Monthly Archives: September 2017

Trump Orders Three Dragons Sent to Puerto Rico

Faced with growing criticism about his ignoring the humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, President Trump, according to sources in the White House, ordered three dragons sent to Puerto Rico to re-establish law and order and help with recovery efforts.

According to inside sources, speaking anonymously because they are not authorized to talk about the U.S. dragons, the President became enraged when informed that one of the dragons was out of commission and that the others were on break following some taxing fire-breathing in a battle that the Pentagon is denying ever happened. “Dammit to hell, this is what happens when you let the Dothraki into the military!” Trump was reported to have said. No one knew owning dragons could be so complicated. No one on the White House staff will even admit that the U.S. has dragons, probably fearful of tipping off North Korea.

Trump told one source that he was planning a personal visit to Puerto Rico to assess the damage, but that he couldn’t go until he completed his next golf round at Mar-a-Lago, scheduled for next Thursday. “Scott Pruitt, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price are flying down to play with me and it’s very important, believe me,” Trump said. “Each of the Cabinet members will be taking a separate private jet, for, you know, security reasons.”

Asked about his relationship with Price, Trump grumped, “Hell, I didn’t fire Jeff Sessions for lying to Congress and then refusing to cover me on the Comey thing, so why would I would fire my buddy Price over a little thing like a private airplane trip or two. Hell, I fly private all the time and look at me, I’m the damn president.” [see  BREAKING NEWS ITEM AT THE END]

When told that the 3.4 million people in Puerto Rico were American citizens, Trump was incredulous. At last report the president was planning a weekend tweet-storm to distract attention from Puerto Rico. At press time the subject of the tweets was still undecided.

Unfortunately for Trump, and American taxpayers, a fourth member of the Trump Cabinet, Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior, was also implicated in the luxury travel scandal, which he called “a little BS.” Zinke was interviewed while bailing hay for three of the horses kept in his $500,000 private stable which is accessible by elevator directly from his office at the Interior Department. “Look, I bail my own hay so the government won’t have to pay for it.”

The president said he had tried to speak with Scott Pruitt about his use of luxury travel for government business but Pruitt was inside his private in-suite $25,000 soundproof booth and could not be reached by his staff or anyone else. No one knows who he has been talking to in there.

It is expected that the subject of dragons for Puerto Rico will be discussed at a high-level meeting at the Pentagon this weekend. Trump will miss the meeting but probably will get a briefing some time when it’s convenient. Meanwhile, he has assured everyone that things in Puerto Rico are coming along just great.

BREAKING NEWS:  Tom Price has resigned. Another of the president’s “men” is out. The exodus continues. Can Pruitt and Zinke survive under these circumstances? What about Mnuchin? What about Mnuchin’s wedding? What about Jared’s emails? What does Zinke’s horse know? Why does Pruitt need a battalion of Secret Service protection? Is he afraid of Trump? When will enough be enough?

How We Know Republicans are Wrong re Pre-Existing Conditions Protection

Oddly enough, in this time of special oddness, there is a debate going on, in Washington and on the internet, about whether comedian Jimmy Kimmel is right that the Graham-Cassidy health insurance legislation exposes people with pre-existing conditions to prohibitively high premiums and/or draconian reductions in coverage. Republicans are trying to argue that Kimmel is wrong to say that people with pre-existing conditions will be hurt by the Graham-Cassidy legislation. See

Even more odd is the fact that the Republicans making this argument could, with some direct language in the legislation, remove any doubt about this question if they wanted to. But they don’t. Why? Because they want to leave it up to the states to decide, one by one, whether and how much to penalize people with pre-existing conditions. The end result would be a crazy quilt of differing state approaches that would add to public confusion about, and, I contend, the cost of health insurance almost everywhere.

Therefore, since the Republicans apparently will not take the obvious step to put this issue to rest, we, as rational thinkers and observers of the passing scene, must conclude that the Graham-Cassidy legislation does indeed pose grave (no pun intended; wait, actually, pun intended) risks to people with pre-existing conditions and all people economically connected to or dependent upon them. This is millions of people, probably tens of millions.

So, Republicans, until you develop the moral integrity to speak the truth about what you are trying to do to the American people, why don’t you just shut up about pre-existing conditions and, by your silence, admit that the reality of Graham-Cassidy is just what Jimmy Kimmel said it was. That’s step one.

Step two is for you to pack your bags and prepare to go home and explain to the people who elected you how Graham-Cassidy is going to make their lives better. And don’t even think about lying about it. Jimmy knows who you are and, with the rest of us, will be watching every move you make.

Step three, start looking for a new job, because you most likely will cease to be a U.S. Senator when the next election in your state is held. This is the well-deserved fate of politicians who act against the interests and values of their constituents. So it is written, so let it be done.


An Open Letter to Some Senators from Robert Frost

Warning: Naiveté will be on display here.

This “letter” is directed primarily at U.S. Senators McCain, Collins and Murkowski although there are a few others who should be paying close attention to the implications for their states, and their constituents, of the Graham-Cassidy legislation that would replace the Affordable Care Act with a temporary set of block grants and the individual discretion to limit covered services, including pre-existing conditions and many basic regular services now covered by the ACA.

For you three Senators in particular, you have arrived yet again at one of those moments when history is going to judge you. It will not judge you for all the other things you may have accomplished, or even for your other failures. No, history is going to judge you for the action you are preparing to take – to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on Graham-Cassidy.

Senator McCain, all of your well-known heroism and sacrifice will be dashed into dust if you vote to take away meaningful and affordable health insurance from the more than 32 million people now estimated to be impacted by Graham-Cassidy. You will be remembered instead for this one vote. Your choice – still hero or goat.

The same for the two female Senators from Maine and Alaska. You have come a long way, accomplished much for women in politics, served as an example of positive achievement for young women. I say that even though I disagree with much of your Republican politics. You too must face the judgment of history, and that of your constituents when they realize that you have, if you vote ‘yes,’ stripped them of the fair opportunity to secure health insurance for themselves and their children.

There is no escaping this crossroads for each of you. The President and the leadership of your party in Congress are so determined to remove the Affordable Care Act that they will sacrifice themselves and you as well on the ideological altar of state empowerment. Just look at the state-by-state consequences of Graham-Cassidy. Center for American Progress at; Commonwealth Fund at; The Atlantic at

The Congressional Budget Office final score for Graham-Cassidy will likely not be ready by the time the vote, with no meaningful hearings or formal input process, occurs. Why the rush? It’s solely so that the Republicans can pass the bill with a bare majority of one under the “50 votes wins” rule that expires September 30. You thus can go along to get along, or you can do something else.

You are at the point of Robert Frost’s famous poem, the one that ends with

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.


Can you truthfully say that, in your considered judgment and based on your experience with state and federal government and after a careful evaluation of the impacts, that Graham-Cassidy is good for the American people, a substantial majority of who favor retention of an improved Affordable Care Act approach? Will you be able to explain your vote to the parents of a disabled child who is denied health care because the family can no longer afford the costs? Is it clear to you, beyond reasonable doubt, that Graham-Cassidy is the best way to address the health insurance problem that plagues this country and which many other civilized nations seem to have solved without draconian denials of medical care to their citizens?

Time is short. Why don’t you just bring this insane charade to a close right now, by telling the Congressional leadership and the President that “the answer is ‘NO,’ I will not lend my name, my reputation and my honor to this disgraceful legislation that will harm tens of millions of Americans”? Take the road less traveled. The only honorable thing to do.

Once More into the Breach, Dear Friends

Unchastened by multiple past failures of leadership and intellect, the Republicans in Congress have signaled their intention to bring one more piece of “repeal Obamacare” legislation to a vote before the month is out, so as to secure the benefit of a 50-votes-wins procedure. This time it’s the Graham-Cassidy version that would replace the Affordable Care Act with block grants to the states which would then be free, individually, to permit insurers to effectively price out of existence the coverage for pre-existing conditions that is now mandated by federal law. They will do this even without scoring of the impact by the Congressional Budget Office.

Thus, each state that chooses to support the Republican goal of undermining access to health insurance for Americans in order to secure some vague idea of “fiscal responsibility” and, more truthfully, to stamp out perceived federal support for such practices as abortion, can do whatever it wants with access to health insurance. This, notwithstanding that all polling shows a substantial majority of Americans favor key elements of Obamacare protections, including coverage for pre-existing conditions.

This effort is urged on the Republican Party by its putative leader, Donald Trump, who hates everything associated with Barack Obama and is determined to remove all vestiges of Obama’s presidency from the face of the earth. Trump thinks he can’t lose here because he promised his so-called political “base” that he would get rid of Obamacare. If he succeeds, and the base delusionally concludes it’s a victory for them, Trump is a hero. If Congress cannot deliver the bill to him for signature, Trump still sees himself as the winner because it is Congress’s failure, yet again, that has denied him fulfillment.

And nothing is more important to Trump than winning. So far, his presidency has failed in almost every significant initiative it has attempted, so Trump is desperate to accomplish something, anything, regardless of the consequences.

It is time, once again, for the people to rise up and reject this outrage by demanding in the clearest way possible that every member of the Republican Party in Congress vote against this monstrosity. Almost all of them will disrespect the will of the people, of course, because in the end they don’t give a damn about the people. But there are a few, literally only a few, Republicans who have previously shown the courage and humanity to stand apart from the rest of the drones.

Here we have Senators McCain (Arizona), Collins (Maine) and Murkowski (Alaska). It comes down to the same three people to demonstrate the moral fiber and independence of thought and action that history now demands of them. Senator Paul of Kentucky has already said he is opposed to the bill, but you can’t count on him to stay that course. He hates the Affordable Care Act almost as much as Trump does.

Everyone who cares about this should lay down a barrage of calls, emails, tweets and posts calling on those three to stand, once more, as the bulwark against the depravity of the Republican Party and its attempt to deny tens of millions of Americans any modicum of real access to health insurance.

Killing Wild Animals with Impunity

I had intended to write about something else this week, but my plans were derailed by a story in this morning’s Washington Post entitled, in the hard copy at B-4, No charges to be filed in killing of protected birds and called, in the online version, Investigation into shootings of protected birds near Baltimore has stalled.  For purposes of this post, I am going to accept as true everything in the Post’s report. The opinions below are based on my inferences from the stated facts.

It is particularly disturbing to see a story involving the wanton slaughter of protected animals in the United States, just miles from the nation’s capitol, with, it appears, the perpetrators getting away clean. The story is doubly disturbing in that one of the men involved was a Maryland police officer.

The gist of the story is captured in these excerpts:

… a shotgun was fired several times from a boat [on the Patapsco River near Baltimore], killing several birds, including a federally protected gull and a double-crested cormorant.

The shots

were fired near the Spirit of Baltimore dinner cruise ship, which was taking passengers on a tour

thus putting additional lives in danger.

… an observer aboard a city helicopter saw someone on the boat throw a long gun into the water.

Divers recovered the weapon. Police said they found 210 rounds of shotgun ammunition, 50 rounds of 9mm ammunition, 100 rounds of 5.7mm ammunition and 12 rounds of .22-caliber ammunition on the boat. The speech of all three occupants of the boat was slurred, and empty beer cans were in the craft, police said.

If anything is clear, it is that these men intended to do some serious damage to something. What happened to the weapons that would have used the non-shotgun ammunition? And much of the ammunition cannot be justified as related to any form of “hunting.” Yet, according to the report,

authorities are unable to conclude which of the three occupants of the boat was responsible

The assistant state’s attorney in Baltimore County was quoted saying “At this point, the investigation is at a standstill.”

How is that possible? The shooting and attempt at concealment was observed. And, if that’s not enough, the story states that the men’s boat led police on a chase from Key Bridge in Maryland to a creek in Baltimore County where the men were apprehended. They thus attempted to evade capture for a crime in which each of them had to be either the direct perpetrator or an accessory before or after the fact. And, if that’s not enough, the story says that “the officer’s arrest powers have been restored.”

I am well acquainted with the concept of innocence until proven guilty and the principle that one cannot be compelled to testify against oneself. Assuming each of the men asserted their full rights not to be forced to answer who did the shooting and why they were carrying enough ammunition to start a small war, it is clear, isn’t it, that a police officer was present, did little or nothing to stop the offense and has now refused to answer questions about the incident and his role in it. And, nonetheless, his weapon is returned and he is authorized to make arrests????

Baltimore’s fraught history of police-community relations is well known in these parts and likely around the country. What message does this story send? A police officer apparently is free to participate in, or at least witness and not interfere with, the commission of a serious offense, then refuse to respond to police questions and just walk away with full restoration of law enforcement powers?

If there is more to this story that would overcome the inferences drawn, I am open to hearing it. Something doesn’t parse here and there should be an in-depth investigation by outside authorities as to what is going on. Just my opinion, of course, but this stinks to high heaven.


Laughing at Jeff Sessions

AHAHAHAHAHAHA … there, I am laughing out loud, really LOUD, at Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the Attorney General of the United States. You know, the one with skin so thin you can see what passes for blood coursing through his arteries. You may recall that Capitol police arrested a woman during Sessions confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate for laughing at Sessions’ remark about, get this, treating all Americans equally under the law. That’s a good one. No surprise that the lady laughed out loud. The charges were thrown out due to faulty jury instructions but Sessions is determined to try the woman a second time.

Dana Milbank wrote a wonderful column about this in today’s Washington Post, entitled “Our laughable attorney general.” So, here I go again… AHAHAHAHAHA, laughing out loud at the Attorney General. Come and get me, Jeff; I dare you. I’m laughing at you, Jeff. It’s okay if I call you Jeff, isn’t it? Your feelings won’t be hurt? I wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings, Jeff. You might have me arrested for assault on your feelings.

I recall that many years ago, Senator William Scott of Virginia called a press conference to deny a published report that he was the dumbest person in Congress. See

That was pretty funny. But I think Sessions is even funnier. He apparently intends to bring the full legal weight of the United States Government to bear on this woman until she is either convicted of a laughing offense or confesses her guilt of something that will make Sessions feel like a real man. “Wipe that smile off your face, lady, or I’ll wipe it off for you.” Sounds like a line from a 1950s B movie. “Nobody laughs at the Attorney General and gets away with it. Nobody.”

I am so glad the AG and the Justice Department have time and resources for this activity.

Of course, in one way Sessions has done everyone a favor. He has revealed why there is no humor in the Congress. Can you imagine what would happen if the decorum of the Senate were blemished by laughter every time something monumentally stupid was spoken on the Senate floor? They’d never get anything done. On the other hand, under the leadership ofMitch McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, they seem to have managed to get nothing done without a single overt guffaw being heard. Maybe the Republican majority has managed to swallow those giggles like they have choked down their integrity and dignity. Just as with humor, no gagging is permitted in the Senate.

Footnote: For more potential parallels between former Senator Scott and current AG Sessions, see the Wikipedia piece on Scott. And your day cannot be complete without seeing the Scott quotes in the Chicago Tribune at You just can’t make this stuff up.