These Policies Are Truly Scary

There is a lot to reflect on given the recent Trump policy of "zero tolerance" regarding all foreign nationals who enter our country without a Visa.

It is a number that has been declining for years, well before Trump. Why is another subject entirely. When arguments are made regarding foreign nationals residing in the US illegally (as Trump describes as an "infestation"), one should always keep in mind that a majority are here due to overstaying their Visas.

Trump and his minions (press secretary, DHS Secretary, Attorney General, loyal Trump Republicans in Congress) have repeated over and over that their policy of separating young children from their parents was only following the law. Trump went further to call it specifically a "Democrats" law.

This brazen assertion is not true. There is no law, Democrat or otherwise. Do the research yourself - I did. That Trump should assert an untruth is not surprising; he has done it almost countless times. But these other people (my God...the Attorney General, chief of law enforcement!!) are equally reprehensible.

Initially, when they were making reference to "Flores" I thought they were talking about a law which mandated that children could not be kept in detention centers. That's what they wanted me to think. However, "Flores" is not a law, it was a Court decision back during the Reagan administration which restricted the treatment of alien children. A reaffirmation of the finding by the 9th Circuit during the Obama Administration reiterated that children could not be held with their parents in detention if there were less offensive ways of keeping track of them (which the Obama Administration chose).

It is why Trump's so called "reverse" Executive Order to create internment camps for entire families (at abandoned Air Force bases) will not work. It's as if he finds it perfectly acceptable to take us back to 1942. Are empowering Jim Crow laws next?

Although the repulsiveness of this recent episode of the Trump Administration is self evident, its not what I found scary.

The National response has been proper, and the vilified News Media (except for Trump News) has been aggressive. I feel it will ultimately work its way back to a policy identical to that of the Obama Administration, albeit with hurt children and parents along the way.

What I found frightening was the lack of transparency by which Trump, Sessions, and their advisors chose to try and pull this off. Of all the blustery comments Trump has made about authoritarian leaders, how he respects their actions, applauds their behavior, and seeks to emulate them, his actions have at best been limited tweets or passive support of Authoritarian principals. However, this time it's different.

What scares me was the lack of transparency by which this policy was carried out. Individuals, media representatives, even Senators were restricted from information that would divulge the nature of what Trump was doing. The details of the whole policy were carried out for weeks, children transferred to 17 states around the Country, entirely in secret.

Once the extent of the action was uncovered the attempt at secrecy continued until they realized it was fruitless. No information on how many or where, no pictures allowed, no eye witnesses allowed (including ranking Senators), the DHS Secretary refusing to say where young girls were sent, and so forth.

This attempt at blinding public scrutiny goes hand in hand with Trump proclaiming American News Media as the number one "enemy of the people". Folks...this is really scary stuff. It is a critical leg of Authoritarianism. We see it around the world where human rights are most suppressed. The Holocaust couldn't have happened without it.

Dear reader, vote out Republicans in November so Congress can finally be a check to this anti-American Administration.

Gun No Fun

A news story yesterday out of Colorado managed to float itself to national attention. It involved gun violence, injury, and death - the American carte du jour. We heard about this case I believe, as opposed to the endless parade of gun killings that barely make local news, because of the suspected reason for a motive - road rage.

That the victims were a young mother (41) and two of her children probably enhanced it news "worthiness", but the hook for the media was this type of anger which almost everyone can relate to at some level. What I'm interested in learning, as the facts proceed, is whether much or any of the attention will be directed toward the inclusion of a handgun in the crime. I suspect not much...but it should.

The killer, a 23 year old white male (almost a type cast role), has already been able to publish out to the media his mental instability and recent addition of medications. As he didn't know his victims at the time of the shootings, if he can prove that the "rage" occurred close enough to the event he'll probably be in a good position to defend himself from a 1st degree murder charge. His crime will lean closer to that of a drunk driver causing fatalities.

That actually may be closer to the truth than to lump him with those who plan killings for their own advantage(s).

The real problem is that he had possession of a handgun. Even if it is discovered that he planned this action, that "road rage" was not the motive, the existence of the handgun is still critical. But let me shoot a hole (not to be puny) in the anti-gun advocates (sure to come) argument. It's not the gun itself.

The NRA mantra; "guns don't kill people, people kill people", is ironically the best possible slogan for maximum gun control. It is because it highlights the question; why do so many people in the United States turn to guns to solve their emotional issues?

Okay, we know the US is awash in firearms. However, if you remove the 3% of the population (about 10MM people) who have accumulated arsenals (averaging 16 firearms each) the per capita ownership of the remaining weapons is not that far off from other countries. Yet US gun violence and gun related suicides dwarf all other developed societies across the globe. Why?

Gun control advocates want to address accessibility. That would be a nice clean argument if it weren't for the fact that this Country already has more guns then it has people. Making guns harder to get is a no brainer, but it doesn't solve the problem, which is why the NRA+ can so easily cut it off at the knees. We need strong gun control laws because we need to make a generational change in how American society, as a whole, values gun use.

Currently everything recent generations have experienced tell them that the use of a gun to solve your problem, whatever it might be, is acceptable and often laudable. Those 3% who have accumulated arsenals are virtually in love with their guns for much the same reason. The NRA, Conservatives, and Republicans are all members of the wedding party. The steady drone of gun violence news just adds validation to the affair.

We need gun control laws because the NRA is right, people kill people. If we enact comprehensive gun control laws, effectively saying as a society that guns are not cool, that they are what they are and no more. Then perhaps the next generation will grow up with no desire to include themselves with the outcasts who continue to find a way to exploit the violence of firearms.

Perhaps then the road rage of 2040 could no more be associated with gun violence than arguing whose turn it is to take out the trash.  The change needs to start now because there is a long, long way to go.

Fox & Frauds

As I have revealed in prior posts, I record and try to watch the first 20 minutes or so of both MSNBC's Morning Joe and FOX's Fox&Friends weekday mornings. Where the biases of both are obvious, my attempts at objectivity are constantly challenge by the FOX network. Case in point:

This morning (June 11th) the lead story on Joe was about how Trump had distanced himself at the G-7 meeting and had published his usual low-bar Tweets directed at Canadian Prime minister Justin Trudeau. Two of Trumps senior economic advisors, Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro, were on the Sunday circuit also trashing Trudeau (using some questionably identical language). Navarro went so far as to say Trudeau was reserving for himself a "special place in Hell".

Trudeau on Saturday, as the G-7 host, had given a statement regarding the overall conclusion of the Conference, then opened up for a few questions. Morning Joe played clips from the statement which were upbeat, even on working out differences between the US and Canada/Europe. MJ was pointing out the contrast between Trudeau's words and the Trump responses (Tweets).

When I watch Fox&Friends the clips they played were different. Trudeau was more specific in his words describing Canadian/US relations. He was more aggressive using terms like "retaliation" and we won't be "pushed around".

Whoa I thought! Both Progressives and Conservatives cherry picking their narrative! Who to trust? Then I decided to listen to the entire 43 minute Trudeau statement and press conference (which unfortunately for me he repeated everything in both English and French making the actual briefing about 25 minutes).

The reality was that Morning Joe had used words from Trudeau's initial statement. F&F on the other hand edited comments which were responses to questions later on. In fact, the questions referenced the aggressive trade actions by Trump specifically wanting to know how Canada would respond. Fox&Friends, of course, chose not to include the questions, or even that there were questions.

Overall the Trudeau statement and answers to questions were extraordinarily conciliatory. He constantly expressed concerns for both Canadian and American workers. He also repeatedly expressed optimism that an equitable solution could be worked out. Frankly, it made me jealous of Canadians in no small measure.

We are becoming a shameful country and not simply because of Trump. Where are the so-called patriotic Republicans who used to take pride in American leadership? No where to be found. Fox&Frauds could just as easily be labeled Fox$Fiends (the $$ is not a typo). If you watch it for information you are as dumb and gullible as Trump himself.

The US relationship to Canada has been so close during my lifetime I have never even thought of Canadians as "foreigners". Cousins is a more apt description. It is profoundly sad how Trump is undermining generations of foreign policy. He may decide he wants a wall on the Canadian/American boarder, but he should realize it would only be useful in keeping Americans in.

The 2018 Debate

I have recently spent time considering what this 2018 political season will be focusing on. Disappointingly, the target is likely to be the usual…manipulating emotions. Trying to appeal to reason is a righteous pursuit, but like choosing good eats, taste usually wins out over nutrition. It’s all about motivating those only marginally paying attention.

Those of us who are continually dumbfounded by the three ring circus performed by the Trump Administration are nearly in a panic over our desire to bring some normalcy back to American governance. Motivation to neutralize Trump is a given and flipping Congress is the answer.

Starting with the Woman’s March in January 2017 to the teen’s marching for gun control this spring (and all the exhaustion in between), the Democratic candidates need only get out in front of the bandwagon. I’ll be joining with time and money.

Now what about the Republicans? 

The Obama hating, Fox only, Trump loyalists are solid, but they really only represent a minority of the electorate in most districts, including those districts which are generally deemed Conservative.  What are Republicans going to use to detract and deflect attention away from The Donald? What are their big tickets for firing the emotions of the Center Right?  I’ll tell you one.

Like the rise of dormant Cicadas, the debate over abortion will once again take center stage.

You might recall that during the 2016 national election the issue of abortion was barely touched. Trump and those running on his lead didn’t need it, or perhaps even want it given Trump’s history on the subject. They instead conjured the specter of rabid immigrants, “crooked lock-her-up Hillary”, and fake non-Fox news to marshal the troops. They had a tsunami of bogus social media hits to fire up the faithful (with a little help from das Comrades).  It obviously worked.

Not so easy this go-around.

The reason Republicans will fall back on their Old Faithful is that there is little else. Even Fiscal Conservatism has tanked under the massive deficits the Republicans have passed. Also, it is because Conservatives have successfully molded the abortion debate into a slam dunk. To date they have won the war of verbal identification and you can expect they’ll be going back to that bank for further withdrawals.

Democrats had better pay attention because this issue electrifies too many people who vote on this one purely emotional issue without regard to health, safety, Economy, and every other issue critical to functioning government.

Even in the general discussion the camps on both sides routinely refer to it as “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion”.  In that debate the Democrat has lost even before reaching the podium. The fact is that everyone is “anti-abortion”.  No woman gets pregnant because she wants to have an abortion. 

The Right to Life people don’t want that fact brought into the debate.  The reality of a common purpose, essentially the overall reduction of abortions, is antithetical to what Right to Life supporters are actually (often unwittingly) pursuing: the righteous satisfaction of emotional confrontation. 

Republicans politicians know this and have been cashing in on it for decades. Democrats better begin understanding that it works.

Democratic candidates around the Nation need to stop ignoring this issue. They should embrace the issue pointing out that the conflict and lack of dialogue itself is the most “pro-abortion” aspect of it. Right to Life supporters are more than equally responsible for unnecessary pregnancy terminations.

Democratic candidates need to respect the tragedy of abortion and recognize that those choosing to oppose abortion personally have a legitimate emotional reaction to it. They also need to support common sense restrictions on abortion such as limiting non-health related abortions to the period of non-viability (currently the first two trimesters or 6 months).

Perhaps then Conservatives (especially Christian Conservatives) might begin to accept that legally penalizing abortions has never worked from the time humans first figured out abortions were possible. Rather they only restricted abortions for poor women, who either accepted their fate or went to back alleys to terminate the pregnancy and possible themselves.

They also might drop their inane arguments against contraception or their hypocritical judgments opposing sex generally. Both deserve a big Charlie Brown GOOD GRIEF!

If Right to Life Conservatives want to make a difference and reduce the number of abortions then they should start working with those who want to provide education, health care, and contraception to young and poor women. Progressive Democrats better get ready to provide that olive branch or be the victims of mindless manipulated emotion.

Lacking Faith

The “War to end all wars” reached its conclusion in November 1918 and was ratified by treaty on June 28, 1919. In less than 20 years the world would be embroiled again in a conflict exponentially greater and deadlier.  Since WWII ended there has been no world alliances fermenting military conflict for 72 years and counting.

There is no single reason for the disparity in what happened then and what happened since. However, there are consistent themes that provide important explanations for that disparity, and also for many regional violent engagements that have occurred since 1945. Donald Trump, for whatever reasons, embodies one today.

The outstanding difference between the aftermaths of the two World Wars of the last century was the treatment of vanquished. After WWI penalties and punitive controls were mandated, designed to restrict the losers (primarily Germany) from gaining military and economic strength. After WWII the losers (primarily Germany, Italy, and Japan) were aided by the Allies to strengthen their economies. This was accomplished largely through the support of regulated free enterprise.

Where that emphasis did not occur, such as in Eastern Europe, resulted in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and is prima fascia evidence of what best controls authoritarian adventurism and tyranny…prosperity.

The lesson of the two World Wars, the evolution of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and the protracted and failed conflicts in North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are confirmation that Donald Trump and the hawks he has surrounded himself with are the embodiment of historical ignorance.

Ironically, they, along with the Republican Party, also show a pitiful lack of faith in the one human endeavor they view almost religiously, namely Free Enterprise.

The Iran “Deal”, an agreement known as the JCPOA, was designed to put nuclear weapon development on hold in Iran. It also allowed economic development in Iran without foreign impediment.  That aspect, Iranian economic growth, was a main factor Trump (with the brain of a small weasel) used as a reason to scuttle the deal. I believe just the opposite to be true.

If nuclear weapons are to be viewed as unnecessary two things must occur. There can be no legitimate threat of nuclear attack and there must be a powerful economic interest by a nation’s population to resist conflict.  Evidence Australia, which was well along the path to building nuclear weapons. It ended its development lacking both those motivations.

Iran, an educated nation by Middle Eastern standards, has shown a drift toward moderate behavior in its internal governance even during the short period since sanctions have been lifted, evidenced by the reelection of Hassan Rouhani as President, even with the active resistance of the hard line Islamic faction supported by the current Ayatollah.

Nothing neutralizes radical religious belief more than prosperity.

Over a 12 year period of growing prosperity there would be more likelihood of a Iran losing interest in developing nuclear weapons. However, a nation with reasonable resources and allies (like oil and Russia) and a destitute population, use to sacrifice, would have fertile ground for unification against a common external enemy.

Trump's actions will only harden radical control over the Iranian people. If the US wants a true nuclear free Middle East it should start by requiring the participation of Israel in denuclearization.

Instead Trump looks to North Korea as his path to adoration while trashing the Middle East.  To the chant Nobel Nobel Nobel by his uneducated, uniformed, and misguided followers, he said, “…what did I have to do with (bringing peace) to Korea?….How about everything”. Whatever happens in North Korea over the decades will also depend on prosperity, but it isn’t going to happen during Trump’s watch.

Kim Jong-un might agree to many things, especially if it results in the removal of the American military from the Korean peninsula.  What we won’t see is any on the ground verification of whatever North Korea might agree to.  If Donald Trump wants to take credit for “everything that happens” it will be justified by the disgraceful way this buffoon of a President can be manipulated by his own narcissistic ego.

The Korean Caper

Foreign policy from the American perspective, in the era of Trump, requires the merging of two often incongruous points: what we see and what we know. It begs the question, how reliable are our eyes and ears?

Yesterday we saw a form of détente being exercised between North and South Korea. Today we will hear about a significant role the US (and more specifically D. Trump) played in putting together what is being billed as the end of the 70 year old Korean War. Such an accomplishment, with additional overtones of reducing future armed conflict on the Korean peninsula is of a level that starts Nobel Peace Prize speculation.

We also saw Mike Pompeo pictured with Kim Jong-un last month. What was going on there? It all looks so…well, progressive. This is made especially true following the reintroduction into the American fear machine of nuclear holocaust, made particularly vivid by videos of Hawaiian citizens running amuck in paradise.

Okay then…so what do we know?

We know that North Korea has survived for three generations as a fully authoritarian regime. Kim is viewed by the majority of North Koreans essentially as a deity, as was his father and grandfather.  We know that even with a compromised economy it has been able to successfully develop both nuclear weapons and delivery systems. 

We know that since the end of military conflict in the early 1950s the US has been the target of national hostility, loathing, and a useful tool for North Korean national unity. America is to Kim what the Jews were to Hitler.

We know that Kim is 35 years old (or 34 or 36 depending on the source) and it is reasonable to believe that he has every intention of keeping his job until death, as has been the family tradition.  He could easily have 50 years left to his term, so whatever game he may be playing you can assume it’s the long game.

We also know he is ruthless, given the public assassinations and known political gulags. Benevolence is not in his wheelhouse. Just ask the Warmbier family. It is meaningless that he likes to listen to electropop or watch basketball.

We know that the Trump administration has demonstrated a type of political pragmatism that more resembles pinball ambiguity than pinpoint precision.  The haphazard turnover in Administration leadership is nowhere more evident than in the State Department with the Tillerson efforts to completely dismantle it like an unprofitable corporate acquisition.

We know that child-like rhetoric has been Trump’s response to North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic successes. We also know that Trump is playing a short game (a fact that’s essentially true for most in American politics), and given his erratic behavior toward the legal woes he faces, it’s likely his preference is a very short game.

So if what we see doesn’t mesh with what we know, where does that take us?

Here should be the givens: Kim Jong-un is not going to denuclearize his regime. It is a carrot that will never get within a yard of the donkey’s nose. It makes absolutely no sense for an authoritarian government to give up the only ace in its hand.

What Kim wants is the US out of South Korea, expand his relationship with China, Russia, and, probably, Vietnam to keep the US out of the Yellow Sea and much of the Sea of Japan. He wants reduced influence by the US over South Korea and he can wait years, maybe decades to make it happen.

 By normalizing relations (trade, exchange etc.) with South Korea and dangling unification along with denuclearization he is hoping to get South Korea to be the landlord to evict the Americans.  Trump, with his game limited to a couple of years at best (maybe far less…go Mueller), will jump on any bandwagon which he thinks will make him a candidate for Nobel status.

As incongruous as it might appear, it may end up being the right course of action.

The only weapon I believe to be useful in undermining Kim Jong-un’s iron hold over the North Korean people (& policy) is prosperity.  Perhaps in post-Trump America we can figure a way to be a leading force in advancing North Korea’s economy instead of the continual militarily adversarial position we have taken for 70 years.  

It is obvious Korean unification will never happen until the two Koreas look essentially alike. Let’s work toward making them both look like South Korea.

Letting Flicka Rest in Peace?

The phrase Beating a Dead Horse is 150 years old, and for good reason. Despite the brutal image it creates by current standards, its relevance (and resilience) lies with the reality that everyone has engaged in the futility of pursuing something that cannot come to be. 

For those challenged by obvious similes, its origin comes from the pointlessness of vigorously attempting to make a horse move after it has expired. Anyone not pleading guilty to occasionally engaging in this human foible I believe your UFO is double parked.

The problem clearly is due to the beater not being able to recognize that the horse is dead. So is the case with my fixation on something that appears so perceptible to me yet seems to gain no traction in the court of public opinion. 

Once again, for the fourth time over the past two years, I am writing about Donald Trump’s mental illness.  Will it be just another sweet nothing sent across desert air or worse, the flogging of a poor animal who only wants to graze in the great beyond?

For anyone who has experienced, first hand, the behavior of someone with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and possibly researched that disorder in order to deal with the relationship, they should be able to see that Trump is so inflicted. Furthermore, they should understand, with reasonable ease, the actions he has taken and confidently predict those actions yet to be inflicted on a weary nation. It explains everything Trump.

Anti-Trump pundits and supporters alike run an entire gamut of explanations on why this man has done what he has, why he acts the way he does, and what motivates has actions.  “He’s a liar”, “he’s a tell-it-like-it-is businessman”, “he’s immoral”, “he’s a counter-puncher”, “he’s a racist”, “he’s a Conservative patriot”, “he’s an authoritarian”, “he’s a family man”, “he’s a womanizer”, “he’s a deal maker”, “he’s ignorant”, and so on.

The commentators we hear daily are like doctors who reflect confidently on the symptoms that are causing distress but never touch on the underlying disease.

NPD is not new, and although Narcissistic behavior is common, a Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not. The disorder creates in the inflicted individual behaviors they can’t control.

NPD is as much defined by the impairment created by the behavior as it is the characteristics.

Here is a common list of characteristics of NPD which you can retrieve from multiple sources. This list comes from Mayo Clinic’s website:

Has an exaggerated sense of self-importance

Has a sense of entitlement and requires constant, excessive admiration

Expects to be recognized as superior even without achievements to warrant it

Exaggerates achievements and talents

Is preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance

Believes they are superior and can only associate with equally special people

Belittles or looks down on people they perceive as inferior

Expects unquestioning compliance with their expectations

Takes advantage of others to get what they want

Has an inability to empathize or recognize the needs and feelings of others

Is envious of others and believe others envy them

Behaves in an arrogant manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious

These characteristics (which all need not apply to be considered having a NPD) are not the most important aspect of the disorder. The real problem is that reality for the NPD patient is almost entirely subjectively resourced.  A person such as Donald Trump does not view the world external to himself as having objective truth.

More telling than the countless untruths and inane actions are the many small absurdities such as denying the crowd size of his predecessor’s inauguration or saying he created the phrase prime the pump. It is the reason a person with an NPD cannot admit that they are wrong, because to do so would contradict their subjective understanding of truth.

This I believe makes Trump a far more sympathetic individual than the Progressive pundits like to describe him. However, I also believe it makes him far more dangerous and heightens the necessity to remove him from office.

Because the objective world is constantly contradicting the subjective world Donald sees as truth it is inevitable that he will become increasingly paranoid. We have already seen this evolution taking place. He will perceive conspiracies everywhere affecting him directly, instead of those he frequently observed in his past from a distance. 

As I predicted a year and a half ago, those closest to him would be targeted first. So it has been unceasingly. Worse than that is the likelihood that those wanting to keep their positions will give him no counsel. It is a tragedy that Republican lawmakers are unwilling to address the lunacy that parades before them in their desire to retain power. Such neutralizes the effectiveness of our Constitution.

There is no good outcome from his remaining in office, as someone with a NPD simply cannot accept an objective reality and therefore cannot accept his own dysfunction.

It is imperative that Congress is flipped from Republican control at the end of this year, that Mueller presents his case sooner than later, and then, perhaps, I will see Flicka rise to her feet and take another run around the track.

Are Conservatives That Stupid?

In his public response to the recent win by Democrat Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania, Paul Ryan said Lamb won because he “ran as a Conservative”. Among other things, Ryan said Lamb was “Pro-life”.  He also said that Republicans cannot afford to be “massively outspent as was the case with these two candidates” (a wink to his donor class).

Further, Ryan claimed that had Donald Trump not gone down to “campaign” for the Republican Saccone, the victory for Lamb would have looked more like a landslide. What in the hell is that saying? Does Ryan love Trump that much to so blatantly mislead?

Every Conservative Republican should feel insulted right down to their Don’t Tread on Me bumper stickers.

The fact is that Saccone forces outspent Lamb 2 to 1. If you count just money coming in from sources outside the individual campaigns, Lamb was outspent 5 to 1. Thirteen million dollars was spent by Republicans in that race portraying Lamb as a bleeding heart, Liberal, Nancy Pelosi Democrat. Per Ryan, Conservative Republicans saw through that tsunami of Republican spending to see the “Conservative Champion” that Lamb truly was, instead of voting for the actual Republican…right.

Impressively (as far as I’m concerned), Ryan definitively has given “Pro-life” a new definition for Republicans. 

Conor Lamb openly and actively supported “Pro-choice” and Roe v Wade while also stating his choice, were he a woman, would be not to have an abortion. So let it now be proclaimed that if you oppose abortion personally and want that decision to be freely chosen by you, not by government legislation, then you are Pro-life!

Opening the door to the fact that no woman gets pregnant because she wants to have an abortion would go a long way toward finding middle ground between militant positions. Such would reduce far more abortions than punitive laws and restrictive health care. Everyone wins. Good for you Paul.

The first I heard the talking point that “two Conservative Republicans” had been running in PA’s 18^th Congressional District was on Fox & Friends at 6:15am the morning after the election.  I then saw that talking point popping up among Republican spokesman and politicians everywhere.  Because it is so ludicrous on its face you have to ask the question: what in the blazes is going on? Who’s in charge of what?

If they wanted to avoid the reality that they have an unstable, angry clown in the White House, they could have simply pointed out one fact: that Lamb was a better candidate. Rather than trying to adopt him. The Trump mantra that Republicans will believe and accept anything given to them degrades anyone who believes in legitimate Conservative issues.

When Trump rallies the faithful at one of his tabernacle-style gatherings he is simply saying over and over; you are all my “Mikeys” and you’ll eat anything I feed you. I want to think that’s not true. 

With the prophetic words of a young Loretta Lynn; “I may be dumb, but I ain’t stupid”, perhaps Conservatives will begin to educate themselves and not accept Republican leadership or Fox News treating them like idiots.

Donald is the New Dennis

Once again the reporters of current events are treating Donald Trump like he is President, as opposed to man who is playing President. Nothing says that better than a South Korean delegation on the front lawn of the White House making an announcement about a meeting between Kim Jong-un and Trump (which apparently does not definitively include the South Koreans). An announcement our Secretary of State obviously had no advance warning of.

Yet the analysis I have seen thus far has wallowed in meaningful speculation. Really? How many times can a person be kicked in the ass before it is felt? The only thing meaningful about this announcement is how consistent it is with the lunacy of this Presidency.

The White House has been reduced to that of a giant circus clown car. No matter how many ridiculous, slap stick, or even scary things emerge from it, there always seems to be just one more.

It is understandable why Kim Jong-un might be described as a nut-case, but that, at the very least, would be short sighted. He is the inheritor of a nation of 25 million people which the world has allowed to devolve into a giant cult.  Through decades of indoctrination, he, his father, and his grandfather have been elevated to deity status.  The use of a perplexing and bizarre interpretation of Marxist Communism has essentially been talking points to support their autonomy.

As might be expected, Kim Jong-un is seriously ruthless. His gulags and assassinations are notorious. He appears to judge the condition of his nation’s people by the extent to which his authoritarian rule is sustained.  He is, by all reasonable international standards, a bad dude.

It also appears that he is fascinated or even loves Western culture.  Exposed to the West during his early school years in Switzerland, he is not as blind as the vast majority of North Koreans. Yet I question that he might now view the West as one might a carnival sideshow.  His fascination with Dennis Rodman is a good example.

Not only did he court the attention of Dennis Rodman and allowed Dennis into his inner sanctum, but he also publicly acknowledged their relationship. Why? Could it be because Dennis represented the peculiar extreme of American Sport’s eccentricities?  I think so. I also believe it to be entirely possible that Kim Jong-un sees Donald Trump as the Dennis Rodman of American Governance, maybe even as a kindred spirit.

For Trump to elevate Kim Jong-un to that of an international foreign leader is no small deviation from 64 years of American foreign policy. Americans may think that this “bold” move on the part of the Trumpster is just our way of solving the problem of having nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula.  It is far more likely that Kim is playing Donald like the marionette he is.

What is North Korea without nuclear weapons? A blacklisted, third world nation unable to compete in the world, except in displays of synchronize human movement.  More importantly, what is Kim Jong-un without nuclear weapons? Ditto. There is no denuclearization of North Korea on the horizon…period.  Kim’s ride up the escalator at Trump Tower is his first victory. There will likely be more with the great “deal-maker” President we now have in charge.

What makes Trump so predictably a loser? It can be wrapped up in the answer he gave this week to a reporter. When asked what made the apparent moves by Kim Jong-un happen, he answered quickly (for him) a truthful one word answer. He said “me”. He actually believes that bombastic remarks like “fire and fury”, “little rocket man”, and “I’ve got a bigger button” can change the course of international relations.  Someone with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder could not believe differently.

Simply put…Donald Trump is the new Dennis Rodman…minus the piercings.

There is a Forest...Really

We are currently immersed in the glacier pace of evolving political history. It is difficult to sense the motion or be confident of the direction. However, when current events are finally viewed retrospectively, with much of the minutia filtered out, the obvious nature of what is happening will become clear, and likely in stages.

It is easy to see this when applied, for example, to something like slavery.

Slavery was a fully acceptable part of life, chronicled as an ordinary matter of fact in such illustrious publications as The Bible. Yet as society progressed the onerous and detestable nature of slavery was eventually met with anger, then sorrow for its tragedy, then regret that it ever occurred, and finally befuddlement. Today we are generally perplexed on how human beings could have felt and acted as they did.

However slavery is a low bar in illustrating this human peculiarity. The same can be applied to many less obvious things such as child labor or religious freedom. Some things we still are trying to immerge from like racism or torture.

On a less universal level the same could apply to the insane proliferation of firearms in the United States. The manic desire of those who want to maintain this insanity has pushed the response to this behavior well into the ‘anger’ zone.

With slavery this ‘anger zone’ required a horrific Civil War to move it to the sorrow, regret and befuddlement stages. Hopefully that won’t be necessary with guns, but a future generation (already living) will surely look back and say “how were they so damned stupid?”

On an even smaller scale we are currently experiencing the same evolution with the placement of Donald Trump as President of the United States.

We had two Presidential campaigns in which the vast majority of supporters for both candidates and those who like neither assumed the outcome was inevitable.  Of course it wasn’t.  However, that was a single event. Like flipping a light switch, there was an assumption that even though the color or intensity of the light emitted by the Donald was unknown, we would at least be able to see what was going on.

Not so fast. When Trump began his administration by first engaging the Press and Public with extended energy devoted to the size of his inaugural crowd, the near future should have had some clarity. It did not. Trump continued to be considered a blank slate, even by his detractors, so the view of his behavior and policies was served up to intellectual discourse. 

As Southerners engaged the Country 200 years ago in the economics of slavery instead of its repulsive reality, the critics of Donald Trump have willingly cavorted among the trees of American politics unable to see the forest that surrounds them.

Have we even begun to get to the anger stage?

Once in office, Trump began to hire the most unqualified and (as proven evident) incompetent people to assume senior positions in our Government.

He placed his completely unqualified, inexperienced, and (frankly) immature son-in-law to handle personally our Nation’s most sensitive foreign relationships, a fact that would be deemed too ridiculous for a comedy sitcom. His daughter, his caddy, his bodyguard, a cluster of bungling billionaires, and talk show personalities were all given the keys to the castle. Every American should be mouthing the words “are you kidding me?!?!”

Donald Trump campaigned showing a weird attraction to Russia generally and Vladimir Putin specifically, a nation that is careening headlong into authoritarianism. So what does he do? He puts in charge of foreign affairs a man we all saw being pinned by Putin with decorations, as if they were going steady. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

His mentally debilitating narcissism serves up wildly unhinged communications, which much of the Country turns off at the end of the day, as if it were just another reality TV show. The obvious conflicts of interest Trump has tried to make opaque fool nobody. Add to that the long list of resignations, firings, guilty pleas, indictments, foreign intrigue, and one out of every three days spent at a Florida golf club; I have to wonder how the growth of these gnarled trees can be analyzed as if each deserved stand alone scrutiny.

Just step back everyone and look at the forest. It’s really there…it’s big and it’s absurd.

People have not gotten angry enough yet and maybe they need to. It’s the first step. Perhaps that would overwhelmingly reposition Congress such that the insanity can be dealt with. Perhaps the Special Prosecutor will uncover enough indisputable evidence to throw the baggage out. Perhaps the continued meltdown of Trump will cause the rest of the Executive branch to act. Perhaps this is a four year nightmare. As one historian recently put it, regardless of what happens…“it won’t end well”.

One thing I feel for certain. There will come a time in the not too distant future when people will look back on us, who so passively watched or even supported the Trump deforestation, and ask “…how were they so damned stupid?”