substitutions. 

As for the US' ice hockey team's gold medal, I salute their devotion and skill, like all the other NHL athletes who showed up.  

The reason figure skating is so central is because of its many female (and gay) enthusiasts.  Men are dragged in, and sometimes we are amazed, often amused--because we men tend to think it's amusing when people fall on their butts.  

One Year (+) of Going Down

 No sexual content--sorry!  Lots of metaphors, though. 

 Looking back at the decline, there are so many instances of violation and damage that it makes more sense to think of this time as something continuous. We can name many other quantities that have deteriorated, besides our confidence in rule of law, the constitutional guardrails and the prospects for democratic transitions:  US prestige abroad, prospects for international peace, voter satisfaction, consumer discretionary cash flow, job availability, etc.  have all headed in the same direction, some slowly (Trump approval has moved only somewhat, despite all) and some catastrophically "south" (confidence abroad about our reliability), but in synch with each other. 

While all these quantities are still measurably in decline, I would argue that the rate of descent has slowed. This is deceleration, or more accurately, acceleration in the contrary sense. When you apply the brakes of your car, you decelerate, but when you get to zero, the brakes will not propel you in reverse. Think of a cart on wheels with a sail, propelled forward, but running into a big wind that will not stop.  Eventually that cart (if no longer given forward propulsion) will slow, reach zero velocity, and then go backwards.  Or think of the line of the invasion of Russia by Napoleon, or by Hitler.  The forward momentum stalled, then reversed, until the line went all the way back to the starting point, and beyond. 

Where are we as we enter the fifteenth month since the election of 2024, the time when the dark force of the imminent return of Drumpfenreich+ took firm hold?  The push back against Trumpist attack started slowly but has gained force, here and abroad.  In mathematical terms, the first derivative is still negative, but the second has turned positive.  The tidal wave of outrages continues, but with less power as it slows. Or, to put it in positive terms, before a tsunami hits, there is a sharp retreat in the water line, a sort of suck, before it surges and covers all in its path. 

The push--the acceleration in a positive direction--must continue, beyond our starting point, which is now more clearly seen to have been unsustainable politically.  Trump is pushing forward, but his engine is losing steam, and there is a lot of friction and shaking within, and progress on the authoritarian project is growing more difficult.  The deportations continue, but the arrogance retreats. The courts' denunciations grow stronger, and even Congress is no longer cooperating as before.  One positive development is the position the state of California is taking to join WHO, the international health agency from which Trump has pulled out--there should be something similar for the international climate efforts.  Finally, various signs of weakness show that the Republicans are running scared into the midterm elections in November. 

If the acceleration continues, the teeter-totter will reach level by then, and then Trump's fortunes will head downward, toward the eventual butt crash on the ground.  Then the force will be so strong that even the ground will give way as he sinks to unprecedented depth.  So I believe. 

2026--the lead into the elections--will be filled with strife and anxiety and noise.  The noise is the grinding of the gears of the engine of their ship as it strains to keep moving forward against strong currents.  

 + I settled on the invented term during the first Trump administration.  It is not equating Trump with the Nazis--remember that Hitler's was the Third Reich.  (I do like the moniker Turd Reich, though.)  Other names that you could apply instead:  oligarchy, kakistocracy (rule by theft), loutocracy, lootocracy, autocracy, monarchy, Mafia rule, and, of course, fascism.  But not democracy--in spite of the narrow electoral victory, this is not rule by the people. 

 

Edit (2/22/26):  Here's a graph showing the course of the status (of our mind, of tariffs , of the assault on our civil rights, on the killing in Gaza, on the invasion of Ukraine, etc.)  I felt I should add an illustration for those who reason visually. The acceleration turns positive after just a few months,but it was so damaging it will take months to reverse, even with acceleration now on our side.  At this moment, velocity in any direction is basically zero:  deterioration is slowing to a stop, but not being reversed yet.

 

 

  

 

 

Happy Anniversary!

We think of annual remembrance as being a public event, like New Year's Day, or as some would have it, January 6, as an event worthy of an anniversary, with this one being the special crooked number 5. 

The anniversaries that mean more to me are the subjective ones.  Two examples: 

--I put on a t-shirt today that I dug up recently, going through a suitcase of old clothes for things to give away.  It's a nice white shirt, from Speedo, that was given at a Knicks game that I went to.  It helps me remember what was probably my best NBA game experience ever, from the period, roughly defined as the Patrick Ewing era, that I was a devoted follower with a share of season tickets. I noted that the 30th anniversary of it is coming up this February.  It was late Jordan, and all the 3-pointers were going in for the Knicks that day, who won by over 30 points. I'm keeping the shirt. 

--The date our marriage was celebrated in 1993 was September 11.  We find it very convenient for reserving a table at restaurants.

So, I have no objection if you celebrate an anniversary today.  If what you celebrate is the survival of our constitutionally-mandated Federal proceeding, despite the obstruction, okay.  If it's the riot. go tase yourself.  

Things Move Faster Now? 

I'm hearing a lot of "I can't believe it's been five years".  I feel, on the other hand, that from a political point of view, it has been five very long years, notwithstanding the slow pace of the cases against Trump (the cases against the rioters went much quicker).  He hit absolute bottom, faced a real prospect of having to run for it, but then, with the covering fire from his movement, was able to overrun his party and capture Our Flag. 

 January 6, 2021 at the US Capitol is very much analogous to November 8, 2023 in the Munich beer hall putsch .  It took Hitler almost 10 years to gain power; Trump's grab for almost unlimited power took only four.  The difference was the ability of today's wealthy insurrectionist-in-chief to buy protection in the US court system from high-end lawyers and compliant judges, with the substantial aid from a cross-section of US oligarchs. Somehow there was a finding that just running for President meant that he couldn't be tried for his most serious charges. 

Admittedly, Trump moved very fast since his inauguration, faster than he could effectively manage. I am observing this occasion by reviewing the hundreds of emails received in the month after the election, when the shock was receding and folks began to think about what was coming*.  It turns out that virtually all of what has happened was clearly foreseen--there were even hints of the Venezuelan Gambit and the Greenland Gluttony (Apparently Trump had already stared at the 2-D maps showing how f--ing big it appears to be).  

It was seen then that Trump 2.0 would be liberated from the restraints he observed (if unwillingly) in his first term. The story is emerging now that he considered a swap with Pootie of Ukraine for Venezuela, or of Greenland for Puerto Rico (sounds like a good deal for Denmark!)  Certainly people could see pardons for January 6 rioters (and we shouldn't have been surprised if Trump just auto-penned them),  The mutant monster known as DOGE was rising from the valley, but apart from its obvious giant footprint the extent of its cruel trail of destruction wasn't seen clearly. 

 

 

*The review is necessary to keep my email (of 25+ years) going; it's maxed out on its space, and I can't buy more.  Thing is, I don't have that policy of 'read and save or kill' when they come in. I get too busy.  I generate a page (usually from the last five years, when the size of emails increased) at random and plow through it.  This time, it was mid-December, 2024.   

 

  

  

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?  

Time Out

 It may seem that I am obsessed with US politics, given the preponderance of posts in this year about the ongoing fail of our form of government.  It is not the case--like most of us, I have plenty of other considerations in play in my life, all the time. 

In my case, travel--arranging it and doing it--is a principal activity.  We have acquired a new apartment, in the tiny town of Bagnone, province of Massa/Carrara, NW corner of Tuscany (Italy), and making it into a home (second? first? TBD) is what we are doing right now. Italy's politics remain interesting to me, as a bystander of long duration, and I will opine on that at the right time.  One has to keep a close eye on the economy, domestic and global:  I will have something to say about AI, but suffice for now to say that, contrary to what the public and the reigning Dickhead think, the state of the economy has a lot less to do with the political environment than the mindset and behavior of the massive US consumer markets.  I want to comment on the reviving, but fractured, music scene, and definitely on movies, which seem finally to be shaking off the limiting superhero genre as their only viable product, this fall's serious output being the current evidence. 

Now, though, it's a good time to address sports. This time of year is one of the most interesting, to me anyway, with the baseball playoffs heading toward their climax, the football season (both kinds) getting into gear, and the basketball season getting underway. Of course there are a lot of other sports active in this season. Here, we've been seeing incredibly good early fall weather here; we had a cycling rally and a running one last weekend here in the area which attracted hundreds of participants around these small towns. I hear the marathon run in Boston was a big hit, and the one in New York is coming up (right before the election there, another worthy diversion from the national mess). My wife asks me to remind everyone of the Winter Olympics coming up in February, in northern Italy.  But let's focus--here, on the big three (or four). 

Football, American Style

I've been watching the game as it has emerged as the dominant sport in the US over the decades, but it would not be accurate to say I'm a fan. There are many aspects of it I dislike, above all the continuing toll of crippling and mind-destroying injuries--the control by corporatist billionaires is a given.  I've watched enough to be knowledgeable about the game, but not the individual players so much; most of them come and go too quickly for me to notice, except for one position.  The quarterbacks, of course, are what the game revolves around today:  who's hot, who's injured, who's getting the protection they need to succeed or finding ways to escape the pass rush, and those who don't, lose. The game remains fun to watch, perhaps now more than ever, as scoring climbs with pass defenders hampered more than ever, and the spectacle of the long pass, and how it gets set up, is as entertaining as ever.  I have to praise the innovation of the skycam and the alternative TV channel which dispenses with the constant analytical babble--we've got all these channels, they might as well use them. 

As a rule, I pay little to no attention to the NFL standings or even the teams' performances until late November, and this year is no exception. I do notice that some of the teams we are used to seeing dominate are suffering more losses early:  I'm sure most of them will get it straightened out by the end, quarterback injury status permitting, but in the meantime it's good for the game that some other teams are getting some play, like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Steelers with Aaron Rodgers (!) 

The college game is perhaps more intriguing right now.  The postseason playoffs expanded to 12 teams last year, and the tourney produced somewhat predictable results.  This year it looks as though nothing can be predicted:  the top teams have been taking turns beating each other week after week, and some surprising new powers have emerged, both ones with rich history but difficulties in recent years (Ole Miss, Texas A&M) and the improbable rise of the Indiana Hoosiers, long a doormat of the Big Ten, and James Madison, a university that was primarily a women's teachers college within my memory. What made IU and JMU possible is the transfer window, providing mobility for players that no other major team sport features (OK, college basketball).  What made Mississippi and Texas A&M go is the attraction among players to come and perform in the SEC, the only conference that matters anymore. The only thing certain seems to be that Ohio State will dominate the 16-team Big Ten and be there in the end--prove me wrong, someone!

The outstanding "human interest" story of college football this year is the saga of Arch Manning, the third-generation quarterback of the Texas Longhorns.  It was expected that he would win the Heisman trophy as the top college player this year, but that expectation just made him a target for opposing defenses and for media criticism, as it hasn't gone so well for that campaign (and it is an electoral campaign).  Texas lost early, as did Alabama, and I mistakenly wrote them off.  I wish him well; he's probably been under the pressure of unreasonable expectations since he was a child. 

World Football 

The big news this time of year in global football  (or soccer, foosball, or calcio if you prefer) is the "transfer window" also, but it is different there:  this is about the purchase of rising players by the big-money teams from those needing to sell, the players being the draw for the critical sale of merchandise.  Yes, there are rules to prevent the game becoming a total monopoly, but it's a fact that the rules were made to be bent. Real Madrid, Paris Saint-Germain, Juventus, the English Premier League big 3 (Liverpool, Manchester City, and Manchester United--usually) and Barcelona hover over the landscape of the smaller clubs all over the world that develop most of the talent. 

My team in the English Premier League, Chelsea, is off to a muddling start after a surprising run to win the World Club Football championship this summer in the US, an off-season triumph which took advantage of its relatively light supplementary season in '24-25 to pull off another trophy (actually the trophy was pulled off by none other than The Dickhead himself, who showed up uninvited on the winners' championship stage and "borrowed" it for decorating his offices). Anyway, the squad has tons of young talent, with the result being surprising victories over better teams (like PSG then, and Liverpool a couple weeks ago) along with shocking losses to league teams with less talent. It looks like it will be a battle to the finish to stay in the Champions League, the all-important goal for financial purposes, though probably a fairly early departure from Champions League competition itself this year. 

The football world has one eye on the upcoming World Cup in 2026, which has expanded yet again, to 48  teams. Getting to it is still a big deal, though, either if you do or especially, with the top European nations, if you don't. The event will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico, so all three of those countries will get a free pass, which will open the door for some other countries in the North American/Caribbean region to qualify, more than usually. 

The specter of Donald Trump looms over the planning for the event somehow.  He has been making threats about taking planned matches away from Boston and Los Angeles if those cities don't do something or the other that he is requesting.  Mr. Trump is about to learn a lesson, though:  there is something bigger than him, or even than the US, and that is world football, governed by a corrupt but powerful body called FIFA, and they decide the venues and timing of the events.  The US is, at best, a peripheral power in that organization.  If he fucks around too much, they might just take the finals away from his country (right now, it's scheduled to be in the Meadowlands in NJ) and put it in a real soccer country, like Mexico.

Basketball

Being a native of Kentucky, hoops are deeply ingrained in my culture from the very beginning. Keeping up with high school games is too big and broad for me at this point, but I do care deeply about the college game.  It has also been somewhat transformed by the open transfer policy. Previously, a player had to sit out a year if he changed colleges; I have to praise this expansion of freedom.  It does mean that a program can be built almost from scratch in a year, but also, combined with the ability for top college players to turn pro after one year, that it can disappear just as quickly, say if a coach leaves for another job. 

 A negative is the disintegration of the traditional sports conferences, driven entirely by football and the desire for the aspiring programs in lesser conferences to get to the big time (the SEC and the Big Ten, mostly); one casualty was the Pacific Coast Conference (or whatever it was called at the end), which has as many national championships among its universities as any in the nation, but now the conference has completely disintegrated.  Another is the Big East, from which all the major universities departed, though it still remains in a truncated form. 

What remains, though, is March Madness, an indisputable and enduring success which has little to do with the power game of the big conferences--it does protect the little ones, who all get a berth in the tournament. I have no idea which college teams will emerge as the principal contenders for the national championship--there are a bunch of players who've moved around, or out, and the reality emerges gradually through the season which teams have the potential, which is largely around building a team game with effective defense.  College basketball is a coach's game. 

Effective defense was the key differentiator in last year's NBA playoffs, too, as the Indiana Pacers surprised everyone by making it to the Finals, only to be defeated by a team with both effective defense and a fully-emerged superstar in Shea Gilgeous-Alexander, MVP of the regular season and the playoffs as well. The Pacers suffered the loss of their star player, Tyrese Halliburton, to an Achilles tear in game 7 of  those Finals, which pretty much cooked their goose, despite the best efforts of the team's remaining players.

An Achilles tear happens in basketball, too often I suppose, but perhaps not unexpectedly given the extraordinary demands on overstretched players (height-wise) running, cutting and jumping.  It typically takes a full year to recover, and full recovery is never certain. Halliburton's not the only big NBA star who will miss the entire season due to injury: I mention also Jayson Tatum, star of the previous season's champion, the Boston Celtics, Fred Van Vleet, a veteran guard who was emerging as a star on the Houston Rockets, and Damian Lillard, another aging veteran guard (returning to the Trail Blazers after a failed experiment in Milwaukee).  The absence of those four will have dramatic effects on the team chemistry of the teams that lost those players.  

Here's a classification of the NBA teams by tiers, as we go into the new season next week: 

1.  Proven quality, still at the top of the game (injuries permitting):  Oklahoma City Thunder, with Gilgeous-Alexander ("SGA"); Denver Nuggets, with Nikola Jokic (former champions, took OKC to 7 games in the playoffs); Boston Celtics (former champions, even without Tatum, still formidable and should be favorites in the Eastern Conference)
2.   Star-quality mashups--this is the most prevalent group for would-be contenders, as the style now is to try to put together three top players with suitable sidemen, roughly in order of probability of success (defined as reaching the Conference Finals, i.e. the league playoff semi-finals):   Dallas Mavericks with Anthony Davis, super rookie Cooper Flagg, and unpredictable talent Kyrie Irving (now injured, probably just for the first half); New York Knicks (Jalen Brunson, Karl-Anthony Towns, O.G. Anunoby); Houston Rockets (Kevin Durant, rising star Alperen Sengun, Amen Thompson); Los Angeles Clippers, with Kawhi Leonard, James Hardin, and Ivica Zubac (perennial disappointments, but one year...maybe); Los Angeles Lakers (Luka Doncic, Lebron James--now with an old-man's disease, sciatica--and Austin Reaves); Philadelphia 76ers (Joel Embiid, Tyrese Maxey, and Paul George, all likely to be injured at any one time);  San Antonio Spurs, now building rapidly to return toward the top (Victor Wembanyama, DeAaron Fox, and #2 draft pick Dylan Harper); Orlando Magic (Paolo Banchero, Franz Wagner, Desmond Bane, all top offensive threats); Sacramento Kings (Domantis Sabonis, Zach LeVine, Keegan Murray, with new addition of Hall of Famer Russell Westbrook); New Orleans Pelicans (Zion Williamson, Dejounte Murray, Trey Murphy); and, still hanging around, the Golden State Warriors (Stephen Curry, Draymond Green, and mid-season addition Jimmy Butler).  Any of these teams could jell and threaten a run at the title. 
3.   One big star, plus adjuncts:  Milwaukee Bucks (Giannis Antetokounmpo); Atlanta Hawks (Trae Young), Detroit Pistons (Cade Cunningham); Minnesota Timber Wolves (Anthony Edwards); Phoenix Suns (Devin Booker); Miami Heat (Bam Adebayo); Memphis Grizzlies (Ja Morant); Toronto Raptors (Scottie Barnes); Indiana Pacers (without Halliburton, Pascal Siakam); and Cleveland Cavaliers (Donovan Mitchell).  All of these teams have had significant success in recent years, some winning the title and others making runs as recently as last season, but typically teams like this can get hot and make the playoffs behind their star but don't get far. It's quite likely they will be rebuilding soon, possibly by trading their big stars, or going for it by trying to add more talent (Indiana will just lay low for one season). 
4.  Rebuilding, or Not:  Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards, Utah Jazz, Portland Trail Blazers, Charlotte Hornets, Brooklyn Nets.  These teams don't look to be competitive.  Brooklyn has disbanded their previous mashup entirely and drafted five in the first round, who will all be playing.  The problem with building through the draft is that it typically takes 2-3 years before these teenage one-and-dones can reach their potential, if they ever do, and in the meantime soak up a whole lot of money. 

Baseball

This is the one US sport for which I exhibit true fan behavior, as in illogical emotional following of a team, in the context of general love for the sport and its history.* Here, I'm talking about the Cincinnati Reds+, the team for which I have been "tifo" (the Italian word for fan behavior, comes from the word for typhoid fever) since the early '60's.  Thus, I was totally there for their glorious run in the '70's, the legendary Big Red Machine (one of the top five starting lineups of all time), and their shocking World Series sweep of the proud Oakland A's in 1990 (thank you, Lou Piniella and the Nasty Boys reliever corps). 

The Reds made the playoffs, legitimately but just barely backing into them with a record just barely with more wins than losses, then lost in the preliminary "Wild Card" round to one of the best teams, the somewhat under-performing defending champion Los Angeles Dodgers. For that defeat, I will root fervently for the Dodgers to go out, until they do, just as I root against the Yankees every year since they beat the Reds in the World Series in 1961 (!) Somehow, the Baltimore Orioles, who beat the Reds in 1970's Series, don't draw the same opprobrium from me, as they are similarly a smaller-market, rarely dominant team (though the Yankees haven't really dominated in the last 20 years, either). 

As for the rest:  well, the playoffs are down to four teams, none of which were clear favorites at my last sports take, but ended up with the best regular-season records due to strong second-half performance (the Phillies were the other team with a top regular season, but they faded in the playoffs due to the injury to their best pitcher, Zach Wheeler): the Milwaukee Brewers and Dodgers in the National League, and the Seattle Mariners and Toronto Blue Jays in the American League. This over-representation of small-market teams is a nightmare for the World Series TV ratings, especially if the Dodgers and legendary superstar Shohei Ohtani go out. Several teams faded badly and left their fans sorely disappointed:  the Detroit Tigers, Houston Astros, New York Mets, and Boston Red Sox come to mind.  At least the Reds did not disappoint, really, and they have the potential to improve and come closer to championship-level contention with just a good move or two. The Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians are two others that are comparably on the verge. 

I do have a bit of a beef with how baseball is going these days.  This discussion of the "Three True Outcomes":  strikeout, walk, and home run has the whole major-league game oversimplifying things tremendously.  The notion of "hit them where they ain't" (ancient wisdom for putting the ball in play, strategically if possible) has disappeared, despite the game's rulemakers seeking to blunt the trend toward player shifts to take away the prevalent field that batters would put their batted balls toward.  And bunting? Forgeddaboutit!  

One good trend, though, is the re-emergence of the stolen base, for those who can do it, because pitchers are so focused on getting that strikeout that they barely notice what the runners on base are doing.  So much so that their arms get weary after five-six innings, and straining of the pitching arm's ulnar collateral ligament has become an epidemic (leading to the so-called "Tommy John surgery" where they put a new one in, just below the elbow).  This bothers me much more than the innovations to juice up public interest, like the time clock for pitchers, limiting mound visits of catchers and coaches, and the "ghost runner" they put on second base in the extra innings, to make the games shorter (not used in the playoffs).  

As with the NBA, the major leagues show more and more players not born in the USA all the time.  I insist that this is a positive development for the sport, broadening its participation attractiveness beyond the US (the NFL shows no such inclination, despite the highly popular one-off games they set up abroad).  In the long run, though, we should be encouraging "norteamericanos" to take up the game when young, rather than the brutality and short careers of American football and the impossibly long odds of making it in the NBA (even for those blessed with height of two meters or more). 

*My previous true fan experiences were with University of Kentucky basketball--I wept at their loss in 1965 to Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in the NCAA finals.  I later learned that I was totally politically incorrect in the history of the game, and should have eschewed the all-white Wildcats in favor the breakthrough all-black Texas Western team.  I'm still a UK backer, but I will also root for their in-state rival, University of Louisville:  both have provided major emotional lifts to me over the years, though I'm a bit perturbed U of L sold out and left the Big East for the second-tier Atlantic Coast Conference (the conference is really just second-tier in football, though one of the top ones in basketball).  

The other fan-like experience was when I was living in New York in the '80's and '90's, the era of Patrick Ewing, John Starks, etc. and I had part-share of season tickets.  They never quite won the championship then, and since have consistently for decades, though now they show some major signs of potential life.  Too late for me, though.  

+I was a youth in Louisville, Kentucky, just down the Ohio River from Cincinnati, named for the inspiring example of Cincinnatus, a Roman "dictator" (their word) from the fifth century B.C. who led a military victory then returned to private life, preserving for a while their republic.  We need some like him now!  In those days of the early Sixties, we just had the "Game of the Week" on TV (Dizzy Dean and PeeWee Reese, usually the Yankees, Dodgers, or Giants vs. somebody), so I was brought up listening to the Reds' games on the radio. 

 

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.  

 

Diplomacy in the Age of Indiscretion

 When Trump meets Putin in their summit in Alaska, he should start out in the way he does with all the other heads of state--demand the outrageous, as a gift.  In this case, Kamchatka:  I'm sure he has learned its strategic importance, like Greenland's, from playing Risk.  He can claim the Russians have not properly developed its colonization there, no doubt citing some disaffected indigenous complaints, or manufacturing them. Truth is, the population of that wintry and volcanic wilderness has dropped 40% in the last 3 decades.  He's been saying publicly that there would be a "swap", with territories going both ways.  I'm pretty sure he knows the Russians will not give back their conquered lands in the Ukraine, so maybe this?  Doing this would let Putin know that his is no longer automatically a "most favored nation" in Trump's eyes, unless the Russians kowtow.  

Why would he think he could be the arrogant strongman with Putin, when he has been so pusillanimous toward him in the past?  The key could be the Epstein Files virus; since it is out, and he is (partially) outed, perhaps the compromat that Putin had on him all along is no longer so salient.  Just a theory; I'm sure Vladimir has a few details he could remind Donald of, if they get a moment to speak privately.  The tipoff will be if Trump is his usual overconfident, aggressive self, or if he is deferential to the little thug. In this particular case, I'm looking for the bully side to come out, here on our own turf. 

There are enough other topics that Russia and the US could have a productive summit without spoiling it with unproductive yelling sessions about Ukraine.  You know, nuclear weapons, the fate of mankind, that kind of thing. At least the Ukraine war kiss-off could be scheduled toward the end of the meeting, with everyone going back to their corners afterwards.  If, at the end of that session, Trump is in the corner with Russia, he will have failed country and mankind once again.  

Since we expect nothing, our President must be instructed to tell Putin he will not win his war, that this is his chance to avoid failure.  To drive the point home, if the meeting fails utterly, sanctions should be expected.  But more:  Trump should subtly get Putin to understand there would be an increase in Ukraine's armaments, should there not be, at a minimum, a ceasefire.  Call it an armistice, it sounds more official. 

I do hope I'm not too late with this advice.  

The International Court of Justice Would Say It's Against the Law

 Its recent ruling was clear and directive:  climate change causes harm to people, therefore it is expected that states will do what they can to mitigate the damage.  If they do not, they are liable.  That responsibility is not only for those countries which have entered into international accords, or in our case that have exited them abruptly, or that have committed themselves (or have not done so) to measures to reduce fossil fuel emissions.  Here's a legacy of Drumpfenreich 2.0 and its abhorrence of our natural environment--we will be paying for it for decades down the road. 

The ICJ is easily confused with the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague, Netherlands, an institution to which the USA does not belong.  The ICJ, on the other hand, is a central part of the UN's function, helping to define international law and adjudicate disputes, and the USA actually has a judge on the court's panel.  This "member" is Sarah Cleveland, appointed to the Court in 2024. So, we must obey? Tell it to the Republicans in Congress which just made policy going high-speed in reverse. 

Migration 

We in the US tend to think of this as our unique domestic issue, but it is not only a global one, it is intrinsic to human nature.  When it's not working out where they live, people will look to go somewhere they think gives them a better chance. This has been true since the earliest days of our species, and it's an important reason why we're still around.  

Is there not a basic human right to live where one wants to be?  Anyone might agree, in the abstract, that one should not be forced to stay, any more than that they be forced to leave. 

 Having said that, then all of the qualifications on that statement line up to oppose it.   There are, or should always be, many reasons to stay.  The impulse to go must be stronger than all one's many ties holding them back. In that sense, they are forced to leave--an important consideration in today's view of migrants.  In the more common case, there are ties to those who have gone before, and thus the scale is tipped more toward it being voluntary. In either case, though, there is the question of whether they could lose their right ever to return, which affects their choices and their status in society. .

Even more immediate for those departing, though, is the question of whether they can stay at their destination, if indeed they have had the luxury of choosing it.   The reaction of those already residing at the destination cover the entire range of responses, from effusive welcome to hostile gunfire.  Thus it has always been. 

In modern times, though, it has become a matter of the policy of nations with regard to the borders with their neighbors. For a century the US has been a leader in the strategy of defining limits on the numbers of immigrants permitted, factored by nation of origin of the immigrant.  It is the reduction in the effectiveness of those controls, which favor certain countries of origin, to which Trump rebels in the pattern of recent migration originating from the southern border.  To be clear, that means not enough racism of the right kind. 

Regardless of the regrettable Trump policies, which are extreme in the sense that they violate that basic right to remain where one lives, compounding it with brutality and the most destructive of motives, the Democrats have lacked a counter-strategy that has any electoral effectiveness.  In retrospect, I would say it was not their adherence to principle that was the problem but a lack of flexibility to the dynamics of intra-continental migration.  Going forward, they should advocate for adhering to those natural, age-old principles, like neighboring countries being the first refuge for forced refugees, national discretion over  the volumes of voluntary migrants based on economic and social considerations, global responsibility for reconstruction, preventive action to avoid environmental disasters.  

 

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.  

Lisa, Lisa...

 

Senator Murkowski's agreement to vote in favor of a bill she largely opposed, in exchange for some "carve-out" benefits for her Alaskan constituents could easily be excused as the classic small-state bargaining.  It happens routinely that a vote is locked up in exchange for some concessions.  The problem was the timing of her sellout, when it was clear that her vote could be decisive.  If she and her conference leadership had arranged her betrayal sooner, it would not have stood out so much, though she is always one of the key votes.  She is this term's Manchin/Sinema, along with the only other one of her endangered GOP faction, Susan Collins. 

 

Murkowski has resisted such temptations before, as with the vote in Drumpfenreich 1.0 to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but not this time.  Surely, Lisa, you can see that the harm to your fellow countrymen should outweigh the compensatory gains a few Alaskans will get. 

 

For that reason, because it is so obvious, I would assert that her political career is essentially finished.  She does not have to run again until 2028, but she would have little chance then:  none except for the unpredictability of a three-way race.  She may have gotten back the party base, though I doubt it, as they will remember many demerits, MAGA-wise.  On the other hand, she will no longer have the luster which attracted many moderate Democrats and Independents in the past, which got her through the tough times with the state's party.  Since she should see this to be true, and her legacy is the only question anyway (since she would lose if she voted against, also), why would she choose the path of future shame?  Is something covering your eye? 

 

Her comment afterwards was either disingenuous or foolish in the extreme.  She hoped the House would remediate some of the additional poison the Senate added in its version of the bill.* It is precisely because of her and the concessions to her that House Republicans cannot afford to touch the bill in any way.   I feel that most of what the House would add would then be rejected by the Senate, so that is earnestly to be wished, but I am afraid that won't be allowed.  So, that is why the House Republicans will vote on it just as it is when coming over, swallowing their objections.   

 

On the other hand, if that limitation means the bill will fail in this added-malignancy version, then I will credit her with Machiavellian tactics and insight. 

Which Is the Worst Part? 

I am willing to debate the question, but I would say that it is the set of measures to repeal our efforts to slow climate change.  That is true, self-mortifying reaction. 

Second would be the increased funding for ICE and for the border wall, though that is only what we should expect of this administration. 

The principle of encouraging continuing chaos (such as Trump-Musk) remains valid.  Since every product of Drumpfenreich 2.0 will be of negative value, it follows logically that anything that reduces that product is at least possibly relatively beneficial.  By this, I don't mean to obstruct Federal proceedings (as Trump did), but stalemate is our friend.  

 

*I've heard that Chuck Schumer proclaimed he had successfully renamed the bill.  I would suggest that it will be/should be known as the "Lisa Murkowski" bill.  

I am Furious (Yellow)*

 

 

King D------d  issued a threat yesterday in a conversation with another fascistic American President (Bukele of El Salvador), that "home-grown" US citizens would be captured and sent to Bukele's house of horrors prison there, with no recourse, as the Drumpfenreich has done with the asylum-seeking Maryland resident, the native Salvadorean Kilmar Abrego Garcia.  Just label his opponents as "terrorists", with or without any evidence, and make them disappear.

Do I find this threat credible?  No, in the sense that one cannot simply believe that anything Trump says is a) serious; or b) not a lie.  I have no doubt that he would like to be able to do it, if he felt that he could, but he's lacking the means to do such a thing to natural-born citizens, whose status and ability to block illegal arrest is different from those we are hosting as asylum-seekers or those foreigners who have no legal immigration documentation or have overstayed their visas.  If he continues to get his way with the Supreme Court, which so far seems to want to play ball with Trump in a mistaken belief he will abide by constraints they put upon him, the next step would be to try this stunt with naturalized citizens, or those whose citizenship comes from first-generation birthright within the nation's territory.  Creeping totalitarianism from the asshole contingent.

Still, a threat is a threat, and this is one of existential proportions, and in response all US citizens should consider their responses, and "nothing is off the table", as Trump himself likes to say.  Though I may be slightly optimistic in thinking this would not happen to me, I am laying down two red lines as regards myself and my dear ones.  The first is arbitrary application of the famous "no fly list" from the government  upon us, which would take away a fundamental liberty, and the second is his half-serious suggestion that he would seek a constitutionally-prohibited third term.  Sure, he could do the latter legally if he were to get a constitutional amendment--go for it!  Otherwise, rebellion in defense of our constitution is something I would be compelled to seek.  

The View from Italy

I'm in the second month of a long vacation from the US political maelstrom, my physical presence in which is intolerable to this person, at this time.  I wanted to be gone from the get-go of Drumpfenreich 2.0, but I was convinced to delay the trip a bit longer to get some of the beautiful spring weather springing out all over here.  It's about quality of life, and the 90-day limit of my visa.

Of course, one can't get away completely from it, and here it is all over the news:  the talk of the "dazi" (tariffs) and mention of "Tramp" (or, sometimes "Trampa")--Italians don't really have the short "u" vowel sound, and don't usually end words with a hard consonant, either.  There is something appropriate about calling our fraudster a tramp, or suggesting (in my mind) how he is "trampa-ling" over our republic.

Italy's current coalition government is in a unique position within the European Union, which is providing it certain advantages in the ongoing war--of words, more than actual economic warfare--between the US government and the EU.  The three parties that make up the government range from center-right (Forza Italia, the former Silvio Berlusconi party), xenophobic right (the Lega, which has successfully pivoted from a Northern Italian party hostile to Southern Italians--the Northern League-- to a nationalistic one hostile to all other nations not headed by authoritarians), to the hard-right Fratelli d'Italia (Fd'I in the local shorthand), headed by Giorgia Meloni, the head of the national government (the Council of Ministers, the parliamentary head, as opposed to the titular head of state, the non-partisan President of Italy).  The three parties are not aligned on everything:  a key example is with regard to Ukraine.  Forza Italia is very pro-Ukraine, the Lega's head, Salvini, is pro-Putin, while Meloni takes a moderate view, respecting the EU's support for Ukraine but opposed to any direct involvement of the Italian military.  They are pretty much aligned on hostility to illegal immigrants coming across the Mediterranean from Africa, and expecting the EU to back them up on preventing their assimilation into Italian society, which is probably the most important domestic issue apart from the economy.   They aren't having much trouble so far in beating down the disunited center-left and left nationally, or in several of the larger, more centrist regional and local governments.

In a lineup of the heads of European governments, or of the G7, Meloni is by far the shortest person in stature, but she is not short at all on ability.  She speaks well and has shown some agility in policy and in minimizing the obvious historical lineage of her party to the postwar neo-fascists and their nostalgia for Mussolini. She, among all the heads of European governments, has the best direct relationship with Trump, and thus she is more able to reason with the US (to the extent anyone can reason with these idiots) than the official EU representatives, whom Trump disparages and mistreats.  She can't really toe a separate line from the EU on trade, but her influence probably helped the EU getting the proposed 25% tariffs down to a more survivable 10%. Of course, the tariff rate is not reciprocal (yet), as the EU had very low tariffs with their ally and trading partner, the US, pre-Drumpf. (I am considering advising my non-governmental Italian friends to refer to him as that, which would be a good, insulting name-calling for him--it sounds, and is, German, and, though the Germans have come a long way forward, there is still some residual resentment among Italians.)

One last Italian-Trump note:  in Italian, there is a phrase called "prendere in giro" which is used very frequently.  The usage means joking, or teasing, and is only slightly aggressive.  It literally means "to take (someone) for a ride".  It applies perfectly to the Trump/Bukele disingenuity (is that a word?) about who can return poor, abducted Abrego Garcia and why neither one of them will do it.  Also, they literally took him for a ride, but not the circular one the phrase implies.

* I am quite serious about my fury, but I couldn't resist the Dad-like reference to the Swedish porno film of the '60's, "I am Curious (Yellow)".   Trump's administration is pornographic, in the worst sense of the word, but I admit to being somewhat physically a coward when it comes to frontal confrontation to it at this time.