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.   

 

  

  

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. 

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%.  

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.

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.

Artificial Intelligence, All the Time?

A Conspiracy Theory

So what are Elon & Co. doing with all that data?   One thing I'm pretty sure of, and one I suspect. The first is using the data to train AI machines to do as much of the work as possible. That work done by humans, and that which occurs more automatically, but is supervised by humans.   He can't get rid of it all, despite trying real hard (!), but he could potentially get something like the classic 80/20 result, with 80% of many departments reassigned (to a bot). If he wires the data up properly, he could even run his machine learning programs on the data without even having to swipe it all, in which case it's legal. Then someone else can figure out the rest, and he can go back to playing rocket ships.

The basic thinking is that if the civil servant gets this particular function right 95% of the time, the AI machine can get it 98%.  That will apply to some functions, without a doubt.  The 2% of what remains of that function, you can get the remains of the civil service corps to work on.  It all sounds awful, and it is, but that's the logic. 

That second thing, though, my conjecture, is that he wants the data, for commercial purposes (100% illegal), but that he will disguise that when (not if) he downloads the data.  He will have to separate name from social, at a minimum, with the data attached to one or the other but not both.  The data mining itself and the machine learning do not need the name, and the social is of limited predictive value (though there is some intelligence in it). 

This is the tricky part:  the data can be made available more broadly, within the government or beyond, in this separated way--the user would have to use inference to make full use of it.  There could be an encrypted key to put the two together, or a series of them, and the US Government would have the exclusive access to this key stuff. 

 Except for the backdoors his coders put in to control the flow of money. And the copies he's made on the sly.

The New Era

It is incontrovertible that we have moved on from what history will eventually know as the Postwar Era.  We have reached the point by which many people might have no idea which "War" that phrase describes; a vanishing few have live memories of World War II; a few more recall the devastation out of which this period emerged.  The period we finished had two principal parts:  the Cold War, and the one which followed.  That one is over, but it doesn't really have a name yet, as it's too soon.  I would say--sincerely-- it was the Golden Age of the US, which would not please our current Presidential officeholder to hear, the next one being the Age of Golden Showers?

Now, though, the US wants to be just one among many--globally, and arguably, even in our half of the populated world, America (the Western Hemisphere).  Brazil, Mexico, Canada, the more successful parts of Central America and the Caribbean--they won't allow themselves to be dominated by the Monroe Doctrine, no more. In the Pacific, we strain to maintain; in Africa, the fastest-growing continent in population, we are losing the game fast.  

Culturally, too, we are entering a different direction than that which has been predominant.  The five nations which "won the war" and together formed the United Nations, giving themselves veto powers--the US, UK, France, Soviet Union (given to Russia), and China--have been among a handful of nations which have hosted international development--above all, in military might, but also in music, visual arts, and above all, rapid changes in technology.  Social development has been mostly continuous and slow --there have been real improvements in women's rights, in combating racial inequity in some nations, in feeding the world--but international political progress from the original UN Charter has been halting and is now being abandoned.  The clearest examples are global efforts to slow climate change or limit nuclear weapons.  Liberal democratic and social democratic values rise and fall in the esteem of the people, who are guided by the simple, sound principle that they would rather have their nations--always nations!--do what most want, rather than not (the way of kings and dictators who do what they want). Now, so many are feeling that they are not getting it. 

Nevertheless, so far, resistance in the 21st century has been reactive, generally nonviolent.  We don't see much new coming forward, politically.  Now come the destructive technology masters, culturally everywhere and now politically coming to dominate the US Federal government:  they are promising something new, in effect. 

We just need to cede.  

If only humans would give up this silly notion that they need to control things, we could operate much more efficiently!!  A good example is the driverless car situation, currently stalled.  There is a tipping point, I would guess it's about 75%, when the driverless cars will be able to stop worrying so much about the crazy things people-driven cars do and can just send signals back and forth from the vehicles on the net and things will work much better.  The cars will go much more efficiently and faster, without errors (except the occasional hallucination, I guess, but we're working on that!)--The tech bros.  

It is already a fact that first point of contact for consumers is going to be a chatbot, in most cases.  Voice response, sure, but the real question is whether you can get to a human and what you have to do to get to it.  I don't see that changing anytime soon, though the battlelines will shift back and forth at any particular entity, along with the location housing the humans or machines, and based on the needs of the shareholder, whoever that might be.  

So, that's when you're reaching out to them.  There's also the other side, though:  we call it marketing. What ad you're going to see when, what video or sound is in it when you get it, what email, what response to your polite inquiry.  

My request for legislation is a simple one:  in those cases, when what you are being presented is pure AI, there needs to be a bug that you can click that will tell you so--also what program or series of programs is being used, and that's that.  Or, if it is AI but there is a human behind it who has specifically approved or edited it, then that person is not wholly anonymous but can be accountable in some sense.  That's all I ask; then the consumer can judge the content knowing its provenance. 

 

The US A-I Disease

By this I mean that we have an Auto-Immune problem as we devour ourselves alive.  The first briefing is on the Federal Government arising from the remains of the Trumpist gluttonous assault.  The next post will have some comments based on what I know about the other AI--artificial intelligence--and what we should be looking to do about it.  

A Functional View of the Federal Government

The Constitution says that all of it is divided in three parts.* Structurally, that is somewhat true; Congress and our court system remain, and I will expect that they will survive the coming disaster intact; however, those two branches are not very important in the gigantic money/power game of Washington, now that Congress has yielded control of the purse strings to Emperor Elon. Those two branches have become, at best, referees; realistically, bystanders and check-writers; and in the worst case, servile order-takers. All the action, though, is in the Executive Branch, the result of several decades of gradually increasing powers to the President, increasing difficulty for effective oversight for it, and the ascension of an individual without restraint in using its powers. 

I identify four main functions of our central government; I will describe each briefly, and then consider what damage is most likely to it from The D------d's maladministration in the next four years. 

The first is the set of functions which maintain the constitutional structure itself.  So far, I don't see Trump successfully destroying it, as he finds its cracks and limitations very useful, and more often than not he gets what he wants from it in the end.  For example, many feel that defying court orders will mean the end of "rule of law".  Apart from the fact that the only people who really believe we can rely on that to be applied fairly are lawyers, and rapidly less of them, I don't see an authentic legal battle royal arising from this type of unlawful action, which--in the few cases the administration actually definitively loses--will be deflected, appealed, delayed, and if necessary, ignored.   Apart from that, these operations (such as in the Executive Office, Congressional operations, court officers, the Archives) will be the part most stubbornly defended, even sometimes by Republicans. Generally, the institutions behind them survive even in the absence of democratic governance, though their functions are gutted or corrupted. In our 21st-century politics, they are extremely difficult to modify, partly due to the partisan stalemate, and also because they are designed to be resistant to much change. Governmental institutions provide some legitimacy even to the worst regimes; if they disappear, it's worse than just a failed state, it's near-anarchy.

The second area is taking the revenues or other funds and paying them out.  This is the big growth area of government in the 20th century, but we seem to find that growth to be too much for us today. The DOGE boys are focusing on this one, because "that's where the money is", as the historic bankrobber said. There are vast areas for potential abuse and theft in this function, which is something like 15% of our entire GDP,  a few trillion dollars a year.  Some, like Social Security, are paid directly to US persons,, and those will be extremely difficult to cut because of the political pain involved.  The better targets are the pass-through payments through middle-men; USAID may be very beneficial, but it's a middleman that passes money to other middlemen, and that's why it's a viable target.  That, and the fact that there is little or no political cost to cutting any or all foreign aid in this self-centered political environment. Medicare and Medicaid are indirect payments for the most part, and they will be targeted indirectly--cutting those outlays will end up being the principal function of unworthy HHS Secretary Kennedy.  Look for less of those medical tests that doctors order to cover all possibilities being approved in advance.  

SNAP (food stamps) is a bit of a functional hybrid, as the benefit is direct to the consumer, but the payments are to the food providers; I don't know about its efficiency as a program, but it can't be eliminated and could become very important in the next domestic economic crisis. Similarly, FEMA generally provides benefits one step removed from the direct recipients; that is an agency that is easy to criticize but will become even more indispensable in the future.

In general, there are going to be permanent reductions in the transfers from our taxpayer dollars to most categories of recipients..  Whether this is a positive or negative would depend on your relation to the indirect US payments which are going to reduce.  There are exceptions, though:  I see the Department of Energy getting more money to subsidize a return to nuclear power in private industry, in order to enhance crypto, in the short run, and to reduce our fossil fuel dependence in the future; also, I see Trump passing more money to Elon, Inc. because Space--Trump digs it. 

I want to say something here about the deadline for Congress to do something to head off a government shutdown and subsequent default.  Although Trump pats Speaker Johnson on the back and says "go to it", Johnson's task--to fund all of Trump's spending and tax cuts--is next to impossible with just his Republican House conference and no Democratic votes.  The Mumps know this and are enjoying it; I believe that one scenario they like is a a brief cessation of most "non-essential" Federal functions, and then being able to selectively re-start the ones they want.  Of course, if they get everything they want from a suppliant Congress, that's great, too, but it's got to be everything.  So, it's hard to believe that will happen unless the House Republicans get more unified by desperation than they appear to be.  The Democrats don't want a shutdown as such, but they do want the situation where Johnson needs votes, and they are preparing their demands.  An end to the illegal usurpation of control of spending is part of them, I know, a part that I don't think they will get.  I'd say probability of a shutdown of any length in March is about 80%, though the length of it is harder to estimate.

I see a populist opportunity to make this principal government function more one of moving money or wealth from those who have a whole lot of it to the less-wealthy, something that should be popular. That may even become essential to keep the peace internally, but the only route I can see that happening during Trump 2.0 is a necessary, bipartisan recognition that the cutoff income on earners' Social Security tax must go.  And that will only happen if the Democratic lawmakers can insist on it in the few cases--there may be only one--where they will have some leverage on Congress during Drumpfenreich.  They must do it (demographic tick-tick)! Look for tax rates to be the cleavage point Democrats can push in 2028.

The third area is composed of those areas of actual services that the Federal government provides.  These are fewer than you might think.  Start with the Veterans Administration, the National Park Service, and then the big one, our military, the service in that case being our national security  ("Thank you for your service!").  These are going to be hard to cut significantly; there will be savings found in Defense, but a lot more spending than those cuts will be forthcoming, especially in a needed effort to try to ramp up lagging enlistments.  There are some smaller service areas (in terms of expenditure) that might be more vulnerable to Mump attack: the Federal Reserve (banks get lots of service), the hated Internal Revenue Service (in my view, pretty efficient and user-friendly compared to state tax agencies), and the Foreign Service. The State Department is, again, an easy target temporarily, though I believe it will get new attention, post-Trump, as being much less costly to get favorable outcomes than the military route. Most Federal government services (apart from the military) have a pretty bad popular reputation, deserved or not, but they are not going away.

The fourth area, and the one that is most vulnerable of all of them, is the set of agencies whose principal functions are making, and enforcing, rules and regulations.  Here we've got a lot of alphabet soup:  EPA, OSHA, FDA, NRC, SEC, FEC, NLRB, and ACA (a/k/a Obamacare).  Any long-term legal basis for these organizations to maintain themselves was gutted last year by the Supreme Court; their very survival depends on continued goodwill from the Executive.  ACA has a statutory basis but that means nothing without the subsidy transfer payments which go alongside, the money going to insurers. Within this category, there are a couple other agencies the functions of which also combine the two most vulnerable areas, both giving money to entities and making rules.  That's the Department of Education and the National Institute of Health, both prime Muskrat targets.

 

  

The Best, the OK, and Worst of the So Far

In terms of assessing the value and liabilities (to the US) arising from the whirlwind of activity and blather in these early days, there is the challenge of looking at the downstream effects, including the unintended ones.  As with Biden's successful legislative initiatives, it will take years to realize them--that is, for the real effects to show, economically, politically, and otherwise. 

I will give credit to the Trump administration for two of their many initiatives.  First, it's time finally to get rid of the penny.  I would combine that with increased production of the half-dollar and dollar coins--I wouldn't even mind if the God Emperor and his Presidential assistant were stamped onto one of them together, but only one (they could put a picture of the Gulf of D------d I on the back).  The second is Trump's strategy in applying his favorite tool, tariffs.  The deceptive part of the tariff strategy is that he probably thinks it's a source of revenue to cover some of the new tax cuts (and renewal of the ones from his last term). In that he will be disappointed; however, the move toward reciprocal application of tariffs, instead of unilateral ones (which wouldn't remain unilateral for long) is sensible.  If successful, it could actually help reduce prices on some imports, which is not what we were expecting.      

I will give a guarded "OK" rating on Trump's rapid successes in getting his Cabinet and top "leadership" positions in his administration approved.  (I'm not referring to Musk, here, as a different description of his role applies.)  We need to accept the general rule that Presidents can choose their principal direct reports in most cases. There were a couple, or a few, qualified folks, such as Rubio at State, or Bessent at Treasury.  There were many, many whose main qualification was loyalty to Trump, but who will be in roles where the damage they will be required to cause is less, because the political leverage for his abuse through them is also less--not that they will produce anything of value (e.g. Interior, Commerce, all the ambassadors he gifted cushy jobs).  There are a couple in hugely important roles for our nation who are terrible appointments, but because they are so incapable of adding value they will just be ignored, or overruled (Hesgeth, Gabbard).  So far, Pam Bondi looks to be one of those who relied on lies and her good looks to get approved and will turn out to be much worse than we thought. The one I despise most, Kennedy in HHS, is awful, but just how much actual damage he will do to our health is yet to be clear, because he dissembled his way through all the contradictions between his own policies and the administration's. The worst will be Patel in the FBI, but I am 100% certain he will not make it through his ten-year appointment; if he makes it through ten months, that will be a lot.  I expect about the same for the likes of Hesgeth and Gabbard, whose roles continue at the sufferance of the President.

As for his foreign policy so far, I'm pleased he hasn't taken any real-world moves yet, but I'm not optimistic.  He looks ready to do Ukraine dirty. I understand that Trump is under a lot of pressure to make a deal with Putin quickly, given his campaign promise.  Bringing Ukraine's Zelensky into the negotiations would slow things down, so he will look to have him or his representatives in the next room, not the one "where it happens".  As things proceed I will make more comments on this and try to draw some lines in the ground (or "in the air") on items he must, or must not, agree with Putin to impose on Ukraine.

 I've said enough about how his attitude will play in the other countries making up the rest of America--not well, in general, but the dictators there will successfully play him. As for the Middle East, I think his stupid Gaza ethnic-cleansing-idea burn scars will teach him very quickly that he should try to stay out of it and believe less in Netanyahu's false assurances, except to cultivate Saudi money for himself and his family.  Finally, the relationship that's long-term most important, with China, will be fascinating to watch.  I am hopeful that he will give Xi the respect that will make all the difference, despite all the potential areas of conflict (economic and worse). 

So, not great, but, like challenging the constitution, he hasn't done the Really Bad Thing yet--we can hope he won't.  The Ukraine war has shown us just how bad 21st-century war is--random, inhuman, destruction with no inherent limitation. 

With regard to the much-touted "mass deportations", let's be real.  This administration is headed down a path bound to fail to satisfy anyone.  There will be deportations, as there always are and will be; they might be marginally higher than previous administrations, but the goal should be to avoid political disaster, which can only be accomplished by being more circumspect about them and considering the characteristics of the individuals captured more closely.  So far, reports are quite bad; they could get much worse. 

When we look at the very worst of Trump's first month in the job, it's the preparations for extreme corruption and double-dealing.  The firing of the head of the Office of Government Ethics and of several departmental Inspectors General cannot be justified and can only be understood as taking away friction from his future plans for slimy abuses and theft.  The other thing that looks extremely suspicious to me was the capture of the Treasury Department's database. They lied about whether the access was "Read-Only"; c'mon, these kids are coders.  I'm not sure whether they were able to download data, which would be illegal (and Elon's wet dream), but what I suspect is that they have put in some backdoor shit which would allow Trump to have a kill-switch on any given payment.  That may be why some frozen payments which the courts have ordered to be restored have not yet resumed.  

The major damage he's making across our Federal civil service will take 5-10 years to reverse, in order to restore qualified pros to departments' middle levels. The "spoil system" is back, and it will take an enlightened administration to end it again for this century's government.  Whether through firings, voluntary retirement, intimidated resignation, or the so-called "buyouts", the best civil servants will be leaving, understandably given the directions they would otherwise be given to administer.. The damage caused by this devolution of human resources will be largely inseparable from all that is caused by the administration's policies, so the need to go back to the future may not be as obvious as it should be.

The big question is when Trump's finagling and assaults on our government will make their disastrous effects visible even to the low-information voters here. The basic scenario I am seeing is a run on the dollar, accompanied by increasing inflation along with increased unemployment.  (Yes, he can!) Whether that will result in a recession sooner or later may depend on the direction of the Fed, but like the 2008 recession, it may be beyond the capability of monetary policy to control when it occurs, and in any case Trump's policies are consistently inflationary, so his promises to reduce prices have little or no validity..

Bottom line is that, like that Liberty Bell, our bell of liberty isn't ringing too clearly with that big crack.  I'm hoping that, unlike a windshield crack, we can keep it from spreading throughout until we make the proper repair/replacement.

That's about all I ever plan to say about this damned administration, though I will return to foreign policy, along with the all-important state elections and the House ones in 2025-26 as opportunities to go into those prioritized subjects arise.  I won't wish this crew good luck; they've already had more than they deserve.  I have called this a constitutional crisis and a slow-motion train wreck for at least a decade now.  The fact that some wheels ran off the rails once again is clear, but maybe a 21st-century train can find its way back to the station somehow. 

* Like that previous Caesar said about Gaul.

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. 

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!

Now, More Leisurely

Fearless. No panic here.  And I object to the term "bed-wetting"--find another term, preferably a one-word one already in the language.  I'm not going to help you. 

We are now, most likely, in the "Biden Weakened" scenario I covered back in September.  We are not yet in the "Biden Out" one.  And there is still a chance opinion will snap back magnetically to its poles, a reversion to the "Status Quo" of a 49-47 race, pick your leader. *  In fact, it's unclear whether we've moved from that in the general polling horserace question; the results so far are mixed, but with concerning signals from swing states.

Examining that data, leaked via Puck from a polling report done for a Biden PAC,  I will explain exactly what happened from the debate.  The document shows a comparison of answers, from May to post-debate, to the question whether

 "Biden should step aside and suspend his campaign so a different Democrat can
run against Donald Trump"

vs. the opposite, that he should continue.  That went from 43-38-19 (step aside-continue-not sure) to 52-32-16.  That tracks to 9 of the previous 19% "Not Sure" moving to "Step Aside" and 6 of the previous 38% "Continue" moving to "Not sure".  Count me as among those 6%. 

"I...Finally...Beat...Medicare"

Yes, I was one of those 60 million or so who witnessed live (on TV) those immortal words. Actually, I do know what he meant,++ but that's a different discussion.  His performance that night was, in a word, pitiful.  It was really that bad, from the opening hoarse cough to the failed opportunity in his closing, when he mumbled statistics of achievements instead of offering a vision for the future.  He seemed to be a case of too much cramming of information and too little meditation or sleep.  Or the wrong medication, of course--he did have that strange look in his eyes.

But I also mean that word "pitiful" in the sense that I have pity for him.  First of all, with regard to the alleged jet-lag, I am sympathetic, having just gone through it. Your rhythms are disrupted due to transoceanic travel, and they don't necessarily respond the way you want.  When you get older, the things that go first are recovery and stamina--that's authoritative from me.  Second, there is the fact that this is the hardest job in the world, requiring the most of the office-holder, but giving them overwhelming power and responsibility.  There is no way around this fact, for the present.  He has done four years, and should be able to cheerfully go off into the sunset ("Silver Rider").  Things can go quickly, at that age, but I'm not convinced that has happened.

The reason he has not even fully considered the thought is the monster who was across the stage from him, who was busy saying monstrous things while trying not to appear quite as monstrous, this time. I briefly considered Trump's implied offer when he said, in effect, "the only reason I am running at all is because he (Biden) has done so badly".  Does he mean that he would drop out of the race, if only Biden would?  Then I realized:  Trump has to run, and win, or go to prison after the election. So, that wouldn't work. 

The third reason I pity him is that now, after this debate, he must go out on the campaign trail, in a serious way (my wife sagely recommends Townhalls, in which he has done well) for days, or at least a week or so, in which he will be examined microscopically.  As Speaker Pelosi said, it's now fair game.   After that, with additional data, he can make the considered, unhurried decision:  do I want to go through 3+ more months of this?  I will live with that decision. 

The deadline, apparently, is a few days before the party's National Committee has scheduled a "meeting" later this month to "nominate" Biden, so that he will be on the ticket in Ohio.  If they don't do it by some date, one that is before the convention which would formally nominate him, then there will not be the Democratic nominee on the ballot in Ohio, an unacceptable result (even to Sherrod Brown, who once again has the challenge of his career to hold the seat).   So, this was already set, a moment that could be decisive, though it was supposed to be a formality (like January 6, 2021, say).   

I will say right now that I hope that Biden is up to the challenge, takes it head on, and wins.  If he decides, after a few days of doing it, that he can not keep on doing that for 3+ more months, I hope that he suspends his campaign and endorses VP Kamala Harris to lead the ticket.  Others can throw their hats into the ring, but I'm OK with a quick, decisive outcome (and someone like Secy. Buttigieg as the VP nominee, Harris willing).  All those Democratic Governors can continue to work on how to take the country forward for their 2028 campaigns, which is what they have already been doing. 

*I estimated the probabilities of the seven scenarios just in April as: 

1-Trump Collapse - 30%, 2- Biden Weakened 5%; 3-Chaos - 10%; 4/5/6 Trump/Biden/Both Out - 5%; 7 - "Status Quo" 50% . 

But  at this moment I would say: 

        1 - 5%;  2- 50%; 3- 10%; 4, 6  <1%; 5 - (Biden Out) - 20%; Status Quo 15%.   

The scenario in which we are currently residing is probably the worst for the Democrats' chances in the election, from top to bottom. 

++He was talking about defeating the entrenched bureaucracy around Medicare to lower the cost of insulin.  You're welcome.

Biden Weakened

 It is painfully easy to imagine the situation in which President Biden cannot conduct a full-throated political campaign, though still able to function in his job.  It is one that is much more serious than the current state of Biden's compos mentis et corporalis, yet not death or even terminal illness or permanent incapacity.  It could even include his being an invalid for some period of time.  

It is not hard to see Biden adopting a nearly 100% digital, TV-based approach to the 2024 campaign under these circumstances, due to whatever health issues.  He almost did that in 2020, and it worked out okay. The circumstances will be different this time, and his minimal participation in public events, with no debates, will be noted by those whisperers who will not allow him to "do the FDR thing" (or maybe he would think of it as "doing the JFK thing").  He would be weakened, whenever it became general knowledge, anytime before the election. 

The critical question in assessing what could happen in such a circumstance is the timing. For this, it would be before the election. The 25th Amendment covers who acts as President, but not who would run for the office. No one's going to allow someone from the opposition to take the White House under those circumstances. So, the issue is what would be the effect on the election of a serious downturn in his health before the election? One where he doesn't step aside?

Whenever it becomes public, the stock market would surely take a tumble, a forerunner of a general near-panic. In this scenario, we assume Biden makes some sort of a "recovery" allowing him to soldier on. Which he would no doubt choose to do, other factors being equal.  

One other factor would be if some Democrats decide that this is too much, that their suspicion he can't complete the job has become a conviction, or even a certainty.  If Biden's obvious weakness shows before the nominating convention (Chicago, August; sound familiar?), a challenged President known to be unable to address the assembly could lead to disaster on the floor (see 1968).  Here, though, we're imagining Biden's survival in some form and going on to November.  Like Hubert Humphrey. 

As I recall, the Democrats' antics in '68 failed to convince "Democrat" George Wallace, who ran on a populist third-party and actually won 13% of the popular vote and several Southern states. Democratic splittism must wait for another time.  A third-party run by disaffected Democrats would be fatal. 

If Biden weakens very late in the general election campaign, the Democrats would have to cover themselves with agreement and public announcement on how electors pledged to Biden would vote on the equivalent of January 6, in 2025, if Joe were not going to be able to take the Oath of Office on January 20. Perhaps a President pro tempore of the Senate would be named, just in case, or perhaps Senate Democrats would block that in favor of Speaker Hakeem Jeffries taking the #2 spot in succession? 

That is all hypothetical, of course.  Some Biden weakness emerging very late in the campaign would be worst-case, as voters would be confused as to exactly whom they would be choosing to govern. A weakened Biden means a strengthened, enraged Donald Trump.  His bully nature would emerge, untrammeled. It has the potential to be the worst tragedy of all. 

Senate:  Without significant assistance from the President, several incumbent Senators would be in great danger.  Tester (MT) would have to run on his own, as would Sherrod Brown in Ohio; I feel Bob Casey (PA) would still be a winner.  But there could be trouble for Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Jacky Rosen (NV), while Manchin in WV then looks like a lost cause, and the party's push for Ruben Gallego in AZ to replace Sinema could fall victim to a weakened central party. 

We should expect the Republicans to regain control of the Senate in this scenario, Mitch or no Mitch. Something like  53-47 Republican looks like an average result given these conditions.  

House:  Though Democratic turnout might be reduced overall by such a demoralizing development, there might also be a countervailing strong push in heavily-Democratic districts to protect the nation from a complete Trumpist takeover. That might preserve the floor of the number of Democratic House districts.  Given the opportunities that exist to gain seats, there might even be a chance to get the majority back.  Unlike the Senate, where 60% of votes are needed for most purposes, in the House 50%+1 can get most things done.  (With a strong leader.)