2016 March 31^st

Yesterday came a column from Pat Buchanan who used some 70 year old advice from General Eisenhower to bolster his isolationist argument. Eisenhower was speaking of NATO when he said, “If in ten years, all American troops stationed in Europe have not been returned to the United States then this project will have failed.” NATO did not intervene in several instances of Soviet aggression against the rise of democratic movements in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. A nuclear war was possibly averted by their forbearance.

The Soviet Union is no more but Russia still lives under a dictator, an iron fisted ex KGB agent bent on expanding Russian influence. He has been effective because this expansion has come in communities that are largely ethnic Russian and Russian speaking. Most are enthusiastic about rejoining the Russian strongman. His continuing expansionist moves, however, will be limited by Russia’s disastrous economic problems. Those will continue as long as oil is cheap.

But then there is a 76 year old history lesson: In 1940 another dictator was annexing countries with populations ethnically congruent with his own. There was the Sudetenland, there was Austria and there were others and no one cried foul…and then there was Poland and that was the trigger for Buchanan’s “The Unnecessary War.” Buchanan knows history but his politics keep him from understanding it.

2016 March 30^th

Shall we play absurdities? OK, so these are not absurd matters to the people involved, but in the existential concerns of the nation they certainly are. First we have one Corey Lewandowski, a major adviser to Donald Trump, who is shown grabbing a reporter’s arm and pulling her away from attempting to question his employer. This is clearly seen from an overhead camera provided by Trump at his Jupiter, Florida, Golf Club where this happened. For a man to grab any portion of a woman’s anatomy is a no-no unless he is attempting to remove her from the path of a speeding car…and even then he better be grabbing his eight year old daughter.

And now for the absurdities: First off, Trump claims that Lewandowski never touched Michelle Fields; then when that was rendered nonsense by Trump’s own cameras, Trump claimed it was an insignificant “bump” such as he himself might have received in the scrum of a rally. But Michelle Fields wound up with bruises on her arm indicating a “grab” and “yank” disproportionately violent for the circumstances. Fields, a reporter for Breitbart News Service, an avowedly right wing on-line reporting outfit, decided to press charges. It was seen as rather naughty for a Breitbart News reporter to raise issues with a fine right wing leader like Donald Trump or his minions and Breitbart threw Ms. Fields under the bus. This led to outrage and resignations by Fields and several other Breitbart reporters. Now, with the arrest and the released camera footage, Breitbart is having second thoughts and claims that maybe Michelle Fields was right after all.

The tape evidence persuaded the local police department to file a charge of battery against Lewandowski. Mr. Lewandowski claimed complete innocence; in fact he said that not only had he never touched Ms. Fields, indeed he didn’t even know her. Lewandowski apparently believes that if you are unacquainted with someone you could not possibly be guilty of assaulting them.

Lewandowski is a top advisor to Donald Trump and insiders claim that he is so effective because “he lets Donald Trump be Donald Trump.” (Lewandowski knows how to keep his job.) Trump claims his adviser is blameless and Trump seems to be returning the favor by “letting Corey be Corey.” Ah, but the Jupiter, Florida, police may not agree.

The ultimate absurdity here is the fact that if Lewandowski had bothered to apologize to Michele Fields by saying something like “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to grab your arm that hard” this entire incident might never have arisen. But then who brings logic into politics?

Then, in another venue, there is the issue of Secretary Clinton’s emails—we are still dealing with absurdities here—it seems that depending on your source there are anywhere from 50 to 147 FBI agents classifying Clinton’s emails. Keep in mind that these agents all need a top secret clearance because some of Clinton’s emails have been so classified. This is not a job for any run of the mill clerk. At the same time we have a great concern about public safety and the monitoring of ISIS adherents in this country poised to commit mayhem and murder on our streets. But Clinton’s emails are safe and secure in the custody of the FBI; why then is this organization using such enormous manpower on this low priority endeavor when our citizens are at risk? Absurdities are everywhere.

                                                            

2016 March 29^th

This morning we are greeted by a gloomy forecast from George Will. Mr. Will, as most of you know, is the very intellectually gifted conservative commentator. His column today is titled, “Why the future will disappoint us.” Whoa! That’s not very encouraging.

Mr. Will’s column points out the enormous and very effective civilizing influences of industry—and medicine—over the hundred years from 1870 to 1970. He points out that in 1870 “Urban horses produced mountains and rivers of waste.” Home lighting, then, came from candles and whale oil; thousands died of yellow fever; the typical North Carolina housewife carried water into her home eight to ten times daily; there were eight thousand registered automobiles in 1900 but 26.8 million in 1930. For all of this, and for what follows, Will touts Robert Gordon’s “The Rise and Fall of American Growth” in which Professor Gordon, a Northwestern University academic economist, makes the case that the unprecedented growth of the last century and a half cannot continue at the same pace.  He’s right.

Then Will gets to what he sees as a large part of the problem: “…there are many reasons to believe that the rapid expansion of regulatory, redistributive government, which can be reformed, has contributed to--it certainly has coincided with—the onset of economic anemia.” Here Will lapses into nonsense. Government regulations are the evil genie that is destroying this wonderful picture? Where have we heard this before?

Let’s do away with regulations: no more sanitary inspections of restaurants; why worry about dishwashers that can’t get water over lukewarm…and what’s the problem with having an attorney who never passed the bar exam, or the electrician who can’t find the ground wire. Does your pharmacist confuse gabapentin with pregabelin? They do sound alike don’t they? So they probably work the same way. Never mind. … The absurdity of blaming regulatory requirements is obvious.

Most of the splendid advances Will talks about involved the private economy. He neglects to mention the enormous support for our well-being provided by government programs. (I’m sure that was just an oversight.) Consider the government construction of the interstate highway system; that happened in the 1950s and he makes no mention of it. Consider the construction of the various power dams in the west during the depression. These provided electricity and the necessary water for the development of California truck farming; no mention of that either. If you were a businessman or a small farmer in 1930 and you had money in the bank and that bank failed you lost all the money you had deposited there. Roosevelt’s FDIC made sure that any bank deposits you made were insured by the federal government. Will doesn’t mention that either. It’s not really surprising that Will can’t manage to mention any government programs that contributed to improving out welfare over the last 150 years. His political blinders are still firmly in place.

2016 March 28^th

Let’s see who Patrick J. Buchanan hates today; not surprisingly, it is Muslims, and in particular the Muslim religion as contained in the Koran. Buchanan apparently believes that what the Koran commands Muslims will do. The obvious fact that some Muslims do take Koranic commands seriously doesn’t mean that most Muslims do. Some do not even engage in the required five daily prayer rituals. I had a Muslim colleague when I was teaching and there was no prayer rug in his office and I never observed him at prayer, Nevertheless he was devout enough that he left this country so that his children would be removed from what he considered the immoral temptations offered American youth.

In the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, we find some instructions that few people would willingly follow today: From Deut. 13:6-11: If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Similar death by stoning awaits any bride who is not a virgin if her new husband is unhappy about it. Death by stoning is also provided for anyone who is an apostate and starts worshipping idols or who assists anyone in moving toward such apostasy

It is obvious to anyone that while a religion can provide moral guide posts, these guideposts may be totally absent or ignored is some areas. Jesus had some very pointed things to say about marriage; specifically that he would be opposed to the present increase in serial monogamy. (Mark 6:9 and Mathew 5:31) Many otherwise devout Christians ignore this and still have a series of marriages.

Christ did not condemn slavery, a practice well integrated into the society of his time. His failure to condemn the practice was used as a support for slavery by Christians in the antebellum south.

Catholic teaching against artificial birth control is uniformly ignored by the overwhelming majority of Catholic women.

Does Buchanan believe that because these admonitions are in his Bible, or in the instructions of his Church’s Chief Priest, that he or his fellow Christians will surely act on the instructions? Then why believe it for all Muslims who follow the Koran? The notion is ridiculous!

2016 March 27^th

One of Donald Trump’s paid flacks was interviewed this afternoon and I watched some of it. She was asked about the attacks by Cruz and Trump on each other’s wives and quite predictably gave the Trump line that Mr. Trump had to defend himself, and that Mr. Trump was attacked first. If someone is on Trump’s payroll Trump will inevitably be referred to as “Mr. Trump.” That’s helpful because when you hear “Mr. Trump” you know that what comes next is paid for by Donald Trump.

Trump was interviewed by The New York Times on his foreign policy views and the results were made public.  His new motto seems to be “America First.”  It's unlikely that Trump knows the interesting background this movement had in rendering our armed forces hopelessly unprepared during the lead-up to WW 2. He probably neither knows nor cares.

He believes that we should stop our support of the Saudis and stop buying their oil. We are not oil independent yet, so should we then get our oil from where? Trump doesn’t say. It is true that the Saudi’s support programs aimed directly toward destabilizing our allies but destabilizing the Saudis gives Iran an even freer hand in the region; not smart.

He would allow (encourage?) South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear weapons. This would presumably relieve us from using our nuclear umbrella but also eliminate any control we might have over their weapon use. Trump also maintains that the South Koreans pay “practically nothing to support our troop presence there.” Only to Donald Trump would the 800+ million dollars a year South Korea pays us seem like “practically nothing.”

Earlier, on Morning Joe, when asked on whom he relied for foreign policy advice, he claimed that he relied on himself. He claimed that he had a very good brain for foreign policy so he consulted with himself first. He was also asked in his Times interview what books or foreign policy articles he read. There were no specifics although he did say to a Times questioner, “Your newspaper.” Perhaps we have Sarah Palin redux.

He made a point of claiming that he didn’t want to be predictable, for example in the use of nuclear weapons, so that America’s adversaries would be kept off-balance. Yes, of course, but if you are unpredictable it also means that your allies don’t know what to expect from one moment to the next and that makes it very difficult for them to support you. And if you have considerable doubt that the plan you are about to suggest makes any sense at all, wouldn’t a comment like “I don’t want to tell you because I prefer not to be predictable” be the perfect response?

A bit of Trumpian inconsistency: Trump has claimed that the 14 people killed in the San Bernardino California massacre could have been saved had people there just exercised their “second amendment rights” and been armed. Interesting idea, except that no one is allowed to bring a firearm into any of Trump’s rallies. I wonder why?

2016 March 26^th

Primaries of interest today are in Washington State, Hawaii and Alaska. Given the time difference, the results will be available too late for me to comment about them. The big prize is Washington where Clinton has some political endorsements and Sanders is the pick of the Seattle Times. Washington is a caucus state so both sides will get some delegates. Breaking News; Sanders has won both Alaska and Washington on the basis of huge early leads!

Meanwhile, we can do a “sleaze report” on the Republican primary race. Here is a quote from Senator Cruz, “Donald Trump may be a rat but I have no desire to copulate with him.” Yes that’s accurate; now, can you imagine the context in which this might have been said by a Harvard educated debate champion running for President of the United States? It isn’t easy. The “National Inquirer” ran stories alleging Ted Cruz’ multiple affairs; all of which Cruz vigorously denied. It is very important that Cruz jump on this right away because he gets much support from evangelicals who would be horrified if there were a shred of truth to these allegations.

Enter Roger Stone; this man is a notorious dirty trickster. Dirty tricks have been a staple of right wing political campaigns for decades. For example, Carl Rove circulated a rumor that John McCain had fathered a black child and that rumor cost McCain the South Carolina primary and gave the primary that year to George Bush. Nixon’s use of the IRS to irritate his many “enemies” is in the same vein. Stone is a master of these dirty tricks. His premier move was to open a bank account with a “Socialist etc. name plate” and then send a donation from this ‘Socialist” account to a struggling Republican‘s campaign, making sure the newspapers got the message. Guess what happened. That is Roger Stone’s typical contribution. Could he have had something to do with the National Inquirer’s story about Cruz? The real Prince of Darkness here was Lee Atwater who managed the dirty tricks for the Bushes and Nixon. This is where the term “rat f******” came from; it simply refers to these dirty tricks.

(The expression has its origins in the military. If you get a carton of MREs, Meals Ready to Eat, you can open all of them and just take out the good sections and trash the rest.  The “Rat” here is short for “ration.” This is where the “Rat obscenity” originated. How it was transferred into politically dirty tricks I have no idea.)

Why Cruz could not have said something like, “I have no wish to trade dirty tricks with the National Inquirer.” Instead of talking about “copulating with Donald Trump” I can’t fathom. Cruz is supposed to be very bright; he may be that, but it doesn’t mean that he is very imaginative.

2016 March 25^th

Fox has a program called “Outnumbered” in which four very short skirted women sit, two on each side of a male guest. Today a tape of President Obama’s departing remarks to some young Argentinians was played. The President pointed out that some will refer to dirty Capitalists and others to the awful Socialists and Communists, and that his advice to them was to take from each position what works for them. Outrage followed from the Fox folks and that outrage ended my interest in their program. We all know how well the image of the greedy Yankee Capitalist has worked in Latin America…about as well as fifty years of a heavy handed embargo worked in Cuba. And now, on wards and upwards, even though we have stopped offending most of Latin America, we still have 1.3 billion Muslims to work on.

Senator Mitch McConnell, on an earlier Fox interview program, said that Judge Merrick Garland could not be approved for SCOTUS by the Senate, even after the election, because the Judge did not have the approval of the National Rifle Association. No, I didn’t make that up; that is what he said. There you have it folks; the leader of the United States Senate bought and paid for by the NRA and showing no reluctance to admit it. What do you suppose he cost them?

In an interview with Senator Cruz we found him red faced and furious over Donald Trump’s very unflattering picture of the Senator’s wife. Looking directly into the distance Cruz called Trump a “sniveling coward and told him to “leave my wife the hell alone.” Cruz was terribly upset. The reporter, Hallie Jackson, who is assigned to monitor Cruz, and was right at his elbow when he erupted, asked him if he would still support Trump if Trump were the party’s nominee. Cruz was not about to answer that one; he wasn’t that mad at Trump, so he said that Trump would not be the party’s nominee. Hallie Jackson tried twice more getting the same evasion each time, before giving up. (I must say that although I am no fan of Donald Trump, I have never seen the man snivel. Perhaps I missed it.)

I saw Senator Tom Cotton on Morning Joe this morning. He appeared because of his combat experience and the terrorist disaster in Belgium. Mike Barnacle asked Cotton, who had blasted the administration for its handling of ISIS, to tell the viewers just what he would do differently. For a Harvard educated lawyer Cotton’s response was a pure boilerplate conservative pitch. When reminded of all the bombing sorties flown against ISIS targets Cotton said that the “rules of engagement” needed to be changed because many of these planes returned to their base without dropping their entire ordinance. The conclusion to be drawn from Cotton’s comment is that if you can’t find an appropriate ISIS target, at least drop your bombs on somebody. He subsequently went on with more equally inane suggestions; one of which was bemoaning the removal of Libya’s  Muammar Khadafy whose only fault was blowing up Pan Am 109 and killing 240 people. 

2016 March 24^th

Today we examine Dr. Thomas Sowell’s revisionist view of history. In his column this morning Dr. Sowell writes, “During the heyday of the progressive movement in the early 20^th century people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate genetic inferiority of…people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe…” Then he continues contrasting “Racist” President Wilson with presumably non-racist Calvin Coolidge “whose wife invited the wives of black Congressmen to the White House.” He tells us that “Later, when the civil rights act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats a higher percentage of… Republicans voted for it than did …Democrats.”

Sowell apparently believes that he can get away with this nonsense; he should be smart enough to know that he can’t. When the 1964 Civil Rights act was passed the South opposed it, as they had opposed anything resembling civil rights for black citizens since the Civil War. (President Lincoln, after all, had been a Republican so, of course, most Southerners were Democrats.) Obviously the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got precious few votes from Southern Democrats. Once the Act passed these bigots all became Republicans. President Johnson said the Democratic Party would lose the South for a generation. He was wrong because the South is still, after 50 years, solidly Republican. It should not be necessary to cite all of the egregious obstructionism of the newly minted Southern Republicans to civil rights, so I won’t.

Whether “people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting genetic inferiority of the peoples of Eastern Europe” I cannot say unless Sowell would like to define “forefront.” What I can do is to call Sowell’s attention to some Congressional Acts designed to exclude these folks from coming to America. In 1921 Congressman Dillingham, a Republican, sponsored a bill to limit the immigration of Europeans to just 3 percent of those who were residents here in i890. The Bill essentially stopped Asian immigration (Except of course for the Philippines whose citizens were considered Americans.) This Republican sponsored Bill was vetoed by President Wilson as too restrictive (which is not to deny President Wilson’s well documented racism).

Subsequently, in 1924, we have another Republican-sponsored bill designed to be even more restrictive than Dillingham’s; this is the Johnson-Reed Bill. These Republicans changed the Dillingham Bill so that only 2 percent of the 1890 origin residents could be admitted. President Coolidge, a Republican, had no trouble signing this into law. It is obvious the restrictive immigration was enthusiastically supported by Republicans. Perhaps Dr. Sowell should leave revisionist history to someone else.

2016 March 23^rd

One year ago today Senator Ted Cruz announced his bid for the presidency; it was in a speech at Liberty University. A year ago my blog was about his coming out party. Now he is the Republican establishment’s hope to beat Donald Trump for the party’s nomination as President. Some choice!

Following the massacre in Brussels, Cruz insists that he would increase police patrols in Muslem neighborhoods and “monitor” them “before they become radicalized.” Cruz has tapped Frank Gaffney as his advisor. This is the same guy that accused President Obama as being the first Muslim President and Justice Elena Kagan as supporting Sharia Law; in short he’s not altogether up on current events.

Then Trump gives us his national security advisor, Dr. Victoria Coates, whose doctorate is in art history. Dr. Coates was an advisor to Donald Rumsfeld on his recent memoir “Things Known and Unknown.” (You might remember that this Rumsfeld was the same guy who presented a birthday cake to America’s good friend Saddam Hussein in 1983.) Other than a working relationship with this hawkish former Secretary of Defense, Coates has no background at all in military matters. So for their prime counsellors on military defense, Donald Trump tells us that he “is speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain.” The other prime Republican Presidential candidate, Cruz, will rely on an art historian….And now onwards and upwards dear friends!

This morning Joe Scarborough was in a prolonged fit of pique. His angst was, once again about President Obama who had the temerity to stay in Cuba watching a baseball game even after the awful events in Brussels. (There was an insult comic named Don Rickles who, on seeing Frank Sinatra in his audience, leaned across the footlights and said “Hi Frank why don’t you hit somebody?” This was seen as daring because Sinatra was known nearly as much for his belligerence as for his voice.) Scarborough was joined by “America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani who must always be trotted out for a viewing when there is a terrorist event against a city. Giuliani was also fulminating against the fecklessness of the President who he takes every opportunity to criticize.

It was obvious that these men thought that President Obama should have immediately returned to the White House Situation Room, alerted the 101st airborne division and invaded somebody. For Scarborough and Giuliani it wouldn’t much matter who just as long as we show we won’t put up with these attacks. Fortunately for the country Rudy Giuliani never made it past Florida in the Republican Primaries of 2008 and Joe Scarborough now coins cash as a right wing talk show host.

2016 March 22^nd

The massacre in Belgium is the major news this morning; so what do the various Presidential candidates have to say about this tragedy? All of them had sympathetic words for the people of Brussels. Trump, the current leader, reminisces about “how lovely Brussels once was and now it’s a hell hole.” Trump went on to point out that we must keep Muslims out of this country. Kasich confined himself to words of sympathetic support for Brussels’ people; Clinton and Sanders took the same tack. Ah, but Ted Cruz had more than sympathetic words for the Belgians; Senator Cruz took this opportunity to blame the President for failing to put an end to ISIS. Cruz also said that he would authorize police “to patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods. He didn’t elaborate on the “secure” part; maybe he will padlock all the Mosques. Is he a tough guy or what?

One observer on the morning news, a former ambassador, was asked about the likelihood of a similar attack in this country. He claimed that the attacks here had all been by solitary individuals, or at least had not obviously coordinated with a network of other terrorists as had all of the European attacks. He went on to point out that Muslims are not ghettoized in this country; they do not live in communities specifically reserved for them. The situation in Europe is far different; there Muslims tend to live largely isolated from the rest of the population. Their unemployment rate is much higher than it is for the larger society and while Muslims make up ten percent of the French population they are ninety percent of the prison population.

Now we have Senator Cruz who believes that ghettoizing American Muslims will decrease the likelihood that any of them will foment a terrorist attack here. This is the same man who believes that President Obama should not have gone to Cuba. What curious positions for a Bible toting Christian to take: Problems can be solved if we are just belligerent enough. And Cruz is the man the Republicans hope will defeat Trump; why is one of them better than the other?

2016 March 21^st

President and Mrs. Obama have landed in Cuba to the delight of many Cubans and the consternation of many Cuban Americans who still think of themselves as hyphenated Americans. They want to know, “What do we get out of the deal?” The answer is obvious: Trade and tourism will increase, and American firms will be right there to take advantage of that. The Marriott Corporation has already outbid a Chinese group for a hotel in a prime Havana location. Then we have removed a major talking point used by the Cuba’s leaders. If trade and tourism increases what happens to the notion that Cuba’s economy is failing only because of the American’s repression?

The Cuban Government’s leaders are not at all ready to stop their repression of citizens. Even today, to commemorate the President’s visit, they saw fit to arrest a bunch of protesters. Perhaps this is a reaction to the real possibility that they are likely to lose control of their population. When ISIS discovered that their Caliphate was shrinking, that their oil revenues were disappearing, that’s when they began their murderous rampage against European civilians. The same has happened with Russia; as their oil economy collapses their military adventurism increases.

I caught the final bit of Clinton’s speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It was intended to convince her audience that as President she would be a “true friend” of Israel. She was convincing; it was obvious that she felt that defending Israel against attack would be just the same as defending New Orleans or Bangor, Maine, against an attack. I understand that Donald Trump will try to snuggle up to these folks around 6 PM; whenever it is, I’m sure it will be presented on TV. (As an aside here: I wonder why the vaunted Israeli Air Force has not participated in the bombing of ISIS; most of our other allies have helped with this.)

I watched Trump’s speech. I saw no one leave even though 40 Rabbis had threatened to walk out. It was a huge crowd and if they left it wouldn’t have been obvious. Trump spoke from a teleprompter and took no questions. He seemed to have been well coached and this clearly right leaning crowd was not unhappy with Trump’s obvious pandering.

2016 March 20^th

Tomorrow some candidates for the Presidency will give speeches to the American Israeli Public Affairs Council (AIPAC). This group is waiting to hear what Donald Trump has to say although it is a foregone conclusion that Trump will come across as the very best friend the State of Israel has ever had, or ever will have. Trump is not about to say anything that might upset these folks. On the other hand this is not an audience of nincompoops; there will be questions and Donald is not used to being questioned by anyone willing to insist on reasonable answers. Then there is some dissension in the AIPAC ranks; forty Rabbis have said that they will not attend any Trump presentation. They have already heard quite enough of what Trump has to say; they don’t need to hear anymore. It should be an interesting speech.

The next votes on the Republican side are on Tuesday 22^nd March when Arizona votes and Utah caucuses. Everyone will be watching but nothing will change.

Sometimes it is instructive to look at the odds makers whose livelihood depends on getting it right. These are not the usual columnists whose income depends on simply hewing the party line. Here are the odds provided by Paddy Power, a British firm allowing bets on just about everything. First we’ll look at the Republican nomination:

For Trump it’s 2/7 (This means that a 7 dollar bet is required to get a 2 dollar profit. In short, Trump is very highly favored by these odds makers to take the nomination.)

Cruz is 6/1, a long shot; Kasich is the same 6/1, Romney and Ryan are even longer shots at 40/1.

On the other side in the primary Clinton is a 1/20 favorite while Sanders is a 10/1 long shot.

For the General election we have Clinton at 4/9, a more than a two to one favorite; while Trump is 5/2, about the same odds but in the other direction. Kasich and Cruz are in the 20 to 1 long shot category.

These odds haven’t changed very much over the last couple of months but they are subject to change without notice.

2016 March 19^th

As I write this protesters are blocking a highway in Arizona where fans are trying to attend one of Trump’s rallies. Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s famous tent jail in the middle of a desert awaits those he chooses to arrest. Maybe Trump will pick Sheriff Joe as a running mate because they both are certain that the President was born elsewhere. The Sheriff, an unacknowledged expert on birth certificates, claims that the one produced by the President is a fake.

This morning the paper had a half page spread on a topic of considerable national importance; it concerned President Obama’s failure to attend either the two hour long funeral of Judge Scalia or the funeral in California of Nancy Reagan. His failure to attend either of these events is unprecedented. How do we know that? Easy; it is because Megyn Kelly, the Fox News doyen of Presidential funeral attendance, has told us so. Ms. Kelly has said, “I find no precedent for this in history, that a sitting U.S. President would not attend the death of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.” Megyn Kelly, once more, clings to the Fox news party line even when it is demonstrably wrong. Notice that Kelly said “attend the death;” she did not say attend the funeral. President and Mrs. Obama did indeed pay their respects to Justice Scalia as he lay in state in the rotunda of the Supreme Court.

On the issue of funeral attendance Kelly is wrong even with that. President Eisenhower did not attend the funeral of Justice Robert Jackson who died in 1954. President Truman attended the funerals of just one of the three justices who died during his Presidency. Kelly should check her facts instead of doing her usual anti-President Obama bit. She should, but she won’t because she’d rather keep her job.

Nancy Reagan’s funeral fits the same model: First Ladies usually attend these events; Presidents rarely do. Factcheck.org tells us that “Only four times in history have sitting Presidents attended former First Ladies’ funerals.” What nonsense!

Given that we have a SCOTUS nomination from the President that the right wing refuses to recognize and that the Congress refuses to work more than four days a week and is about to take a generous vacation, why are we attending to these  trivia? Maybe lead in America’s drinking water is more widespread than we had feared.

2016 March 18^th

This morning’s Record-Eagle has a letter signed by me which got slightly garbled in transmission. Someone nearby, who is my principal advisor, says it’s fine the way it is, therefore it’s fine the way it is.

Last night Rachel Maddow had a bit about a PBS segment which had shown a mother and son working the phones for Donald Trump. They were focused intently on getting out the vote. One of Maddow’s sharp-eyed minions looked at the mother’s extensively tattooed arms and there in plain sight were several favorite neo-Nazi symbols. Maybe Trump didn’t want to irritate the white power folks by quickly rejecting their support so that he could get help manning his phone banks. That Donald doesn’t miss a trick!

Yesterday some congressmen were on TV in their roles as inquisitors trying to fix the blame for the Flint water scandal. They produced splendid performances; histrionics blended with outrage “signifying nothing.” Instead of fixing the blame they should have been trying to fix the problem. Not only with Flint’s infrastructure because there are other aged water systems spewing lead contaminated water in our older cities. Bi-partisan legislation was actually on its way to help fix this problem until it was blocked by Senator Lee of Utah. The Senator maintained that Michigan had a surplus and didn’t need the government’s help. But the bill was about much more than just Michigan, moreover Senator Lee’s hold keeps the bill from even coming to a vote. (Senator Lee is the first Senator to support Senator Cruz.) In response to Lee’s action Democrats blocked a bi-partisan energy bill that would have, among other things, modernized our shaky energy grid. Is it any wonder that Congress’ approval rating barely makes the double digits?

Then we have a great hue and cry by the Republican establishment lest Donald Trump becomes the party’s nominee. What to do? Perhaps encourage the Tea Party Speaker of the House to start speaking about doing something. Even his own Tea Party followers now see him as an apostate because he actually tried, and succeeded in getting a budget passed. No wonder that Trump, who presents an image of someone who can accomplish whatever he decides to do, is capturing the enthusiasm of the unaffiliated.

2016 March 17^th

I call your attention to a misleading advertisement from the oil and gas industry: A young woman is hiking in a mountain area, probably the Rockies. She says of the trees, “These are my skyscrapers” and she is clearly concerned about preserving this wilderness. Next comes the message that we must maintain our energy independence by continuing reasonable oil and gas production. Fracking, the ad claims, has been safely done for 65 years.

What the ad doesn’t tell you is that the fracking that has a 65 year history of safety is vertical fracking. The fracking causing problems with Pennsylvania’s household wells producing flammable gas and the recent earthquakes in Oklahoma is quite different; it is horizontal fracking. This produces enormous amounts of gas, oil and profits. It also produces millions of gallons of wastewater so contaminated that it is unusable, cannot be allowed to enter the water table and must be pumped deep underground for everyone’s safety….So much for “Truth in advertising!”

For more truth in advertising we turn to politics. President Obama has nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Garland is as close to a centrist as anyone could expect from a Democratic President. He is 63 years old and his appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court was confirmed by a vote of 76 to 23 with 32 Republicans supporting his confirmation. None of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee dispute his qualifications for the job; they dispute the timing of the President’s nomination. The chief Republican honchos, Senator Grassley of the Judiciary Committee and Senator McConnell claim that any nomination should be delayed until after the election, “So that the people can decide.”

The Constitution is quite clear about most of this. It says that the President shall nominate someone to fill any vacancy and that the Senate shall give its advice and consent. It says nothing about, “…but not in an election year.” The Republican poohbahs are adamant about this; they will not talk to Judge Garland. Today he was in the Senate building talking to Democratic Senators. If a Republican Senator happened by I assume he would have hurried past to avoid having to be introduced to Judge Garland. This is what the Republican Party is reduced to.

Finally, the whole rationale for much of the Trump rebellion is that we have a “do nothing” Congress; this bunch of Republicans has been called the “party of no.” It is hard to fight that image if the party leaders refuse to even meet with the President’s nominee. Republicans want to defeat Trump while they provide him with evermore ammunition against themselves.

2016 March 16^th

Fox News and Morning Joe shared a guest today. Carly Fiorina did a gig on both shows. I guess she wants to keep her name in the public’s consciousness. I did not need to listen to Ms. Fiorina to know what she was saying or how she was saying it so I didn’t. Carly Fiorina is one perpetually angry woman who apparently believes that all her troubles and those of the entire civilized world are the fault of Hillary Clinton. Her angst is not surprising and it will continue until she discovers that most of it is her own fault. This woman was dismissed as CEO of Hewlett Packard after getting into a flap with the founder’s grandson; then she ran for the Senate against Barbara Boxer in California and had her head handed to her; then she tried for her party’s nomination for President with much the same result. Perhaps she needs some time for self-examination.

The leaders of both parties had splendid Tuesdays, and now we can see if they are magnanimous winners; well, they aren’t. Trump did call “Little Marco” and congratulated him for running a good race, but that was about the extent of any “make nice.” Trump did declare that if he was close to getting enough delegates and was denied the nomination there “might be riots in the streets.” This is what passes for Trump’s attempt to cool the heated rhetoric. He took another step closer to his party’s nomination while taking two steps back from winning the general election. Given that he is not at all likely to change, it is no wonder that the Republican Party leaders are pouring money into negative ads to stop him. The wonder is not that they are trying to stop him; the wonder is that they don’t understand how ineffectual their attempts have been. (See Mitt Romney’s non-effect on Trump’s campaign.)

 Trump’s followers are simply glued to the man. I have heard interviews with some of them and they remind me of the way bobbysoxers were screaming their devotion for Frank Sinatra in the mid-1940s. Indeed one concerned citizen even wrote to J. Edgar Hoover warning him of the threat to the country by such dedicated people if they became politically involved. Now they are. Trump managed a startling performance recently that suggests something unnerving about his sanity. One of the anchors interviewing him played a clip of him saying that he would pay the legal expenses of any of his followers who might be arrested for assaulting a provocateur at a Trump rally.  When the clip had finished playing Trump said, “I never said that.” Denying reality that blatantly is not a sign of robust mental health. 

2016 March 15^th

It is 3 PM and the results of today’s primaries are several hours away. Trump has committed no new outrage, although I’m sure he soon will; so here is a non-political piece from “A Double Dozen and Six,” a little book of opinion/memoir pieces I did about ten years ago.

Cats and Dogs

I have been told that cats make very fine pets. My mother-in- law told me that and I would never argue with her. She also claimed that cats were extremely clean as demonstrated by the fact that they washed themselves constantly. She even permitted her cat to join us at lunch…on the table. I simply watched which part of the cat’s anatomy was being washed, and decided to hope for an early dinner.

Some people are cat fanciers. I have trouble understanding that. I don’t dislike cats, but if I am to have a pet it will be a dog. I classify pet cats in the same category as pet white rats, pet hamsters and pet rabbits…you get the idea. These animals all seem to have very limited utility. All you can do with any of them is pick them up and pet them. And if a cat prefers not to be picked up she can demonstrate that preference quite firmly.

We have a cat. You might have guessed that from my mother-in-law’s attitude. I believe that one’s attitude toward cats has some small genetic component, although my wife does not permit the cat to join us at table.

We also have a large dog. This makes the cat’s physical well-being a bit parlous. Mazie weighs six pounds; Teddy weighs one hundred-and-twenty pounds, but Mazie is much quicker and can access small spaces that are denied to Teddy. Still, it must be frightening for the poor cat. Imagine a one hundred and fifty pound man living in the same house with a 3000 pound, fifteen foot tall, predator. That’s not a very restful life, though the exercise has benefitted Mazie considerably. She is in excellent health for a twelve year old cat, although I must say she often seems a bit nervous.

I believe that cats appeal more to women than to men. Men are utilitarian; women are not. Earrings, broaches and high-heeled shoes don’t have the utility possessed by power-drills, table saws and shotguns. This is hardly universal. My mother-in-law had a thing for shotguns and my navy seal brother-in-law has several small earrings.

It is clear that cats just don’t have the usefulness found in dogs. Imagine a cat trained to retrieve ducks; or a cat that can track a fugitive by scent; maybe a guard cat patrolling with his/or her night watchman buddy.  Where are the seeing-eye cats? Are they sitting quietly in harness waiting for the light to change so as to lead their mistress across the street? The whole scenario is ridiculous.  A cat can usually be trained to use a sand box in the basement and may come when it is called provided it is hungry. Otherwise, cats are impervious to ordinary training methods. Cat fanciers claim that this is evidence of the cat’s independence; it could also be evidence of the cat’s stupidity.

In addition we must face the fact that there are not many breeds of cat, and those that are commonly found are very much alike. How many cat breeds can you name? There is the Maine coon cat, Manx cat, Siamese cat, and that’s about it unless you access a cat breeder’s web site for a list of truly exotic varieties. Most of these animals are about the same size and they are distinguished from each other largely by shape, coat color and length of fur.

How many dog breeds can you name? There are many, and they are hugely variable, ranging from the miniature breeds weighing just a few pounds, to the giant breeds weighing well over 150 pounds. Many breeds are highly specialized. There are Australian shepherds trained to herd sheep. Try training eight or ten cats to do that. Great Pyrenees are excellent sheep guards and very territorial. The English mastiff at 200 pounds is trained to jump on the back of a game poacher knocking him down and keeping him terrorized until the ghille gets there. There are retrievers that will jump into icy water and bring back ducks holding them so softly in their mouths that the ducks’ skin is hardly dented. Then there are the miniature breeds, fluffy little dogs that can be carried in a lady’s purse with just their heads peeking out. These are designed to simply look cute. I doubt that you’ve ever seen anyone carrying their cat in their purse. (I am told by someone nearby that cats are much too dignified to be carried in a handbag.)

There is also the benefit gained by a dog barking at strangers. If someone walks up on your front porch unannounced, your dog will very likely inform you of that fact. If the person has some nefarious plot in mind and hears a barking dog, the plotter will very likely take his plot elsewhere. Wouldn’t you? Of course the size of the dog is relevant. The deep-voiced bark of a large dog is best, but even a little yipper will alert the household that an intruder is about, and intruders know this perfectly well. I doubt that a cat, even one trained to “meow” at intruders with considerable force, could possibly have the same effect.

Of course cats have some advantages: They don’t have to be taken out for walks several times a day, rain, snow, or shine; they don’t leave ugly brown spots on the lawn, either yours or the neighbors, and they rarely rush after the grandchildren scaring them half to death. It is also true that they are much longer lived than dogs. Come to think of it, I am not sure which side of the ledger that goes on. Of course if a cat is desperately ill, it is no trick to get the animal into a carrying cage and then to the vet. If our one-hundred-and-twenty-pound dog cannot be persuaded to get into the car for a trip to the vet’s, we shall have a very expensive house call…if we can find an accommodating vet. Naturally a very large dog with a severe intestinal disturbance who cannot rise to his feet and leave the house in a timely fashion is…well, let’s just not go there.

All right, all right; maybe it is a tossup after all.

2016 March 14^th

Hillary Clinton is seen as the least trustworthy of all the candidates, even less than Donald Trump, although not by much. Her competitor for the Democratic nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders, is seen as the most trustworthy candidate from either party. Does that make a difference? Who knows? Clinton added to her problem recently by accusing Sanders of sitting on his hands while she was trying to get healthcare for people during the Clinton administration.  She said, “I don’t know where he was when I was trying to get healthcare in ’93 and ’94.” She found out quite quickly where Senator Sanders was; he was standing right behind her as she made her pitch on TV. Then to add to her problem with Bernie, a clip surfaced showing her thanking him for his help. This gaff might not hurt her image but it surely doesn’t help it.

We move to Mona Charen’s column in today’s paper. Ms. Charen is most unhappy with her party’s support for Donald Trump. Among lots of other things she claims that Trump will, “…certainly lose the general election but also introduce an element of fascism to American politics…it is Trump’s unique contribution to wed authoritarianism—threatening the First Amendment, promising war crimes, admiring dictators, encouraging mob violence, fomenting racial and ethnic strife…” There were other things as well but you get the drift of her concerns with Trump.

Charen cannot understand the rise of Trump. She claims, “The Republican party has become more reform minded and more conservative over the last thirty years.”  She says that the Arlen Spectors and Bob Packwoods are gone to be replaced by dynamic, smart, articulate leaders such as, Tom Cotton, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, etc. Whoops there Mona; Bobby Jindal is on your list? Jindal had a 900 million surplus when he took office and he left Louisiana mired in debt to the point that the new governor has had to call emergency sessions to keep universities and hospitals open. Even university football programs had to be cut back. When Jindal left office his approval rating was barely 30 percent. Even President Obama’s approval rating in Louisiana was higher than Jindal’s. And where is Chris Christie in this mix; doesn’t the esteemed governor of New Jersey and former presidential candidate get a mention? Not if he has endorsed Donald Trump he doesn’t; Charen has her standards.

Charen doesn’t realize that it is precisely this shift to the uncompromising right that has given rise to her nemesis Donald Trump. The rightward shift has resulted in tea party types ascendant who want to disrupt government, and in that they have been successful. Nothing gets done in Washington and that fact spurs the Trumpeters to revolt. Compromise is the life blood of democratic government and these conservatives will tolerate no compromise; the result is no government and the rise of Donald trump.

2016 Mach 13^th

There once was a bit about going to a hockey game to watch the fights; this year a Trump rally replaces the hockey game. TV covers these Trump performances quite well but then television gets blamed for the toxic nature of the rallies. If only TV weren’t there people say everyone would make nice. No they wouldn’t. Trump knows that the more outrageous his claims, the more he irritates his detractors and the tighter he binds his fans to himself. He refuses to back away from a claim even if it is demonstrated to his face that it is a clear-cut lie. On Chuck Todd’s program this morning Trump was asked if he was at all responsible for the physical abuse of hecklers at his events. Then he was shown a replay of himself talking about wanting to “hit protesters in the face.” This was then followed by a video of one of his supporters wading through a crowd to an aisle so he could hit an unsuspecting protester in the face. Todd asked Trump to respond to that sequence. Trump’s comment was that the protester “was a really bad dude and that he was swinging wildly at everybody” so no, he said that he had no responsibility for the violence.

Trump has a scapegoat; it is Bernie Sanders the “Commie.” Because some protestors were wearing Bernie Sanders t-shirts they must have been sent by Bernie Sanders. (And If I wear a Harvard sweatshirt I must have gone to Harvard!) Trump knows better but his followers don’t. Trump doesn’t know a Bolshevik from a Menshevik and he doesn’t need to know because his supporters don’t know the difference between socialists and communists. Now Trump has threatened Sanders with sending Trump supporters into Sanders’ rallies to disrupt them. This is just what Trump supporters want to hear and Trump always tells them what they want to hear.

Kasich the hope of many republicans is having a town hall. This is a time when many questions (planted?) can be directed to the candidate. One of the first was about raising the minimum wage to ten dollars an hour. That’s still below the poverty level for a family of four so the government will have to pitch in to help support those folks. That wage is too high for Kasich who wants to keep it down to just over eight dollars an hour. (I wonder how Kasich would like to live on that for a month.)

Then Kasich was asked about control of Isis and this produced a rant about how, among other things, we removed Khadafy and as a result Libya went to Isis. Khadafy has admitted that he arranged for the bomb to put on board Pan Am Flight 103 that blew up over Scotland killing about 240 people but, like conservatives everywhere, once the Obama administration eliminated him he was suddenly a good guy. Go figure!

2016 March 12^th

Last night saw some pushback against Donald Trump’s belligerence. Perhaps Newton’s third law has social implications as well as its applications in physics and we are seeing an “equal and opposite reaction” by protesters. It’s hardly equal so far but it is clearly growing and it is irritating Donald Trump.

The protesters last night at the University of Illinois, Chicago Circle campus, (UIC), caused Trump to cancel his rally there. There have been a few members of some minority groups at Trump rallies and some have simply been asked to leave. Why? Well because they were members of minority groups. Some of them have raised protest signs and that’s enough for Trump to ban all of them. Remember, this candidate keeps reporters segregated, fenced into their own area where they must stay for the duration of his performance. Keeping reporters penned up like cattle lets Trump gesture at them and taunt them with verbal abuse, a shtick much loved by his supporters.

In spite of the large percentage of black citizens in southern states there have been few protests by them at Trump rallies. This isn’t surprising because most of Trump’s venom has been directed at Latinos and Muslims. On Chicago’s south side there are a varied group of young people with many minorities. Both their age and their minority status make them very unwilling to accept Trump’s views on racial purity. His tardiness in rejecting support from David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan leader, solidifies their view that Trump, as well as many of his followers, are racist. Trump’s accolade from Anne Coulter who weeps at the thought of an America “more swarthy” than it is now also supports this view.

Listening to interviews of Trump supporters who obviously know little or nothing about how American government works suggests that we must spend far more on our educational system. In the original constitution each state chose electors and these electors chose the President. Citizens had no direct vote in the matter. Maybe the founders” original ideas about choosing a President were not a bad thing. Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

2016 March 11^th

The big news this morning is that last night’s Republican debate was civil; at least no one belittled anyone else’s private body parts. It certainly tells us something about Republican politics when a debate in which no one stoops to physical insult is the highlight of the evening. Most pontificators believed that the debate was boring (It was by comparison with others.) and changed nothing.

Hooliganism at Trump rallies is ramping up. Some protesters were escorted out last night and a 76 year old pushed his way to the isle through which they were leaving so that he could punch one of them in the face. The cops escorting the protesters out promptly handcuffed the victim and ignored the perpetrator. Finally, today after some outrage at the police stupidity, the sucker puncher has been arrested. Trump, when asked if his comments encouraged this kind of violence said he hoped that they didn’t. In a previous Trump rally when protesters were being evicted Trump yelled, “I’d like to punch ‘em in the face.” This viciousness continues to embarrass the Republicans, adds to Trump’s appeal and tells us even more about his followers.

The morning paper has a column by Cal Thomas about white poverty. Thomas faults, “The left…which talks about poverty but when it comes to programs and ideas to help people climb out of poverty their only solution is to spend more money.” I looked carefully for Cal Thomas’ solutions but his ideas consisted of “making the right life choices” and having a church “adopt” a poor family and “help them move out of poverty.” There was no word at all about exactly how poor people, many with very modest abilities, could learn to make these “right life choices.” Neither was there a program that would suggest to churches how adopting a family would move them out of poverty. Thomas does not understand that some churches have many poor congregants and that church membership has not improved their financial position one wit.

Thomas tells us of his personal experiences with poverty. During the Veit-Nam war in 1965 Thomas was a private first class and was unfortunately stationed in New York City. He tells us that he was only earning 99 dollars a month and had to get a second job to make ends meet. He was 23 years old and speaks of “having to get back to our little apartment in Queens.” To complain about being stationed in New York and going home to your little apartment, and presumably your wife, every night, while other draftees were enduring the jungle heat of ‘Nam, risking their lives daily and sleeping in the rain, defines a tone deafness only possible in a far right columnist like Thomas. Even in his case it is hard to believe.

2016 March 10^th

Last night I watched a bit of Chuck Todd’s interview with Senator Rubio. It is not surprising that Rubio has political problems; he said that he regretted commenting on Donald Trump’s private parts. Now he tells us! Then he said that as President he would cancel President Obama’s entire rapprochement with Cuba. This was because Cuba still had a repressive government and our new more lenient attitude toward Cuba has yielded nothing in return. I wonder what Senator Rubio would have made of President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger going to Communist China in 1972. After that visit China was as repressive as ever toward their own people; nothing changed there either. Was that a waste? Of course our hostility to China was then only 22 years old; our hostility to Cuba has lasted 50 years and Rubio thinks that it has so far accomplished… what?

“Morning Joe” this was sad today. Poor Joe was really distraught over his party’s candidates for the Presidency. He was unhappy with all of them; OK, but where has he been? Did they suddenly change? Then he went on at some length (it was Joe after all) about the number of great Republican Governors, all with administrative ability, who would have been good candidates. He was also most upset over Donald Trump’s recent announcement that “all Moslems hate us.” Joe pointed out that many Moslem soldiers have been killed fighting for this country and how can you say, knowing that, that all Moslems hate us? (Of course this was just another Trump trick to grab headlines.)

The next guest was the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott. The Governor was asked if he was endorsing anyone and he answered that he thought it was best to allow the voters to decide the issue. Of course the voters would do that regardless of his endorsement. Scott is a politician so his non-answer was expected.  Then Joe very specifically asked him if he believed that all Moslems hated America. Scott replied that Florida was a melting pot and that they had a variety of people there. It was obvious that Scott had not answered his question and to his great credit Joe wasn’t going to let this Republican Governor off the hook, so he asked Scott again and again he got the same evasive answer. Then Mika chimed in and said something about one more chance; the same question got the same evasive answer and Scott was off the program. This is the same guy who is fighting global warming and climate change by prohibiting any mention of global warming or climate change in any official Florida communications. Wouldn’t that Republican Governor have made a fine Presidential candidate?

Finally Joe brings in Carly Fiorina who has dropped out of the Presidential race but still seeks a stage of some sort. She is asked who she endorses and immediately says Senator Ted Cruz because he is just so honest. This is the same Ted Cruz who produced a photo shopped picture of Senator Rubio shaking hands with President Obama.  Problem was they were shaking with their left hands. The Honest Ted’s supporter Congressman King of Iowa spread the rumor that Dr. Carson was dropping out of the race and that all of his voters should now support Senator Cruz. Cruz eventually apologized to Carson for that lie; so much for good old honest Ted. Then Fiorina, as I have pointed out before, stiffed her staff after her failed Senate contest with Barbara Boxer. She failed to pay some of them for several years after that election was over. Honesty is just everywhere among these politicians.

2016 March 9^th

By now everyone knows that Bernie Sanders won Michigan (with my help, I might add), but he still won fewer delegates than Hillary Clinton. (Hillary had the help of someone nearby!) Trump of course won everything in sight and produced an interminable victory speech during which he trotted out enough Trump labeled product to stock The Home Shopping Network for a week. He subsequently appeared on “Morning Joe” where his megalomania was so pronounced that Scarborough’s guests were laughing at him. Trumps apparent inability to stop talking once he gets started looks like a symptom of a particular mental disturbance. On a previous “Morning Joe” Trump refused to stop talking and Joe had to simply cut him off to take a station break. Megalomania is also a part of this syndrome. However that may be, Trump’s high energy level, self-confidence, eagerness to belittle any critic, crudeness and unwillingness to explain his grandiose plans have certainly served him well so far. With massive reinforcement from his fans this behavior is unlikely to stop.

Not much is likely to stop Trump’s path to the nomination either. He is ahead of Marco Rubio in Florida, a winner take all State, where 99 delegates will go to the winner. There is much discussion about whether Marco Rubio should even stay in the race until primary day, March 15^th. The point the politicos make is that if Rubio stays in the race and is beaten in his home state his political career will take a serious hit. But then if he withdraws early because it looks like he will be beaten, how does that benefit his reputation? So far it looks like he’s staying in and taking his chances. Ohio votes March 15^th as well and Trump leads there too. If he wins both states he gets 165 more delegates and will likely be unstoppable on his path to the Republican nomination.

The Republican Party establishment has, so far, been amazingly tone deaf to the problem of stopping Trump. They desperately want to stop him because he will surely lose to Hillary Clinton. Try to find a black face among Trump supporters at a Trump rally. He calls on his thugs to “Get em outta here.” His “wall” will not encourage any Latino voters to support him, so if Trump is nominated good bye election and good bye SCOTUS control by Republicans. The establishment response is to turn Mitt Romney lose to review Trump’s many, many sins.

Romney, in a well-advertised speech, ripped Trump to pieces calling him a very poor businessman and many other even less publically acceptable things. He could not have helped Trump more because that speech was used by Trump to show his fans just how eager the right wing establishment was to demolish him. Now Trump could open up on Romney as a failed candidate sent by the Republicans to sabotage him. The final result was that Romney’s attack on Trump was a dismal failure. The Republican establishment still doesn’t understand why Donald Trump appeals to his fans and what they can do to pry those fans away. He appeals to his fans because of the personal traits I mentioned earlier and no matter what you do those fans won’t come loose.

2016 March 8^th

This morning we have George Will writing a column in which he talks about, “The Republican Party’s battle for Michigan.” Will’s column, by the fourth paragraph, becomes anecdotal: He cites one Patrick Colbeck who had no interest in politics until he read the Affordable Care Act and decided that “It was about control and had nothing to do with care.” To conclude that the ACA has nothing to do with health care after having read it is not to understand English. Perhaps Colbeck should be reminded that payment into Social Security and Medicare are also about control. Colbeck, Will tells us, is now a Republican State senator and a tea party member. Consequently as an enthusiastic supporter of financially strangling government he might have had some responsibility for the Flint fiasco.

Will also mentions Wendy Day whose husband and son served in the Middle East. She is working for the Cruz campaign because “he has been to Babylon and survived” by which she means that he has resisted the “seductive nature of Washington.” Cruz and Washington have not been particularly attractive to each other. Cruz, a junior Senator from Texas, does not have the support of any other Senator. Managing to turn off every one of your Senate colleagues and call your party leader, Senator McConnell, a liar on the Senate floor will reduce your support. Senator Cruz’ support from his colleagues in the Senate is now as low as it can get. George Will, a truly vigorous opponent of Donald Trump, apparently sees Cruz as the only alternative to Trump and that’s a pity.

Cruz, in spite of his appeal to evangelicals, has a number of warts which Will does not mention. One of his congressional supporters cheerfully circulated a rumor that Dr. Carson was dropping from the race and that Carson’s supporters should rally ‘round Cruz. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News tried desperately to blame this on CNN’s reporting but that didn’t work and Cruz finally apologized to Carson. Then Cruz’ campaign showed a photo-shopped picture Rubio shaking hands with President Obama. That image fakery was so obvious it was pathetic; the men are using their left hands. Cruz is at it again in Hawaii and now blaming the problem on “staffers.” Even evangelicals, if they are politicians, aren’t entirely trust worthy.

Will seems to be desperate to stop Trump, but suggesting that Michigan will be a battleground is nonsense. If the Republicans can disenfranchise every black voter in the state maybe they will have a chance. Given that Will has not even mentioned the Flint fiasco and that Governor Snyder’s name appears nowhere in his column, perhaps Will believes that the people of Michigan will just concentrate on the dandy half million dollar state surplus for the year and forget all about the lead poisoning of the children in Flint. I really doubt that will happen.

2016 March 7^th

A few days ago Cal Thomas published a column he titled “Reforming institutions in a ‘dysfunctional city’” by which he meant the Federal Government in Washington; DC equals dysfunctional city, get it? Thomas’ anti-government rant was propelled by his need to work on his income tax. Thomas is fortunate that he needs to work on his income tax because if he were earning the federal minimum wage in this country he would owe no tax at all. Many of those citizens would be happy to change places with him; if they could they would probably not use the occasion to complain about how their tax money was being wasted. He goes on to quote Ronald Reagan who virtually oozed pithy negative comments about our government’s assistance programs for the poor.

The remedy Thomas tells us is to get “beyond the notion of ‘entitlement’ and back to what our ancestors taught about personal responsibility with government as a last resort, not a first resort.” Unfortunately, for many of our citizens, government is the only resort. With a population of 320 million we will obviously have ten percent or 32 million people in the bottom rung of any ability scale. These people will have a very limited capacity to understand directions, particularly written directions, and are employable only in very routine jobs where they can be closely supervised. Then there are people whose employment is limited by physical disability. Thomas quotes Jefferson writing in 1802 warning about government’s pretense of taking care of people. Apparently Thomas believes two and a half centuries have made no difference in the expectations citizens have for their government. He is right of course, and some of them are serving in Congress.

Then Thomas quotes Speaker of the House Paul Ryan: Ryan tells us much to Thomas’ delight that,  “President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies…all of this new government spending was sold as ‘investment.’” Well Mr. Thomas, where did these bills that President Obama signed into law come from? My understanding of the Constitution is that revenue bills must arise in the House of Representatives. If this is true then President Obama has signed into law just those spending bills that the Republican controlled House has sent him to sign. (Perhaps Mr. Thomas would like to comment about this. Just for fun I’ll email this column to him and I’ll let you know if I get a response.)

2016 March 6^th

Semi Super Saturday is over and not a great deal has changed. Cruz won the caucuses in both Kansas and Maine. He also got a lot closer than predicted to Trump in Louisiana. It is clear that the Republican establishment prefers Cruz to Trump because they claim that Cruz is a “real” conservative. Everything depends on Florida and Ohio: if Trump wins them both his nomination is a done deal. He is well ahead in Florida but he was also well ahead in Louisiana until people voted.

Trump has increased the venom the Republicans are throwing at him. This morning on “Meet the Press” Chuck Todd had an interview with Mitt Romney who had unloaded on Trump just a few days before. Todd played a tape of Romney pointing out Trump’s bankruptcies, his inherited wealth, his failed fraud of Trump University and many similar difficulties; then Todd played another tape of Romney receiving Trump’s endorsement four years earlier when Romney had run for President. In that tape Romney had gushed over Trump’s great business sense and how happy he was to get Trump’s endorsement. Then Todd asked Romney what had changed in his evaluation of Donald Trump. Romney kept his composure; his little half-smile never wavered but he had no answer. He could have said that he had been wrong in his earlier assessment of Trump but he simply couldn’t admit that; he is a politician after all.

The attacks on Trump continued during the debate on March 3^rd.  Cruz, Rubio and Kasich showed the audience that they were quite capable of ceaseless attacks on Trump and his policies. Everything from his promise to kill the wives and children of terrorists to his willingness to torture prisoners was used as ammunition. In short, it was clear that all three of them thought that Trump would be an abomination as President and a disaster for the country. Then the moderator asked them if they would support Trump for President if he were to win the nomination. Even though they had all agreed that Trump would be a disaster for the country, every one of these “patriots” said that they would support him for President if he should be nominated. Why? Well, because they had promised to support the nominee. For these men, keeping your personal word trumps what you are sure would be a disaster for your country. These men are the best the Republican Party can offer as Presidential candidates?

The stop Trump theme is also much in evidence from pundits from George Will to Mona Charen. In her column today Charen manages to run through all of Trump’s reprehensible comments. She claims that while Romney may have waited too long to attack Trump, it is not too late to unseat him. “Only fifteen of the Republican primaries or caucuses have been completed,” says Charen. Finally, her limited patience exhausted, she proclaims that Trump is a “degenerate.” She is surely quite safe from a Trump response for I doubt that Donald Trump has ever heard of Mona Charen.

2016 March 5^th

Donald Trump was speaking in Cadillac today, just an hour’s drive away, and I didn’t go to his performance. It was my one chance to see him in person; with any luck I’ll never have another one. Factcheck has an extensive review of Trump’s defense of “Trump University” in this morning’s Record-Eagle. This “University” consisted of a series of lectures on real estate given by lecturers Trump said he had handpicked himself. Either Trump lied or Michael Sexton, past president of Trump University, lied; in a court deposition he said, “None of our instructors in the live events were hand-picked by Donald Trump.”

First, there is not, nor was there ever, a “Trump University.” A university has a reasonably specific definition. From the “Oxford English Dictionary” we have:  "An institution of higher education offering tuition in mainly non-vocational subjects and typically having the power to confer degrees.” Trading real estate is hardly non-vocational and Trump University never had the power to confer a degree to anyone. As usual Trump, in this Factcheck article, tries desperately to salvage something of his shredded credibility. He points out that 95 to 98 percent of Trump University students claim they are satisfied with their courses. Then the reader of this cover-up discovers that these students, who were expecting subsequent internships, had to sign their names to these evaluations. Requiring students to sign their evaluation of any course or instructor is unheard of, but it is clear that Donald Trump doesn’t know that, so he once again blunders while trying to get himself out of a hole.

It would appear that Trump saw the money being coined by other proprietary colleges and decided to get some of the gravy for himself. Corinthian Colleges, a onetime high-flyer in this group is now bankrupt and has sold its assets in an attempt to compensate defrauded students. The Government, which underwrote loans to some of these students, has decided to forgive their indebtedness under some circumstances. Other proprietary schools continue to exist; Phoenix University still advertises widely. Its tuition for online courses is 410 dollars/credit hour, or 1600 dollars for a four credit course. Harvard’s extension program for undergraduate courses is about the same. In fact you can be admitted to Harvard by taking three extension courses and getting no less than “B” in each course. That’s all the entrance exam you need; you’ve demonstrated that you can do the work. So what will it be, Phoenix University or Harvard College? What a tough choice.

2016 March 4^th

I did not see last night’s debate because I knew I would hear about all the high points today. Apparently the only high point came when Kasich pointed out the mess the other children were making in the play room and there seems to be no debate about that. This rivaled the “Animal House” food fight except that they didn’t have any food to throw at each other. Some pundits are asking Romney to consider running again; there is also Jim Webb, Michael Bloomberg, the multi billionaire and Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House. There might be some others slowly emerging from the shadows to save a party sinking irretrievably into the slime. Too late; too late!

Consider that some pundits believe that Senator Rubio could win Florida. This primary awards 99 delegates to the winner and none to the second place finisher. Rubio’s approval rating in Florida is 31 percent; his disapproval rating is 55 percent. He claims that he will not run again for the Senate so he is a lame duck. Florida Governor Rick Scott has not supported him and Donald Trump has a 44 to 28 percent lead in the polls. Then in the debate he called Donald Trump a con man, untrustworthy, uncivil and vulgar.  When Rubio and the rest of these wizards were asked if they would still vote for Donald Trump, they all said sure they would; so much for love of country. Rubio has until March 15^th to turn all this around in Florida; any bets?

On the Democratic side there is no news at all because a considerable degree of civility prevails. The rhetoric is heating up as would be expected, and Sanders isn’t going to leave the race, but Sanders hasn’t been called “Bolshie Bernie” by Clinton as he was a few columns ago by Mona Charen and Clinton hasn’t been called a serial liar by Sanders although she has been called that by every Republican in existence.

At this point in the race let’s look at the odds given by Paddy’s Power, that British betting outfit. Here are the odds for Trump to win the nomination: 2/5, this means that Trump is the odds on favorite to win. If you bet five dollars on him you’ll win just 2 dollars if he wins, Rubio is 5/I, Cruz is 11/2, Clinton on the other hand is 1/16 so it will cost you a 16 dollar bet to win just one dollar if Clinton wins. Paddy is rather sure that Hillary has a lock on the Democratic nomination. For the general election it’s Clinton 1/2, Trump 3/1, Rubio 12/1 and others still less likely. In short, it looks like the folks who have more than just skin in the game are betting on Clinton to win all of the marbles.

2016 March 3^rd

 1:35 PM: Things are moving fast enough so that this entry should be timed as well as dated! Mitt Romney has just spent 20 minutes excoriating Donald Trump, the very same Donald Trump whose business ability he so effusively praised four years ago. Then he wanted Trump’s endorsement for President. Romney has changed his mind now and so has Trump. Trump is on the stump even now excoriating Mitt Romney right back. If it weren’t for the fact that this rhetorical exchange is destructive for the country it would be hilarious!

I’ll have more to say about this later, but for now let’s look at delegates, something that matters. Trump’s hopeful detractors claim that he is not on a path to the nomination because if he continues accumulating delegates at his current pace he will not have the majority needed by convention time. Unfortunately, these folks are not considering that many state primaries coming up are all or none; whoever gets the majority of the votes gets all the delegates. Suppose this rule had been used to assign delegates in the previous state delegate primaries, what would have happened? According to the rules in play now Trump has 319 delegates, Cruz 226 and Rubio 110. Other candidates have dabs and dribbles. If the election had awarded all of the delegates to each state’s winner it would have been Trump 454 delegates, Cruz 256 and Rubio 38. That scenario gives Trump just over 60 percent of the delegates to date instead of less than 50 percent under the rules used to this point. As the all or none contests now come up Trump will increase his delegate percentage if his popularity continues. He might not beat Kasich in Ohio but Rubio’s chances of winning his home state are dim to say the least. Florida is an all or none state with 99 delegates up for grabs and Trump well ahead of Rubio there.

On the Democratic side things are not entirely democratic. The party has about 15 percent of its delegates picked on the basis of their position and allowed to vote for whichever candidate they please. For example all Democratic members of Congress are super delegates, as are various party poohbahs, Democratic state governors, past Presidential candidates and others. These delegates can say that they are pledged to Clinton now, but then in a month or so say “no, now I’m going to vote for Bernie Sanders.”  In general the super delegates vote for the candidate who gets most of the popular vote. In the case of Hubert Humphrey’s nomination, Mr. Humphrey was chosen by the Democratic party elders and had never run in any primary; now that has changed. One of the problems for the super delegate system is that Bernie Sanders’ very significant Colorado victory left him tied with Hillary Clinton in the delegate count because she had most of the super delegates, including Colorado’s governor.  So much for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Of course the super delegates would help reduce the Trump problems for the Republicans. Enough super delegates could block Trump’s path to the nomination and that might be more effective than trying to bring Mitt Romney in from the cold and using him as an attack dog.

2016 March 2^nd

Super Tuesday has passed and Wednesday gives us a clearer vision of what was inevitable even before Tuesday’s votes. The national election in November will be between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will lose…unless the Republicans can be more successful at denying voting rights to non-whites. This is view is not mine alone; many, many, well positioned pundits take this position.

This morning Mona Charen, in her column, “GOP race turning into frontal assault vs. Trump,” excoriates the Republican establishment for allowing the rise of Trump. She says, “If ever there were a moment for a Republican establishment—a powerful cabal of donors, office holders and power brokers—to intervene, this would be it. Because if Trump is the nominee it spells the end of the party…” Then she reconsiders later saying that the “Republican establishment is itself mostly a shell and besides money doesn’t buy elections (see Bush, Jeb) and there is no one behind the curtain.” Now that’s a gloomy Republican! But then it will take considerable looking to find a happy column from Mona Charen.

Charen aims most of her never-ending venom at candidates from her own party. Cruz convinced his followers to “destroy the Washington cartel and boy did they ever listen.” So who does she like? Like is too strong, she claims that “Rubio is the most viable non-Trump candidate left.”  I watched Rubio give a performance last night before the Minnesota results showed he had at least won something on Tuesday. He yelled at length about what he would do on his “first day in office.” (The phrase “first day in office” is political speak for “Immediately,” or “very quickly.”) He would cancel all of the President’s executive actions. He would withdraw from the Iran Agreement. He would cancel, revoke, or otherwise eliminate, the Affordable Care Act. These assertions are absurd on their face:  For examples if he opts out of the Iran treaty there are still five other nations, and Iran, involved. Rubio needs to spend more time thinking about how he will manage to get to his first day in office rather than crow in advance about what he will do if he gets there.

Charen then goes on to outline Trump’s many shortcomings, these are shortcomings that she apparently believes haven’t received sufficient emphasis. But you know what these are, there is no point in listing them here, nor was there any point in Mona listing them, except perhaps doing so allowed her to vent and perhaps feel she had accomplished something. It is surprising that Mona Charen cannot recognize that Donald Trump’s very many warts, which she efficiently catalogues in her column, matter not a damn to his supporters.