My Morning With Fox & Fiends

Catching up on the morning news and then finishing it with 20 to 30 minutes of Fox & Friends is like eating a nutritious meal and then topping it off with tub of bacon fat for dessert. It leaves me feeling ill of course, but then I think about the millions of people who are eating nothing but the bacon fat. Where is the clarion cry?

Fox & Friends is essentially a political program that sprinkles in tabloid news to give its viewers occasional breaks of schadenfreude. Their support of Donald Trump and his administration is mostly accomplished through omission and selective sound bites.

I'd like to take a break from Donald Trump (oh my...that does sound good doesn't it?) and also the mindless voice that Fox News provides him. Instead I want to touch again on this "news source" that belittles its viewers at every turn.

One of the major "breaking news" stories this week on Fox & Friends involved one of Fox's favorite whipping posts, Elizabeth Warren. A woman who has accomplished more than Doocy, Earhardt, and Kilmeade combined, three times over.

They were commenting on a bill in Congress she introduced. Under her picture with outstretched arms were the word (the length of the studio) NATIONALIZE EVERYTHING. This bill, by their description was her attempt to "nationalize every major business in American". They stated categorically that such a law as she is proposing would be "the largest seizure of private property in human history".

Now I understand that their constant motives are to gin up the emotions of their viewers, but are their viewers really that stupid? God, I hope not.

The bill Warren is proposing, simply put, is an attempt to make the largest multi-national corporations operating in the US more accountable to the American people and their employees. It is a direct and reasonable response to the Citizens United decision which gave corporations the rights of individuals but with little or no transparency.

You might think Fox would bring in some established Conservative expert to lead Doocy through the entanglement of reading a bill. However, given the difference between "largest seizure in human history" and allowing employees a say in electing board members, you know an expert would be of no value to Fox.

Instead they brought on a true "Fox expert", Rebecca Walser, titled as CEO of Walser Wealth Management.

This was a 44 year old woman with a CFP (Certified Financial Planner...hey, I earned that too!) who started her business in Tampa FL in 2015. Now she is the CEO of a corporation with, you guessed it, one employee...her. That kind of makes me CEO of my home, right (or is that my wife, hmmm...) ?

Her knowledge was about as deep as her background. However, next to Doocy it's not hard to fake it. Never did they touch on Warren's bill specifically. They simply made broad inane pronouncements. I doubt either actually read the bill.

F&F followed this quality reporting by interviewing an individual who was there to provide insight on all of Trump's security challenges as this person had "just left the Pentagon".
 
That wealth of knowledge was provided by Guy Snodgrass, in his 30s. He was titled Former Top Gun Pilot. Well...that makes sense now doesn't it? Yes, he did work as a flight instructor in the Navy for a few years, then left the Navy to work several low level jobs for the Defense Department. However, the only thing I could find online about him was his published resume, where he described himself as "in transition" (which is a Top Gun way of saying "unemployed"). I trust the millions of dedicated Republicans watching drank in every word of his sage observations.

These examples are not unique for Fox News. In fact, if you make the effort to do the research you'll find that even their trusted regulars are paper thin with qualification.

Take numero uno...Sean Hannity. Like Rush Limbaugh he was a two year, college drop out. Other than doing a gig as a house painter he has been exclusively a radio, then TV talk show personality. Like Limbaugh he has made (and continues to make) a fortune in that industry, fleecing the MAGA devotees. So it makes sense that he should be able to talk to the President of the United States almost daily to provide advice on foreign and domestic affairs, right?

For those of you who say "yeah, right", I suggest you send your money to Walser Wealth Management. I'm sure Rebecca will take good care of it.

Deny, Deny, Deny

A true phenomenon is being played out by the Trump White House and Fox News on a National scale...before our very eyes. It is the creation of deniability or even an "alternate" reality by simply and repeatedly claiming that what we experience (directly or indirectly) is not true.

It's made me think back on a skit injected into the 1967 comedy film  A Guide for the Married Man. In it Robert Morse is giving Walter Matthau advice on how to have an affair, and for this piece (played by Joey Bishop and Ann Guilbert) he's advising him to "Deny, Deny, Deny":  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGu8qiBUf-4 . Watch this You Tube now then return to this post.

This method of shaping reality, as bizarre as it appears, has been part of the Trump playbook throughout his business life and where he has been recorded early on advocating the use of repetition. However, as a Presidential Candidate and now as President he has leap frogged this tool to virtually manipulate millions of people.

It is now done through a triangle of influence. Trump will personally (by camera, by Tweet, or White House communique) deliver an untruth.  Whether this is an out and out lie or his narcissistic interpretation is unknown, but that question is ultimately irrelevant. It is then picked up by Fox News, which treats it as de facto truth simply because it was said by the President.

They will surround the statement with some "what about(s)" and patriotic sound bites and feed it to their (and Trump's) "base". It is then picked up by Republican Politicians and Conservative Pundits, who will use Fox News and each other as verification. Fox News will then repeat it as confirmation by broadcasting the Republican's comments.

This week the Trump White House published both the official transcript of the Helsinki news conference by Trump and Vladimir Putin. These are done routinely by all Presidential Administrations for the National archives. I watched live, and saw several times after, the Reuter reporter's question to Putin as to whether he (Putin) had supported Trump's candidacy and directed Russian officials to help Trump. To both Putin answered "Yes, I did".

Yet somehow the part about Trump in the question disappeared from the official transcript. And incase someone was charitable in assuming it was a rather large typo, the mention of Trump was also deleted from the video. The brashness of this action in the face of millions of people seeing the truth (and in the face of being called out on it by several media sources) is a stark example of Trump playing the part of Joey Bishop.

Somewhere along the way Fox viewers need to be put on notice. The rest of American journalism needs to call out on what is happening. They need to do it by publishing (in both written and video) what is occurring at Fox News. Stop fact checking Trump. The people who watch the endless parade of untruths that pass his lips are already aware.

Start fact checking Fox News...all the time. It's time to empower your readers and viewers to understand the reality of why their Conservative friends believe as they do, and, frankly, to share that concern with them. 

The News is the News

Perhaps two or three weeks ago, I caught the brief interview of a white, middle-aged man from Fort Worth, TX, looking average in every way, being asked questions regarding our President by a street reporter. He was a Trump supporter, not unusual for the region, but additionally he viewed Donald Trump as an extraordinarily good President, moreover an extraordinary individual, period. To this man Trump was the best President in living memory.

Those observations by this person caused the same misfiring of the neurons driving my cognitive abilities as comments made to me personally, from nice people, saying Barack Obama was the worst President in our Nation's history. Seriously? Actually, yes...dead serious.

These definitively extreme viewpoints now tell me there is another story to be told that isn't as simplistic as: "we are a divided Nation".

The control of information has always been critical in maintaining power, even more important than the second most used tool disseminated by information...fear. The importance of information control has increased exponentially as the means of communication has expanded exponentially. From print media, to radio, to television, and now to cyber content, the reach of media information can nearly be constant.

Since the rise of mass media (in the 1920s with the advent of radio) there is no historical example where a political strongman (despot, dictator, thug...call 'em what you want) didn't use and ultimately control the sources of media. Critical to that control was the denigration and/or elimination of competing sources of information. The obvious nature of this requires no discussion.

The most compelling issue I see today in the American body politic is the dedicated influence by Rupert Murdock's Fox News Group, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, and "Conservative" talk radio. It is time that that they become not just a source for "News", but actually become the News itself.

Those who read this blog know that I watch the first 20 to 30 minutes of both Fox&Friends and Morning Joe most weekday mornings. I also try to catch various programs from Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, CBS, NBC, and ABC. It's a daunting task and I struggle to limit the amount of dedicated time. However, this effort to be objective, which was built in during the period the "Fairness Doctrine" was in place (1948-1987), has revealed more about "US" than the great political divide.

The morning after the July 16th Trump/Putin press conference, the three TV personalities that comprise Fox&Friends actually began to talk directly to Trump to convey the need for him to apply damage control. It was obvious without being stated. They know he was watching, as they know he does nearly every day.  The power that they have, or say Sean Hannity who talks with Trump almost daily, to convey policy and shape Trump's thinking is virtually mind boggling.

The reason it exists is because they are communicating to the same audience.

Every other network, cable or otherwise (with the exception of Sinclair local broadcasting), constantly waxes dumbfounded on why this core Republican support continues to be so unshaken by Trump's ethical, personal, and political shortcomings. How is it possible that this Fort Worth gentleman thinks the way he does?

The answer to that question is so obvious as to wonder why it's a question at all.

He and all the other Trump supporters are only watching Fox and listening to the likes of Russ Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Why would they think differently?

It is no wonder why Trump has labeled all news media other than Fox as the "enemy of the people". It is no wonder why these Trump supporters (Conservatives, Republicans, call'em what you like) are so susceptible to conspiracy theories when they're told that all information other than the sanctioned Trump media is disseminating "fake" information to undermine the "truth" he represents.

Fox News, primarily, is the real story to be told. They control their viewers, they control the President, they control the compliant Republican congressmen. What Trump is and what he represents has essentially been cooked. What the rest of the world's information gatherers should be doing now is looking at how Trump is delivered to his "base". That's the real news.

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.