Category Archives: Economics

WAPO, Your Bezos Is Showing

2 Replies

It didn’t take long for the Washington Post to launch a hysterical attack on the choice of the voters in New York City who, apparently tired of the way things have been run, chose convincingly between the options presented to them by the democratic process there. Zohran Mamdani drops the mask  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/08/zohran-mamdani-class-warfare-new-york-mayor/  I suppose this is not surprising after Jeff Bezos stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race. Still, this is the Washington Post, once venerated as one of the leading independent (remember Watergate?) news sources in the country and, indeed, the world.

No more. It’s now apparent that its owner has completely coopted the so-called Editorial Board and revealed his and its acquiescence in the fascist model of government promoted by Donald Trump. Bezos has a lot of money, so he probably doesn’t care much what happens to the paper as it is abandoned by many of its leading thinkers and many also of its subscribers. It is interesting how individuals who amass vast fortunes become indifferent to the needs and wants of the people whose patronage created those fortunes.

Mr. Bezos has aligned himself, and his newspaper, with Donald Trump, a man who has no respect for the Constitution he swore to uphold, no respect for anything that does not serve his personal interests. The Post’s Editorial Board (EB) has now gone full Trump by attacking the choice made by the voters of New York City. The EB apparently no longer believes in democracy. Maybe it’s time for the Post to change its name to reflect what it now represents. The paper’s motto still says, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” But the lights are out at the Post now, and it is dark indeed.

Consider what the EB has said about the choice of New York City’s voters.

They opened by calling him “Generalissimo,” a reference typically applied (though not exclusively) to fascists and dictators. Donald Trump loves to call opponents names and the Post’s EB has apparently gone full in on Trump’s approach. The Post’s EB must be terrified. I watched the same acceptance speech that it did. I saw a young man relishing his hard-earned victory (you don’t win in New York politics the easy way but remember the wisdom of Sinatra: if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere).

I am not going to waste a good Monday with chapter-and-verse discussion of the Post’s new-found discovery that less government is the solution to New York’s (and presumably everyone’s) problems. Note, however, that whoever watched the acceptance speech at the Post failed to note how often Mamdani smiled, how often he spoke of using the power of government to help the general population of the city. Now, suddenly, the Post’s EB has become the voice of the “small government is the best government” crowd while whining that Mamdani mentioned Donald Trump eight times but didn’t utter “growth” even once. The people at the Heritage Foundation must be ecstatic. And it is a fundamental mistake to believe that Donald Trump is an adherent of “small government.” Trump’s “philosophy” is that of the prototypical dictator: “the government is me.” Size is irrelevant.

It is a fundamental truth that humans often hear what they want to hear. That principle applied to the Post’s EB as it listened to Mamdani’s speech. What seems most clear in all this is that the Post editors are terrified that the people of New York City have chosen someone whom the editors don’t trust because they don’t know him. They apparently have not been paying enough attention and now that the people of New York City have spoken, the EB is panicked.

The ”observers” at the Post apparently missed the part of Mamdani’s acceptance speech in which he spoke eloquently about his election being a victory for those “so often forgotten by the politics of our city.” He spoke the importance of keeping hope alive, a vital tenet at a time when hungry people are being cut off from their daily bread by a hostile president who is now threatening the city and Mamdani personally. Trump threatens to punish NYC over Mamdani. Will he arrest new mayor and block funds? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/08/trump-threat-nyc-mayor-mamdani/87133111007/?utm_source=usatoday-newsalert-strada&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_term=hero&utm_content=usat-mclean-nletter01

Trump’s blather aside, perhaps hope comes first and growth follows.

The only real alternative was former governor Andrew Cuomo. I happen to appreciate some aspects of Cuomo’s service as New York’s governor. I wrote about it here: https://shiningseausa.com/2020/05/01/governor-andrew-cuomo-presents/ but also here: https://shiningseausa.com/2023/06/04/appalling-failure-great-city/ It is also true that I was deeply disappointed to learn of the accusations against him from multiple women whose complaints I fully credit. It’s too bad, but it is what it is. Cuomo created his own trouble and paid the price. If the same principles were applied to Donald Trump, he would be sitting in a prison cell right now.

Mr. Cuomo lost the Democratic primary to Mr. Mamdani, ran against him as an independent, and lost again. The people of New York City made their choice in a free and fair election, something that should be respected. Instead, the Post’s EB chose to suck up to Jeff Bezos and, make no mistake, to Donald Trump whose last-minute endorsement of Cuomo failed badly. What the Post’s EB hopes to achieve from this hatchet job on the voters of New York (Mamdani was their clear choice), I can’t imagine.

Finally, compare the approach taken by the New York Times in an opinion piece more appropriately entitled: 6 Ways Mayor Mamdani Can Improve New York https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/opinion/mayor-mamdani-new-york-election.html

Anyone who has lived in New York City (I did for three glorious years [including the decidedly inglorious pandemic year 2020]) and who was paying attention understands the enormous challenges the city presents to anyone trying to engineer major changes. But change is possible if bold thinking is supported. It won’t be easy, but little worth the effort is easy. Instead of whining about Mamdani’s “class consciousness,” the Washington Post would do well to remove its collective head from Donald Trump’s hindquarters and join the parade that the Democratic victories on November 2 suggested were now within reach.

Trump’s Attack on Higher Education-Go on Offense

Leave a reply

I have made a habit through my adult life of, when possible, avoiding talking about my education. When asked where I went to college, I have usually just said, “in the east.” I did this because disclosing that I went to Yale would often lead to uncomfortable statements about things about which the inquirer usually knew little. I was certainly not ashamed of having attended Yale, but I also didn’t want to be seen as bragging about having an Ivy League education and conversations about it were often awkward.

The same was true of my law school experience at Harvard. Truth be told, my attendance at both Yale and Harvard were the product of teachers who cared enough to intervene on my behalf, to encourage me to reach high, to achieve way beyond what I imagined was possible for me. The result was an enriched life beyond anything I ever dreamed of. I became a life-long learner, driven perhaps beyond what was healthy at times, but determined not to fail. Yale, in particular, taught me that working hard, and harder still, was the key to success.

My Yale experience, in the early 1960s, was extraordinary in many ways. I will not detail them here. My purpose is different. The Yale of today is, I think, quite different and more imposing than the school I attended. I am certain that Harvard College has also evolved well beyond what was already back then a world-class education and research institution.

The current Trump administration’s attack on these and other major research and institutions of higher learning reflects a view of the world that is alien to everything these schools represent. I have just read that the President of the University of Virginia has resigned to avoid damaging conflict with the federal government under Trump. While the details of President Ryan’s situation at UVA are perhaps unique (he says he was doing to step down next year anyway), the fact remains that the Trump assault on higher education will have profoundly damaging consequences throughout our society.

Since I know Yale the best, I will focus on it. Yale has produced a website entitled Yale’s Impact on America. https://www.yale.edu/yales-impact-america

Did you know, for example, that “Yale’s large-scale clinical trials – 38,000 patients are currently enrolled in over 2,000 clinical trials – are yielding key discoveries that translate into life-saving therapies.” The health issues involve patients with heart issues, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes among other life-threatening maladies.

Did you know that chemotherapy was developed at Yale and is used to help about one million people each year? And the first insulin pump was developed at Yale as well, now helping 350,000 patients a year. The first U.S. artificial heart pump was also produced at Yale and helps six million people suffering from heart failure. And “Yale research led to the discovery of esketamine as a therapy for major depression, which the FDA approved in 2019 as the first new medication in decades for people suffering from treatment-resistant depression.”

I subscribe to Yale Today, a daily publication of the University. It is a rare day that some remarkable achievement in science, medicine or other discipline is not detailed there. On June 27:

Yale School of the Environment researchers have pioneered a novel method for measuring how urbanization is affecting biodiversity in cities, a tool that will help scientists and officials better manage human-wildlife interactions around the world.

On June 23:

Cutting-edge lab technique hints at new era for neuroscience

In a new study, Yale researchers unveil a more efficient method of simultaneously capturing the electrical activity of large numbers of neurons — an advance that opens doors to understanding and treating neurological diseases.

Yale is not alone in this. Harvard makes similar discoveries through original research constantly, as do the other major research universities. Trump and his goons don’t know and don’t care about the potential loss of these benefits as they attempt to reshape the country into a low-education, all-white society.

Yale needs to wake up to the reality that defensive posturing is not going to solve the real problem Trump poses. Yale, like Harvard, has massive resources, including obviously the law school’s cadre of brilliant lawyers. It needs to make clear to the administration that if it does not back off completely, Yale will lead/join a coalition of universities across the country to litigate the administration to death, including, I suggest, asserting personal liability against the perpetrators of these obviously unlawful actions.

Trump and his drone followers (male and female) have shown that they believe they can act as they wish without consequence to themselves. It is no loss to them personally if they disregard the First and Fifth Amendments and other laws by demanding submission to their will and then lose in court. They’ll just come back with something else as bad or worse. The universities should test that, I think. Make the bastards work hard. Put them on defense.

It’s not good enough to talk or call Senators. Even if victorious today politically, Trump will be back tomorrow with another outrage. Having been attacked as Harvard has and as have all the others with tax increases on their endowments, the universities need to recognize this is not a one-off situation. Trump is coming for them. Prepare for the end game and go on offense. Trump and gang are not doing normal politics, and the defense must not be based on the premise that they are.

Democrats and others who believe in preserving democracy must wake up and fight the fight that’s in front of them, not some policy-based game of old-fashioned politics. Those days are over probably forever. Just look at the contents of the bill the House just passed by one vote. One of the two political parties is off the range. and we must fight the fight that is staring at us with dead eyes before it’s too late.

Take the offense and use the considerable communications resources of the universities to inform the public of what they stand to lose if Trump’s no-nothings succeed in suppressing the vital work that the universities perform in addition to teaching some of our best and brightest future leaders. Time is short.

If You Care About Democracy, You Must Read This

1 Reply

I copied the text below from a Facebook post. There is some confusion about who wrote it. I don’t care about that. The message is compelling. And if you care about whether it was Liz Cheney or the mysterious Dr Pru Pru (Facebook moniker), you should stop being distracted and focus on what is so critically important: the message. If you’re unsure about where Liz Cheney is coming from, you should read her book, Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning, that I reviewed at https://shiningseausa.com/2024/02/06/man-unacquainted-with-honor-courage-and-character/ In any event I urge to read the following in its entirety.

“Dear Democratic Party,

I need more from you.

You keep sending emails begging for $15,

while we’re watching fascism consolidate power in real time.

This administration is not simply “a different ideology.”

It is a coordinated, authoritarian machine — with the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the executive pen all under its control.

And you?

You’re still asking for decorum and donations. WTF.

That won’t save us.

I don’t want to hear another polite floor speech.

I want strategy.

I want fire.

I want action so bold it shifts the damn news cycle — not fits inside one.

Every time I see something from the DNC, it’s asking me for funds.

Surprise.

Those of us who donate don’t want to keep sending money just to watch you stand frozen as the Constitution goes up in flames — shaking your heads and saying,

“Well, there’s not much we can do. He has the majority.”

I call bullshit.

If you don’t know how to think outside the box…

If you don’t know how to strategize…

If you don’t know how to fight fire with fire…

what the hell are we giving you money for?

Some of us have two or three advanced degrees.

Some of us have military training.

Some of us know what coordinated resistance looks like — and this ain’t it.

Yes, the tours around the country? Nice.

The speeches? Nice.

The clever congressional clapbacks? Nice.

That was great for giving hope.

Now we need action.

You have to stop acting like this is a normal presidency that will just time out in four years.

We’re not even at Day 90, and look at the chaos.

Look at the disappearances.

Look at the erosion of the judiciary, the press, and our rights.

If you do not stop this, we will not make it 1,460 days.

So here’s what I need from you — right now:

⸻

  1. Form an independent, civilian-powered investigative coalition.

I’m talking experts. Veterans. Whistleblowers. Journalists. Watchdog orgs.

Deputize the resistance. Build a real-time archive of corruption, overreach, and executive abuse.

Make it public. Make it unshakable.

Let the people drag the rot into the light.

If you can’t hold formal hearings, hold public ones.

If Congress won’t act, let the country act.

This isn’t about optics — it’s about receipts.

Because at some point, these people will be held accountable.

And when that day comes, we’ll need every name, every signature, every illegal order, every act of silence—documented.

You’re not just preserving truth — you’re preparing evidence for prosecution.

The more they vanish people and weaponize data, the more we need truth in the sunlight.

⸻

  1. Join the International Criminal Court.

Yes, I said it. Call their bluff.

You cannot control what the other side does.

But you can control your own integrity.

So prove it. Prove that your party is still grounded in law, human rights, and ethical leadership.

Join.

If you’ve got nothing to hide — join.

Show the world who’s hiding bodies, bribes, and buried bank accounts.

Force the GOP to explain why they’d rather protect a war criminal than sign a treaty.

And while you’re at it, publicly invite ICC observers into U.S. borders.

Make this administration explain — on camera — why they’re terrified of international oversight.

⸻

  1. Fund state-level resistance infrastructure.

Don’t just send postcards. Send resources.

Channel DNC funds into rapid-response teams, legal defense coalitions, sanctuary networks, and digital security training.

If the federal government is hijacked, build power underneath it.

If the laws become tools of oppression, help people resist them legally, locally, and boldly.

This is not campaign season — this is an authoritarian purge.

Stop campaigning.

Act like this is the end of democracy, because it is.

We WILL REMEMBER the warriors come primaries.

Fighting this regime should be your marketing strategy.

And let’s be clear:

The reason the other side always seems three steps ahead is because they ARE.

They prepared for this.

They infiltrated school boards, courts, local legislatures, and police unions.

They built a machine while you wrote press releases.

We’re reacting — they’ve been executing a plan for years.

It’s time to shift from panic to blueprint.

You should already be working with strategists and military minds on PROJECT 2029 —

a coordinated, long-term plan to rebuild this country when the smoke clears.

You should be publicly laying out:

  • The laws and amendments you’ll pass to ensure this never happens again
  • The systems you’ll tear down and the safeguards you’ll enshrine
  • The plan to hold perpetrators of human atrocities accountable
  • The urgent commitment to immediately bring home those sold into slavery in El Salvador

You say you’re the party of the people?

Then show the people the plan.

⸻

  1. Use your platform to educate the public on rights and resistance tactics.

If they’re going to strip us of rights and lie about it — arm the people with truth.

Text campaigns. Mass trainings. Downloadable “Know Your Rights” kits. Multilingual legal guides. Encrypted phone trees.

Give people tools, not soundbites.

We don’t need more slogans.

We need survival manuals.

⸻

  1. Leverage international media and watchdogs.

Stop hoping U.S. cable news will wake up.

They’re too busy playing both sides of fascism.

Feed the real stories to BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Reuters, Der Spiegel — hell, leak them to anonymous dropboxes if you have to.

Make what’s happening in America a global scandal.

And stop relying on platforms that are actively suppressing truth.

Start leveraging Substack. Use Bluesky.

That’s where the resistance is migrating. That’s where censorship hasn’t caught up.

If the mainstream won’t carry the truth — outflank them.

Get creative. Go underground. Go global.

If our democracy is being dismantled in broad daylight, make sure the whole world sees it — and make sure we’re still able to say it.

⸻

  1. Create a digital safe haven for whistleblowers and defectors.

Not everyone inside this regime is loyal.

Some are scared. Some want out.

Build the channels.

Encrypted. Anonymous. Protected.

Make it easy for the cracks in the system to become gaping holes.

And while you’re at it?

Stop ostracizing MAGA defectors.

Everyone makes mistakes — even glaring, critical ones.

We are not the bullies.

We are not the ones filled with hate.

And it is not your job to shame people who finally saw the fire and chose to step out of it.

They will have to deal with that internal struggle — the guilt of putting a very dangerous and callous regime in power.

But they’re already outnumbered. Don’t push them back into the crowd.

We don’t need purity.

We need numbers.

We need people willing to burn their red hats and testify against the machine they helped build.

⸻

  1. Study the collapse—and the comeback.

You should be learning from South Korea and how they managed their brief rule under dictatorship.

They didn’t waste time chasing the one man with absolute immunity.

They went after the structure.

The aides. The enforcers. The loyalists. The architects.

They knocked out the foundation one pillar at a time —

until the “strongman” had no one left to stand on.

And his power crumbled beneath him.

You should be independently investigating every author of Project 2025,

every aide who defies court orders,

every communications director repeating lies,

every policy writer enabling cruelty,

every water boy who keeps this engine running.

You can’t stop a regime by asking the king to sit down.

You dismantle the throne he’s standing on — one coward at a time.

⸻

Stop being scared to fight dirty when the other side is fighting to erase the damn Constitution.

They are threatening to disappear AMERICANS.

A M E R I C A N S.

And your biggest move can’t be another strongly worded email.

We don’t want your urgently fundraising subject lines.

We want backbone.

We want action.

We want to know you’ll stand up before we’re all ordered to sit down — permanently.

We are watching.

And I don’t just mean your base.

I mean millions of us who see exactly what’s happening.

I’ve only got 6,000 followers — but the groups I’m in? The networks I touch? Over a quarter million.

Often when I speak, it echoes.

But when we ALL

speak, it ROARS with pressure that will cause change.

We need to be deafening.

You still have a chance to do something historic.

To be remembered for courage, not caution.

To go down as the party that didn’t just watch the fall — but fought the hell back with everything they had.

But the clock is ticking.

And the deportation buses are idling.”

Words

Leave a reply

Call me a quibbler if you like. I don’t mind. I believe that how we use words is very important and can reveal hidden meanings of intention of which the writer may be unaware. I expect, however, that the Editorial Board of the New York Times would be particularly conscious of the meaning of their statements. Recent experience suggests I am wrong about that, and I suspect I know the reason.

Some background. The Times describes its editorial board as “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.” Fine as far as it goes although a bit vague on details.

On May 1 a digital version of the Editorial Board’s position titled There Is a Way Forward:  How to Defeat Trump’s Power Grab was published in the Times. On May 4, “A version” of the article appeared in print, Section SR, Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: Fight Like Our Democracy Depends On It. Having not seen that version, I address here the digital version. The printed version at least has a title more accurately stating what the battle is really about.

Note first that the article is introduced by a probably-AI generated depiction of an American bald eagle, our national symbol, struggling to free itself from a green, goo-like substance adhering to its wings and claws. I read that image to mean that democracy is in serious trouble, an assertion that I and many others have made in multiple posts, and which I believe cannot rationally be denied.

I was intrigued to see the Times standing up for democracy this way. Then I read it.

The opening was very strong:

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have done more damage to American democracy than anything else since the demise of Reconstruction. Mr. Trump is attempting to create a presidency unconstrained by Congress or the courts, in which he and his appointees can override written law when they want to. It is precisely the autocratic approach that this nation’s founders sought to prevent when writing the Constitution.

The opening was followed by recognition that the Trump challenge is not ephemeral:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

But wait. Let’s look more closely:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

The piece continues with “It pains us to write these words” …. The patriotic response to today’s threat is to oppose Mr. Trump. But it is to do so soberly and strategically, not reflexively or performatively.”

The strong opening has thus been diluted with reference to the “potential” for future harms that will occur “if he continues down this path,” suggesting there is a reasonable chance Trump will suddenly transform into a person different than he has been his entire life. And the article makes clear that the writers don’t like having to criticize Trump. The solution they propose is implicitly critical of what many people have been doing and thinking in response to Trump’s unhinged blast through the federal government. The authors slip-slide into a description of a “coalition” of damn near everyone who isn’t a committed Trump cultist. A coalition of the willing so broad and encompassing that it will seem, because it is, a bridge too far.

I am encouraged in my cynicism about the position being advocated by what comes next:

 The building of this coalition should start with an acknowledgment that Mr. Trump is the legitimate president and many of his actions are legal. Some may even prove effective. He won the presidency fairly last year, by a narrow margin in the popular vote and a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. On several key issues, his views were closer to public opinion than those of Democrats. Since taking office, he has largely closed the southern border, and many of his immigration policies are both legal and popular. He has reoriented federal programs to focus less on race, which many voters support. He has pressured Western Europe to stop billing American taxpayers for its defense.

The reference to the southern border and other Trump policies is apparently based on a poll of 2,128 Americans crafted by and analyzed by the crafters for another article in the Times.

In the interest of fairness, I note this closing of the paragraph arguing that Trump has been doing what the American public wants:

Among these policies are many that we strongly oppose — such as pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, cozying up to Vladimir Putin of Russia and undermining Ukraine

But even that qualification comes with a qualification: “but that a president has the authority to enact. Elections have consequences.”

Then:

Mr. Trump nonetheless deserves criticism on these issues, and Congress members and grass-roots organizers should look for legal ways to thwart him.

Just criticism? Is the Times Editorial Board unaware that the Republican Party has majorities in both Houses of Congress and that the Congress thus constituted is incapable of judgment independent of whatever madness Trump wants, including an astonishing array of unqualified and incompetent cabinet and agency appointments?

The equivocation continues throughout the article. Under “Pillars of democracy,” the writers felt it necessary to point out that Presidents Biden and Obama had “tested these boundaries [separation of powers] and at times overstepped them.” While the Editorial Board strongly criticizes Trump/Vance about their attitude toward the judiciary, in my view there is no question that the approach used undermines the full impact of the Trump story. They note, for example, that Trump/Vance “seem to have defied clear [court] orders.”

Regarding Congress, the Board says, “Mr. Trump’s steamrolling of Congress involves more legal complexity, many scholars believe.” The obvious implication is that “many scholars dispute the view being stated. More equivocation subtly inserted at every turn. Another example:

Other attempts to assert power over previously independent parts of the executive branch seem more defensible, however. The executive branch reports to the president, after all, and parts of it have suffered from too little accountability in recent decades.

It is true, I admit, that the Editorial Board’s article contains much damning information about Trump’s conduct of the presidency. It could not be otherwise.

Yet, again and again, the subtle equivocation creeps in:

It remains possible that our concerns will look overwrought a year or two from now. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s shambolic approach to governance will undermine his ambitions. Perhaps federal courts will continue to constrain him and he will ultimately accept their judgments.

Sure, it’s “possible” that a lot of unexpected things may happen, but why in an article ostensibly designed to expose the President’s violations of the Constitution and his oath of office, to name just a few, are these constant “on the other hands” inserted?

Maybe I am just quibbling, but, as the Editorial Board notes near the end of its article:

our constitutional order depends to a significant degree on the good faith of a president. If a president acts in bad faith, it requires a sophisticated, multifaceted campaign to restrain him. Other parts of the government, along with civil society and corporate America, must think carefully and rigorously about what to do. That’s especially true when the most powerful alternative — Congress — is prostrate.

Yet, while noting that Trump’s political support seems to be waning, the Board warns us to avoid:

“exaggeration about what qualifies as a violation. Liberals who conflate conservative policies with unconstitutional policies risk sending conservatives back into Mr. Trump’s camp.”

In the end, the Board gets one thing right:

The past 100 days have wounded this country, and there is no guarantee that we will fully recover. But nobody should give up. American democracy retreated before, during the post-Reconstruction era, Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Watergate and other times. It recovered from those periods not because its survival was inevitable but because Americans — including many who disagreed with one another on other subjects — fought bravely and smartly for this country’s ideals. That is our duty today.

Having beat this dead horse, I point the Times Editorial Board and my readers to a video that nails it. The woman in the video understands how language usage matters as she states ways to avoid equivocation and ambiguity. You can see the video here: https://www.threads.com/@debbieelledgeofficial/post/DJb2YEIN-pg?xmt=AQF0BLloj6EmrkRVS8pzJFTxn8QHvGWYkz2cHHWwynWmrA

If You Want To Destroy A Country ….

2 Replies

Or … 2025 is our 1984

There are several ways to destroy a generally well-functioning country. One is invasion. Vladimir Putin is trying that in Ukraine, cheered on by Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and other Republican sycophants. Invasions are self-evidently messy. Lives are lost by the thousands, property is destroyed, and the psychological impact on all sides of the conflict can last for generations.

One can imagine that Trump’s stated desire to “own” Canada and Greenland (he would prefer the term “merge” no doubt, being a captain of industry and all) would, if anyone in his White House staff had the temerity to suggest this is a really bad idea, lead to Trump throwing himself on the floor, kicking his feet and screaming like the man-child he is: “I want it, I want it! I want it! Why can’t I have it?!! I’m now the king of the United States. Just ask the Supreme Court. I want it! Waaahhh!!”

But, of course, that’s not what’s happening. Despite being the largest collection of incompetents ever assembled, Trump’s “team” has discovered other ways to bring the country to its knees.

Most everyone has heard of, and many have read, the novel, 1984, by George Orwell. Wikipedia does a creditable job of summarizing the central idea:

The story takes place in an imagined future. The current year is uncertain, but believed to be 1984. Much of the world is in perpetual war. Great Britain, now known as Airstrip One, has become a province of the totalitarian superstate Oceania, which is led by Big Brother, a dictatorial leader supported by an intense cult of personality manufactured by the Party’s Thought Police. The Party engages in omnipresent government surveillance and, through the Ministry of Truth, historical negationism and constant propaganda to persecute individuality and independent thinking.

I don’t recall that the book explains how the world reached that state, but it’s not too hard to imagine when one recalls a little history. You know, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, to name a few.

We have Donald Trump. Many people thought Hitler was insane. Many people also think Trump is insane. He was elected to a second term in office despite grotesque failures of leadership in his first term, resulting in, among other things, the avoidable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Trump revealed himself fully between 2016 and 2021. His opponent in 2024 was an intelligent, accomplished person who has served as Vice President of the United States for four years, so she was also experienced in the highest echelons of government. BUT she was a woman, and she was of Asian heritage, and she was Black. Case closed. The American electorate chose to put the loon back in power.

And what did we get? Exactly what could be, and was, expected. Examples will follow in roughly reverse chronological order in the next post.

As an aside, first, I note that I am no wide-eyed dreamer. I have been around a long time, started my career as a federal employee in fact. The government of the United States, like all governments, has many “issues.” There are inefficiencies. One of the core driving principles of the government is “don’t make obvious mistakes.” A prime example is the rulemaking process. This is what often happens.

Congress adopts legislation. Even the most detailed laws are often the products of compromises that create ambiguities or simply leave major implementation details to later-developed regulations. The country prefers that approach to simply saying, “let the bureaucrats figure it out as they wish from time to time.” We have developed an astonishingly complex process to govern “rulemaking,” with the result that regulations can take years, literally, to produce after the enabling legislation has passed.

The process involves examination of the relationship of the law in question to many other laws having to do with economic impact, environmental impact and many others. This approach, long and tedious as it may be, is preferred to subjecting ourselves to the random, arbitrary decisions of people who may or may not know what they are doing and don’t want to take the time and effort to learn. Slow and steady wins the race in our system.

However, this approach has several strong advantages:

    1. All interested parties get to express their views and offer their evidence to the decision-maker(s);
    2. The process is designed to assure that the decision-making agency has all relevant information before it when it decides what regulations, if any, should be adopted;
    3. The process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act is very demanding, taking much time and effort by many federal employees, many of whom are highly experienced experts in the subjects being regulated;
    4. Court review is available to assure agencies adhere to the governing legal principles, assuring fairness to affected parties and that the process is properly executed;
    5. All the foregoing takes much time and effort, especially given that most federal agencies are working multiple rulemakings simultaneously, in addition to enforcement actions and other statutory responsibilities.

I will now describe in horrifying detail an actual rulemaking of the Department of Transportation. I participated in on behalf of my then-employer, the American Society of Travel Advisors. Try your best to get through it. The “FR” references are to the Federal Register which is a triple-column “book” published every workday in 7-point type (a bit over half the size of the print in this blog) and including proposed and final regulations by all federal agencies. You can get a feel for its scale from the page numbers. I included them in case you want to see the actual documents.

On May 23, 2014, DOT published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to “enhance protections for air travelers and to improve the air travel environment, including a proposal to clarify and codify the Department’s interpretation of the statutory definition of ‘‘ticket agent.’’” [79 FR 29970] The NPRM also proposed, among other things, “to require airlines and ticket agents to disclose at all points of sale the fees for certain basic ancillary services associated with the air transportation consumers are buying or considering buying.”

The NPRM consumed 32 pages of the Federal Register.  Comments were due by August 21, 2014.

Comments by interested parties were plentiful. And typically, they ran the gamut: the proposal is too broad, too expensive, not broad enough; you got this wrong, you got this right; the proposals are impractical and unnecessary; the proposals don’t go far enough … and many, many more.

On January 19, 2017, DOT issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to expand the scope of the original proposal:

In light of the comments on this issue, the Department is issuing this SNPRM, which focuses solely on the issue of transparency of certain ancillary service fees. The other issues in the 2014 NPRM are being addressed separately. [82 FR 7536]

The SNPRM consumed 24 Federal Register pages. Comments were due by March 20, 2017.

The Department withdrew the SNPRM on December 14, 2017:

In the notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking, 82 FR 58778 (Dec. 14, 2017), the Department stated that its existing requirements provide consumers information regarding fees for ancillary services and noted that the withdrawal was consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ [issued by Donald Trump] which has since been revoked.

But,

On July 9, 2021, the President [now Joe Biden] issued E.O. 14036, ‘‘Promoting Competition in the American Economy,’’ which launched a whole-of-government approach to strengthen competition.

… section 5, paragraph(m)(i)(F) of E.O. 14036 states that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation shall: . . . not later than 90 days after the date of this order, consider initiating a rulemaking to ensure that consumers have ancillary fee information, including ‘‘baggage fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation fees,’’ at the time of ticket purchase.’’

Thus, the changes of presidential administrations first killed, then revived the proposed rules that occupied most of 20 Federal Register pages, seven years into the mission. DOT published the new NPRM on October 20, 2022, more than eight years into the mission. Comments were now due by December 19, 2022.

But, alas, parties on both sides of the issues sought more time. DOT granted those requests, extending the comment deadline to January 23, 2023 [87 FR 77765]. Another request for extension was denied on January 26, 2023, although, typically, “late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.”

On March 3, 2023, DOT took the extraordinary step of announcing a virtual public hearing on certain issues in the rulemaking, the hearing to be held on March 16, 2023, with further comments due by March 23, 2023. [88 FR 13389]

Finally, on April 30, 2024, DOT published the final regulations in 89 FR 34620, consuming 57 Federal Register pages.

The rulemaking process had taken more than 10 years. In truth much more, because before the first publication in 2014, much legal, economic and other work had been put into creating the first set of proposed rules.

But, alas, it’s not over until it’s over. At the behest of the airlines, the regulation was “stayed” in 2024 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and on January 28, 2025, the court remanded the rules to DOT for further proceedings. The decision was based on what the court held was a fatal mistake that violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the law whose requirements ultimately lead to all the process surrounding federal rulemaking: the court found, DOT had “justified the Rule using cost-benefit data … that was not available during the notice-and-comment period.”

Whether these rules will ever be finalized is an open question, given the Trump administration’s hostility to consumer interests and regulation of business in general.

To repeat: the alternatives to this long and often painful process would allow members of government to make arbitrary and capricious decisions driven by conflicts of interest, personal bias, and other inappropriate considerations. THAT is why the government seems “inefficient.” It is inefficient by design so that other critical values are protected.

Could the process be made more efficient? Perhaps. But opening the government process to oversight and interference by people who know nothing about the governing law and little or nothing about the underlying issues and problems being addressed every day is not better government. It is tyranny.

For better or worse, for richer or poorer, we are married to this process. The courts get very upset, and rightly so, when an agency fails to follow the process correctly. That results in “remands for further proceedings,” which can mean more years of delay in reaching final rules.

Government under a system of “laws not men” is probably one of the most complex and difficult endeavors that mankind has ever undertaken. Add to that the fact that the continental United States occupies roughly 3,706,269 square miles with 161,000 square miles of that being water. The contiguous United States has an area of about 3,119,884 square miles and the State of Alaska alone embraces 586,412square miles. There are 50 states, the District of Columbia, plus more than a dozen territories under US ownership, management or sovereignty.” 

The land mass is astonishingly diverse. Some bodies of water (Lake Superior) are larger than some states (South Carolina thus also Rhode Island, etc.). Together the Great Lakes occupy more than 94,000 square miles and collectively are larger than the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. The State of Hawaii is about 2,400 miles from the US west coast and consists of 137 islands! We have mountains, deserts, forests, plains … everything.

Add to that the fact that the population of the United States numbers some 340 million people.

Legislating for this diverse aggregation of people, land, water and much else is complicated. It may be a general principle of the universe that a large, diverse country requires a large, complex government, especially if that government is to have a major role in promoting the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of the population.

The lesson is ended. I may have bored you beyond repair. Sorry, not sorry. I will return to the headline topic, If You Want To Destroy A Country …., in another post shortly. Rest up. It’s going to get worse, much worse. Donald Trump means to have his revenge on the country he believes treated him badly. And the Republican Party is happy to go along to get along. The fate of our democracy, our economy, and our very lives is on the line. Trump’s goons, dressed in black, masked, with no visible identification, are snatching people off the streets and disappearing them. The United States is now the new Russia.

Trump & Vance Must Be Removed from Office

Leave a reply

I am starting to see suggestions in various social media sites that it is time to remove Trump from the presidency. I believe it is well past that time and this is why. I will be uncharacteristically brief.

If you were, say, an efficiency expert called in to evaluate how a company’s various employees were performing, you would initially conduct an investigation: Who are the people in question? What functions do they perform in the company? How can what they do be measured in terms of efficiency and perhaps other identified values?

Then and only then would you recommend to top management whether and which ones of those employees should be removed or have their functions changed. It would take time, yes. But if the true goal were to improve the efficiency of the company’s business, that is the process you would undertake.

Donald Trump has done the opposite. He brought in someone who knows little or nothing about how the federal government works. That person is very wealthy and apparently believes he is invulnerable. He and a bunch of uninformed people he hired were set loose on the government and have made a complete hash of the process of evaluating ways to, allegedly, save money.

If you have watched the reports of what this group has done, and in some cases immediately undone, you can see that this is not about cost cutting. Many of their actions are going to end up costing much more national treasure, and other costs including environmental degradation, than were being incurred before they showed up with, in most cases, unlawful claims of authority to fire federal workers at will. This is not about efficiency or lowering taxes, at least not for most people. It is a hatchet job designed to eviscerate the federal government.

Since at least the end of World War II, the United States has had the world’s strongest defense. It costs a lot of treasure, and there is always a reason to examine whether it can be done more efficiently. But it has helped, likely been essential, to the maintenance of world peace, on the whole, for decades.

Donald Trump has aligned himself with Russia against Ukraine, against NATO, against allies around the world. He has, as usual, lied openly about which country was the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war. WHY? Theories and speculations abound.

The overall picture is that Trump has, as he did throughout his first term, blatantly disregarded our law, the Constitution he swore to uphold, has violated the separation of powers and generally made clear he intends to operate as a dictator.

This isn’t going to change. It’s going to get worse. Trump is weakening the nation’s defenses. He is undermining the social safety net and threatening to do much more. The people he has nominated and that the Republican Senate has confirmed have, for the most part, no qualifications for the responsibilities they have undertaken and are hostile to missions they have sworn to perform. Trump knows little about how the government does its job and doesn’t care. He admires dictators and aspires to be one.

The wreckage continues to spread each day, undermining essential government services and weakening our capacity to resist aggression. Top military leadership has been removed.  Cybersecurity defenses are being eliminated.

The country does not have to accept this.

It is past time, to remove Trump, and his sycophant Vice President, from office before he weakens our defenses beyond the point of no return and Vladimir Putin decides he can safely move against us even more aggressively than he already is.

Trump’s arrogance knows no bounds. I expect tonight’s address to Congress will be a long diatribe about his brilliance, packed with lies and deflections. I have written elsewhere that I believe the Democrats should wait until Trump reaches the podium to speak, then rise as a group and walk out, leaving one member behind, ideally seated at the back in the shadows. There is no reason to continue normalizing Trump’s incompetence and treachery. Do whatever it takes to bring this catastrophe to an end before it’s too late.

Time to Face Reality

Leave a reply

As Trump’s proposed cabinet of losers, criminals, and traitors continues to take shape, it is perhaps time to face certain realities. I am reminded of the statements of several wise people over the years.

Alan Bennett, 90-year-old English playwright and creator of The History Boys, wrote, “History? It’s just one f***ing thing after another…”

You no doubt recall the famous line attributed to the philosopher George Santayana, but here is the full quote:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Many others, Winston Churchill among them, have reiterated the last line, usually as a warning, usually ignored.

A variation attributed to Eugene O’Neill was that “There is no present or future – only the past, happening over and over again – now.”

And, of course, President Lincoln stated in his address on June 16, 1858, at what was then the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, after he had accepted the Illinois Republican Party’s nomination as that state’s US senator, an election he lost:

A house divided against itself, cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

The wisdom of these statements is often overlooked. Not now.

The Republican Party needs a new name. The Republican Party is no longer conservative or patriotic. In the hands of Donald Trump, the GOP is threatening to reduce the federal government to a shadow of its current self and turn such political power as remains outside Trump’s personal dictator hands to the states.

So, let us take a spin through some history that Trump and his billionaire shills have either forgotten, never knew, or simply don’t think is relevant.

I refer to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were the first “constitution” adopted during the Revolutionary War. The ConstitutionCenter.org explains it this way:

The Second Continental Congress approved the document on November 15, 1777, after a year of debates. The British capture of Philadelphia helped to force the issue.  The Articles formed a war-time confederation of states, with an extremely limited central government.  The document made official some of the procedures used by Congress to conduct business, but many of the delegates realized the Articles had limitations.

Two days later, Congress submitted the Articles to the states for immediate consideration. However, it took until March 1, 1781, for this “immediate” consideration to become final.

Here is a quick [edited] list of the problems that occurred, and how these issues led to our current Constitution.

    1. The central government was designed to be very, very weak.The Articles established “the United States of America” as a perpetual union formed to defend the states as a group, but it provided few central powers beyond that. But it didn’t have an executive official or judicial branch.
    2. The Articles Congress only had one chamber and each state had one vote.This reinforced the power of the states to operate independently from the central government, even when that wasn’t in the nation’s best interests.
    3. Congress needed 9 of 13 states to pass any laws.Requiring this high supermajority made it very difficult to pass any legislation that would affect all 13 states.
    4. The document was practically impossible to amend.The Articles required unanimous consent to any amendment, so all 13 states would need to agree on a change. Given the rivalries between the states, that rule made the Articles impossible to adapt after the war ended with Britain in 1783.
    5. The central government couldn’t collect taxes to fund its operations.The Confederation relied on the voluntary efforts of the states to send tax money to the central government. Lacking funds, the central government couldn’t maintain an effective military or back its own paper currency.
    6. States were able to conduct their own foreign policies.Technically, that role fell to the central government, but the Confederation government didn’t have the physical ability to enforce that power, since it lacked domestic and international powers and standing.
    7. States had their own money systems.There wasn’t a common currency in the Confederation era. The central government and the states each had separate money, which made trade between the states, and other countries, extremely difficult.
    8. The Confederation government couldn’t help settle Revolutionary War-era debts.The central government and the states owed huge debts to European countries and investors. Without the power to tax, and with no power to make trade between the states and other countries viable, the United States was in an economic mess by 1787.

George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Dickinson and others met and proposed that all 13 states meet in Philadelphia to resolve the debacle. The current Constitution emerged from that meeting, was ratified, and then promptly amended by the Bill of Rights to cure certain glaring omissions in the original version. Constitution-making is hard work.

While the issues with the Articles of Confederation were clear, by the time of the Constitutional Convention white people in the southern states were deeply entrenched in the system of slavery on which their economy depended. Compromises were required and made in order to reach a constitutional document that could be promoted among the states for ratification. Without those compromises there would have been no Constitution and no country, at least not one comprised of all the former colonies and territories. Even then, ratification consumed two years and eight months. Ratification of the Bill of Rights took another year.

A very detailed history of the events leading to the Constitution may be found in https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies/The-decision-for-independence if you have interest in it.

What lessons can be learned from this early experience with nation-making?

One is that in the modern world of, say, the post-WWII era, a “nation” in which the major powers are dispersed among many widely spread and independent entities (read “states”) is extremely vulnerable to nations with more power concentrated in a central authority. It’s true, of course, that the separation of what became the United States of America was driven in major part by rejection of the totally centralized power of the King of England. But that king’s authority resided in one person and was absolute.

Under the Constitution (not the Articles of Confederation), the power of the central authority, the federal government, was strong but restrained by several features built into the system, not least of which was the division of federal power into the three co-equal branches we call the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and Judiciary (Courts). The idea was that each would serve as a check against the power of the other two. And, among the many brilliant elements of the new Constitution was the principle that the church and state must remain separate so that individuals would always be free to practice, without interference from the government, whatever religion, or none, that they chose.

Over time amendments were judged necessary as the country grew and society recognized that further centralization of certain principles was essential to secure the freedom that the Framers, and the Americans who fought the Revolutionary and Civil Wars to create and preserve the union, sought to protect in perpetuity. For example, the requirements of ‘equal protection’ and ‘due process of law’ apply to both the federal government and the states.

It is now clear that the constitutional regime thus formed has several serious flaws, not least of which is the unplanned for development of political parties. The operation of the Electoral College has also proved to be quixotic at best.

It is also apparent that the widespread rhetorical framework under which Americans claim to a special place in the world is a myth. American “exceptionalism” viewed against the reality of lingering racism, fear of “foreigners,” and fear of the future leads to the inevitable awareness that Americans are no more exceptional than the people of other countries. The US history of intervention in other countries has not endeared the nations of the world to unqualified respect for the intentions of this country.

The threat of climate change and our newly realized vulnerability to disease should be sufficient to bind all peoples together in a common effort to protect the species by protecting the only planet we’re ever going to know. But that’s not what’s happening.

The United States has one of the strongest economies in the world. Our people overall enjoy a standard of living far above most of the rest of the planet. Yet fear of change, fear of the “other” and fear of displacement have led the people to elect a convicted felon as national leader. That same “leader” is plainly guilty of other crimes that will never be adjudicated, including his leading an insurrection against the government to overturn the 2020 election and his theft, and refusal to return, highly confidential government documents.

The Supreme Court, laced with conflicts of interest and outright corruption, has held that the President of the United States may not be held accountable for crimes committed in office if, for example, they are committed while conducting “official acts.” Thus, the Court held that the President may with complete immunity enlist the Department of Justice to join him in a criminal enterprise by simply “discussing” the matter with leaders within the Department.

Trump has made clear that he and his cronies intend not to lead the federal government but to dismantle it. His initial selection of incompetent and blatantly unqualified departmental and other senior leaders is conclusive proof that he has no intention of complying with the oath of office he will nominally take on January 20, 2025.

Trump is literally free, per Supreme Court decision, to ignore the law and proceed with his agenda. Little stands in his way, given the composition of the Congress and the abdication of responsible jurisprudence by the high court. What then?

Many large companies, like Meta and Apple, have surrendered by providing massive funds for Trump’s inauguration, ignoring the advice of Prof. Timothy Snyder not to comply in advance. Trump knows these economically influential entities and their leaders will not resist him. Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris.

Perhaps even more remarkably, the Post’s Editorial Board has published a list of some Trump key appointments and indicated they should be confirmed. The list includes the likes of election-deniers Elise Stefanik and Pam Bondi (Trump’s second choice behind the disgraced and grossly unqualified Matt Gaetz. Also Kelly Loeffler, rejected by the voters of Georgia. The only ones who fail to pass the Post’s low bar are Robert Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, and Russell Vought.

Granted the Post spend little effort in explaining itself, but the criteria it chose to mention are, well, mind-blowing.

First, the Post says:

We would not have picked any of his choices for our hypothetical Cabinet. But, as we have argued for decades, that is not the standard we — or U.S. senators — should apply when evaluating potential executive nominees for Senate confirmation. The president-elect won the election. He deserves deference in building his team, and the Americans who elected him deserve an operational government, absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.

By that standard, all but two of Trump’s planned Cabinet nominees seem confirmable — as well as all but two of his picks for Cabinet-rank jobs that require confirmation.

But then the Post describes some of the nominees this way:

Marco Rubio for Secretary of State – “The son of immigrants, Rubio is respected by Senate colleagues and understands the vital importance of American leadership.”

My comment: this was news to me given Rubio’s post-2020 obeisance to Trump and the MAGA crowd. No sources are cited.

Scott Bessent for Secretary of Treasury — a “hedge fund billionaire, who seeks to stimulate growth and reduce the deficit, is among Trump’s most reasonable intended nominees.”

My comment: Again, no sources or authority cited. Maybe “billionaire” is sufficient for the Post’s purposes. It certainly is for Trump.

Pam Bondi for Attorney General – “Florida’s former attorney general is qualified; lawyers who have worked with her report that she is serious.”

My comment: Bondi is a 2020-election-denier and apparently has lobbied for foreign governments in the past. She’s serious alright. Bondi will be the perfect accomplice to Trump’s continuing efforts to use the Justice Department, with his Supreme Court’s approval, to commit further crimes without accountability.

Doug Burgum for Secretary of Interior – “The outgoing North Dakota governor and Stanford MBA built a successful software company that he sold to Microsoft.”

My comment: Being a software entrepreneur is not an obvious qualification for managing our natural resources. Prepare to lay your body down in front of a national park.

Howard Lutnick – Secretary of Commerce – “The co-chair of Trump’s transition team is a natural fit for a job traditionally held by a presidential friend.”

My Comment: A founding member of DOGE. Billionaire. His pinned Twitter/X account says: “Welcome to DOGE. We will rip the waste out of our $6.5 Trillion budget. Our goal: Balance the Budget of the USA. We must elect Donald Trump President. @elonmusk @realDonald Trump” The accompanying photo is of Lutnick & Elon Musk!

Balance the budget – riiight. Standard Republican rhetoric. Balance the budget and destroy the economy. A “natural fit.”

Lori Chavez-DeRemer – Secretary of Labor – “The former congresswoman from Oregon maintains surprisingly unorthodox views on organized labor.”

My comment: what “unorthodox views” means we are left to guess, and I’m guessing they are not good for unions.

Scott Turner – Secretary of Housing & Urban Development – “The former motivational speaker has never run a big organization, but that is not disqualifying.”

My comment: Lack of experience is self-evidently irrelevant in a Trump administration.

Sean P. Duffy – Secretary of Transportation – “The former reality TV star is also a former congressman from Wisconsin. He’ll still need to study.”

My comment: …..

Chris Wright – Secretary of Energy – “The Colorado oil and gas executive acknowledges that climate change is real.”

My comment: I suspect he also agrees the Earth is not flat. Prepare to lay your body down in front of a national park.

Linda McMahon – Secretary of Education – “The other co-chair of the president-elect’s transition team led the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term.”

My comment: Betsy Devos redux? Her SBA experience definitely, certainly, obviously, assuredly qualifies her to lead American education policy, though her opportunities to do more damage to our education system may be brief if Trump fulfills his plan to eliminate the Department.

Douglas Collins – Secretary of Veterans Affairs – “He was a firebrand as a congressman from Georgia, but his heart seems to be in the right place in caring for veterans.”

My comment: You can’t make this stuff up. The most the Post has to say is that the nominee cares about veterans.

Kristi L. Noem – Secretary of Homeland Security – “Dog jokes aside, she has served in Congress and two terms as governor of South Dakota.”

My comment: The Post apparently thinks Noem’s shooting her dog was a joke! And, South Dakota being at the center of our national security concerns, Noem is imminently qualified for … something, though not the complex task of securing the homeland against attacks, especially with Trump in charge.

Interestingly, the Post did not mention Trump’s anointing of Kash Patel as inside man at the Department of Justice with instructions, redundant in his case, to get even or better with many of Trump’s main enemies list.

You get the picture, I’m sure. This is the “government” that Trump promised and that the American people chose, albeit by the slimmest of margins.

The United States is in the deepest trouble.

Corporate America is lining up to bend the knee to Trump. Under Donald Trump the United States seems destined to become a weak state and an international pariah as Trump in turn bends the knee to dictators like Vladimir Putin.

Thus far, the Democratic Party, reeling from the loss of the presidency and both houses of Congress, and with a Supreme Court having conferred immunity for the president’s crimes in office, has nothing much to say. Everyone, it seems, is waiting to see the actual shape of the catastrophe about to begin. It won’t be long now.

Only the Best People

Leave a reply

Que Theme from The Twilight Zone

And:

But where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here

[4th stanza of Send in the Clowns by Stephen Sondheim]

To understand the musical reference, see Wikipedia at https://tinyurl.com/27nxhtxh

The majority of Americans who voted are about to get the full dose of what they chose. Unfortunately, the rest of us will too. You may decide for yourself who are the fools here.

Donald Trump has boasted many times that based on his deep knowledge of people, his administration would and did hire only “the best people.” Now that he has managed to bamboozle a majority of Americans into reinstalling him in the presidency, we can, once again, see this claim playing out in real time with real effects on the country. It is impossible to see his appointments as anything but political payoffs to a collection of traitors and incompetents who have no chance of successfully managing the federal government, even the reduced (emasculated?) one that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (in the new Department of Government Efficiency) imagine in their fever dreams. Hard to imagine Musk co-leading anything with anyone but time will tell.

Trump has said these two acolytes will “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” None of these people seem to have the slightest insight into the complexity of the federal government’s operations or their impact on the economy and the welfare of the American people. Rough times ahead.

Maybe that is what Trump really wants: destroy the government to prove what a giant of … something … he is. Catastrophic failure seems inevitable. In the last Trump administration, Trump’s goals, to the extent he had any well-formed thoughts about goals other than enhancing his personal wealth, were largely defeated by the Keystone Kops character of many of his appointees. It was also true that working for Trump was an ordeal beyond the tolerance of many of his appointees, so much so that Cabinet-level appointees quit or were fired in numbers that equaled the total of Reagan and George HW Bush combined and far exceeded the combined total for Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama.

We also know that many of Trump’s former Cabinet members, and his Vice President, have stated flatly that he is unfit for office. Nevertheless, the American people have spoken, rejecting an intelligent, experienced Democrat in favor of a multiply-convicted felon, rapist, corrupt, racist, dishonest remorseless serial liar, insurrectionist traitor, and violator of his oath of office. What can go wrong? Everything. And we’re still more than two months from Trump’s assuming office.

Announcements of his intended nominations for Cabinet and other critical high positions in the government are chilling beyond anything one might have imagined. If there is any good news in any of these appointments, it is that some of these people will no longer be in Congress. But that is killing with faint praise because they will be positioned to impose much more serious harm on the nation and the world.

Trump has, for example, chosen Matt Gaetz as the next Attorney General. As recently as June 18, 2024, the House Committee on Ethics has had this to say about the estimable Mr. Gaetz:

Notwithstanding the difficulty in obtaining relevant information from Representative Gaetz and others, the Committee has spoken with more than a dozen witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents in this matter.  Based on its review to date, the Committee has determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review.  During the course of its investigation, the Committee has also identified additional allegations that merit review.

Accordingly, the Committee is reviewing allegations pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18(a) that Representative Gaetz may have:  engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct.  The Committee will take no further action at this time on the allegations that he may have shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe or improper gratuity.

Recall that in Trump v United States, the worst decision in American legal history, the Supreme Court held that the President’s “discussions” with the Justice Department seeking to suborn DOJ into supporting false claims of 2020 election impropriety were “absolutely immune” from criminal prosecution.

The Gaetz appointment appears to be causing something of a stir among some Republicans, too much even for the Wall Street Journal.

This is a bad choice for AG that would undermine confidence in the law. Mr. Trump lauded Mr. Gaetz’s law degree from William and Mary, but it might as well be a doctorate in outrage theater. He’s a performer and provocateur, and his view is that the more explosions he can cause, the more attention he can get. “It’s impossible to get canceled if you’re on every channel,” he once said. “If you aren’t making news, you aren’t governing.”

The larger objections to Mr. Gaetz concern judgment and credibility. The U.S. Attorney General has to make calls on countless difficult questions of whom to investigate and indict. Mr. Gaetz’s decisions simply wouldn’t be trusted. He’s a nominee for those who want the law used for political revenge, and it won’t end well.

Contesting for the most insane actions by an elected president in history, I have just seen that Trump has, as predicted, appointed anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy, Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services. While Kennedy has had many jobs and roles during his lifetime, he has never had a management responsibility even remotely on the scale of HHS. This appointment, like many others, seems destined to produce a nightmarish disaster for the country.

Even the Wall Street Journal found RFK Jr to much to choke down:

Only months ago Mr. Trump was calling the Kennedy family scion a “liberal lunatic,” yet now he wants to hand RFK Jr. the power to “make America healthy again.” Good luck making sense of this nomination.

Mr. Trump’s desire to focus on America’s health agencies is welcome, but RFK Jr. won’t make America healthier. He’s more likely to harm public health by spreading confusion and attacking the American companies that are saving lives and feeding the world.

Trump selected Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Russian media has gleefully reported her claims that the Biden administration was intent upon prolonging the war in Ukraine, “out to destroy Russia” and that the Democratic Party was the enemy of democracy driven by an “insatiable hunger for power.” Armed with those deep thoughts, Gabbard joined the Republican Party and endorsed Trump’s candidacy. Given her positions and statements, some commenters have labeled her a “Russian asset.” Quite possible.

Trump chose Elise Stefanik to be Ambassador to the United Nations. This is the same Elise Stefanik who supported the January 6 attack on the Capitol and stated that she would have violated the law, the Constitution, and her oath of office by refusing to certify the 2020 election result. A solid Trumpian choice to represent the country in the council of nations.

Trump anointed South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to head the Department of Homeland Security – you remember her, the person who shot her dog because she disapproved of his behavior. She will likely struggle with Trump’s related selection of Tom Homan as “border czar.” Homan served as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the first Trump administration. About this appointment, Trump reportedly said that in addition to overseeing the southern and northern borders along with maritime, and aviation security, Homan “will be in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin.” Homan’s appointment apparently does not require Senate confirmation.

The reference to aviation security being under Homan is curious in that the Transportation Security Administration is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Trump may be signaling an intention to move it. I will leave to your imagination the implications of that for the travel security process at airports. Or maybe Trump simply doesn’t know anything about the organization of the federal government.

As the lead lunatic and merciless serial killer played by Woody Harrelson in the 1974 movie, Natural Born Killers, said when asked what he had to say to his fans, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Trump has chosen a Fox News anchor, Pete Hegseth, for Secretary of Defense. Hegseth’s qualifications are that he was a soldier once and wrote some books attacking our current military policies. He is well-educated with a bachelor’s degree in politics from Princeton University and a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Axios reports that Hegseth opposes using women in combat roles, believes the military is too “woke,” has (per CNN) urged Trump to pardon some U.S. servicemen accused of war crimes and to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A quote attributed to him says, “You’ve got top-down political generals who’ve gained rank by playing by all the wrong rules that cater to the ideologues in Washington, D.C.”

It seems likely that Hegseth, who has been with Fox since 2014, is going to disrupt the chain of command while the U.S. is involved in large support roles in at least two wars: Middle East and Ukraine. Do you feel safer? Oh, and check out the photos of his tattoos. Oh, and check out the stories about his alleged sexual assault, that Hegseth denied but paid hush money anyway to secure the obligatory non-disclosure agreement. Curiously the stories I have seen don’t mention anything about DNA testing. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung reportedly has crowed that “Trump is nominating high-caliber and extremely qualified candidates to serve in his administration.” No doubt, Trump will be pleased with Cheung’s praise.

Trump also picked for Secretary of State the man he referred to as “little Marco” during the 2016 primaries. Rubio will exit the Senate, but Florida will no doubt elect a “suitable” MAGA replacement, so no joy there.

Trump’s pick for national security adviser, Michael Waltz, another Florida Republican, is reported to be a “China hawk” and likely opposed to giving more aid to Ukraine. If so, the seeds of internal conflict among Trump’s Cabinet on the Ukraine may be sown. Republican leaders generally seem disinclined to support Ukraine, and NATO itself, against Russia’s expansionist agenda, so Trump may well be on the verge of giving “aid and comfort” to one of our country’s principal adversaries. Treason, anyone?

Perhaps driven by his problematic experience with the gaggle of lawyers trying to help his campaign undermine the electoral process in 2020 and thereafter (also 2016, don’t forget), Trump has chosen William McGinley as White House counsel. Without a hint of awareness of the irony of it, Trump touted McGinley as someone who would resist the “weaponization of law enforcement.” Reportedly, McGinley’s MAGA credentials are solid: he was White House Cabinet secretary, Republican National Committee outside counsel for election integrity and general counsel for the GOP Senate campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Trump also chose right-wing Christian religious fanatic former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Likely this means the slaughter in Gaza will continue. One report I saw indicates Muslims in Pennsylvania and Michigan who supported Trump are now upset with his pro-Israel nominations. This is what you get for single-issue protest votes.

In a related development, Trump appointed Steven Witkoff, a New York real estate baron, his special envoy to the Middle East. Witkoff, co-chair of Trump’s inaugural committee and a regular Trump golf partner, has reportedly been central to Trump’s connection with the Jewish business community.

Perhaps the least surprising and least interesting appointment so far is that of White House Chief of Staff that went to Trump campaign co-chair Susie Wiles, a Florida political operative. Lots of political folks from Florida in Trump’s crew.

Semi-finally, based on reports I’ve seen so far, the new CIA Director will be John Ratcliffe who was Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence. Ratcliffe previously was a Republican House member from, where else, Texas.

I will close this post for today with further observations about the Gaetz appointment. While Hegseth’s appointment as Secretary of Defense is shocking even for someone like Trump, it is put to shame by the elevation of Gaetz to the top federal law enforcement post.

USAToday noted that “Trump chose Gaetz to end ‘weaponization’ of Justice Department.” Again, awareness of irony is in short supply among these MAGA Republicans. USAToday notes

Trump and Gaetz both became fierce critics of the Justice Department after being investigated.”

Yes, that is to be expected, I suppose, but the idea that Gaetz is going to “end the weaponization of DOJ,” the agency Trump tried so hard to weaponize, is absurd. Trump only desisted because of threats by multiple DOJ leaders to resign if he put Jeffrey Clark in charge. Then the Supreme Court came along and found that Trump didn’t need to worry about weaponization of DOJ or any other federal agency because he was “absolutely immune” from prosecution for doing that very thing.

In replay of the replay of the replay, two female senators, Murkowski and Collins, engaged in brief public “shock” at the Gaetz nominations. Five will get you ten they will vote for confirmation.

Finally, here are some reactions among former government officials with knowledge:

“I cannot imagine a worse pick for Attorney General than Matt Gaetz.” [Edward Whelan, a deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration]

“On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d call it a disaster.” [Harry Litman, a top Justice Department official during the Clinton administration]

“Our next Attorney General will be tasked with the safekeeping of the rule of law and our democracy, and Matt Gaetz is not fit for that job.” [Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee]

“He’s just trolling America at this point.” [Alyssa Farah Griffin, White House and Pentagon spokesperson in the first Trump administration]

“it must be the worst nomination for a Cabinet position in American history. Gaetz is not only totally incompetent for this job, he doesn’t have the character.” [John Bolton, Trump’s first term national security adviser]

Meanwhile, Jack Smith is closing his criminal prosecutions of Trump who will walk away unscathed for his traitorous behavior in office.

To end, finally, I turn to one of the smartest humans to share his brilliance with us in modern times: Edward O. Wilson (two Pulitzer Prizes), requoted from Your Brain on Art by Susan Magsamen & Ivy Ross:

Along with ants, bees, wasps, and termites, we humans are one of the only nineteen species on the entire planet that are eusocial. In other words, we work together to ensure our collective future. Group selection over individual survival developed with the core huma traits we have honed to this day including sympathy, empathy, and teamwork.

Altruism was essential to build and support community as a portion of the group members made sacrifices for the good of the group as a whole.

The authors added:

While it might not always seem the case, humans throughout history have more often chosen community and altruism over isolation and selfishness because irresolvable rivalry, from an evolutionary perspective, is deadly.

 

Woodward Nails It

Leave a reply

Disclosure: Bob Woodward and I knew each other in college, a long time ago. He was in the class behind me. We were friends then, and I still consider him one. We do not, however, socialize or otherwise see each other on a planned basis. This has been true since we talked occasionally during the Watergate crisis. He once generously referred to me as an advisor. I don’t know about that, but I do have high regard for his achievements as a consistent and reliable reporter on the inside stories of Washington into which he has had unique access and insight over many years and 23 books. If I have criticized (rarely) some of his conclusions, I have never questioned his commitment to truth as best he could discern it, a challenging undertaking in a place like Washington. One doesn’t earn two Pulitzer Prizes for fake news.

I have just finished War, his latest. As I read the book’s treatment of two international crises during the Biden administration (the latest and ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023), my first thought was how vivid was the portrayal of the complexity and stress of the nation’s international relations. The step-by-step negotiations, the dissembling, the uncertainty, the constant risk of escalation to unthinkable disaster – all of it — is laid out in remarkable detail.

The other main thought was how masterful Joe Biden was as leader of the United States’ response to these astonishing complex and fraught situations, while Donald Trump was violating US law by interfering in negotiations to enhance his status as an international king-maker. Biden’s constant masterful probing for pathways to success, considering options for de-escalation, serving as a calming influence while influencing often hostile nations to consider options to avoid calamity was extraordinary to observe.

Woodward’s ultimate conclusions bear repeating, but everyone should read this book, War, to get deep insight into how diplomacy is conducted and how difficult and fraught every interaction can be when lives are on the line. In those details is the ultimate proof of why the presidency should never be entrusted to Donald Trump again.

Woodward quotes Jake Sullivan’s assessment that seems exactly right:

The president has essentially created the necessary permission structure for sustained American support to Ukraine…. Would there be a war in Ukraine today if Trump were president? I would say probably not. Why? There’d be no war because Putin would be in Kyiv…. Trump would have waved him right in. Because when it comes to these dictators, Trump’s basic view: I let them do what they want….

The legacy of the Biden presidency will be the core national security team that he built and kept in place for nearly four years. They brought decades of experience as well as basic human decency. War shows the traditional and novel ways Biden and his core team pursued an intelligence-driven foreign policy to warn the world that war was coming in Ukraine, to supply Ukraine with the weapons they need to defend themselves against Russia, and to try to tamp down escalations in the Israel-Gaza war.

The real conclusion comes from Woodward himself, just before the end of the book:

Trump’s war was the coronavirus pandemic and his performance revealed his character. These interviews showed a man with no fidelity to the truth, fixated on re-election and unequipped to deal with a genuine crisis.

Trump was warned by his national security advisers that the virus was deadly and a major threat to the country but he never developed a plan to respond. He did not know how to use his extraordinary executive power to prioritize saving American lives. Through defiant pronouncements, he downplayed and deflected any responsibility for handling it. There was no compassion. No courage….

I once asked Trump, “What’s the job of the president?” He said, “To protect the people.”

It’s a good answer, but Trump failed to do it.

And then:

Donald Trump is not only the wrong man for the presidency, he is unfit to lead the country. Trump was far worse than Richard Nixon, the provably criminal president. As I have pointed out, Trump governed by fear and rage. And indifference to the public and national interest.

Trump was the most reckless and impulsive president in American history and is demonstrating the very same character as a presidential candidate in 2024.

Add to that the recent New York Times Editorial Board’s assessment:

Duplicity at the Washington Post

1 Reply

I was planning to name this post “Out-Snarking George Will’s Snark” but in the event, the bigger issue loomed larger. Following Jeff Bezos’ incoherent and logically deficient decision to withhold the endorsement that the editorial staff had prepared, the Post has continued its “both sides are equivalent” approach to what it thinks of as journalism.

The prime example that leapt to mind as the election looms is the continued publication of George Will’s “Opinion” articles. I have no insight as to why the Post has felt for decades now that Mr. Will’s “opinions” have such merit as to warrant regular presentation to what was once the Post’s vast audience. Mr. Will is, we know, a stalwart “conservative,” and a bastion of “conservative thought.” How this came to be I don’t know and don’t much care.

I address this now, on the eve of the most important election in, most likely, the history of the country, because Mr. Will’s latest exercise in verbal chicanery caused a hormonal overload of angst that I am helpless to control. I can exorcise it, if at all, by writing about it. Doing so will not change anything except perhaps bringing my heart rate back to safe levels.

Mr. Will’s “opinion” at issue here is entitled, “Voters face the worst presidential choice in U.S. history.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/01/donald-trump-kamala-harris-worst-choice/

One might think that he was both-sides-ing again (“There have been mediocrities and scoundrels in the 59 previous presidential elections. But nothing like this.”), but that would be wrong. Mr. Will’s duplicitous article, presumptively acceptable to the Post that published it, is, properly understood, an endorsement of Donald Trump.

A snarky aside: George Will is 83 years old, older even than I am. The photo accompanying his opinion articles is either Photoshopped or from decades ago. Compare the Getty Images at https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/george-will-columnist or in this idolatrous piece in the National Review wherein Mr. Will is lionized as a “dazzling writer and political thinker.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/george-f-will-an-appreciation/ Return now to the main point.

Mr. Will’s gift for word play is on full display in this piece: “Why prolong this incineration of the nation’s dignity?” While accurately describing Trump as a “volcano of stray thoughts and tantrums” who is “painfully well known,” he immediately pivots to insulting Kamala Harris by defining her exclusively by “her versatility of conviction” that “means that she might shed her new catechism as blithely as she acquired its progressive predecessor.”

Mr. Will pivots again to attacking the Democratic Party’s “reckless disingenuousness regarding the president’s frailty” followed by “the nimbleness of those without the ballast of seriousness about anything other than hoarding power … foisted on the electorate a Play-Doh candidate. Her manipulators made her malleability into her platform. Prudence is a virtue, so do not fault her handlers for mostly shielding her from public interactions more challenging than interviews with grammar school newspapers.” That is followed by more insults of Tim Walz whose “achievement during his pirouette in the spotlight has been to make his counterpart, JD Vance, resemble Aristotle.” Aristotle? I think not. More like Marcus Junius Brutus who conspired to murder Julius Caesar.

Mr. Will pivots again quickly to undermining Vance: his “stories,” or “fairy tales” claimed to be didactic, “might be if he, a bristling porcupine of certitudes, candidly demarcated his fictions from reality.” Pivot again to stating that Biden and Trump are equally guilty of bad choices of running mates. Mr. Will purports to prove his “both sides are bad” argument by outlining each side’s “pitiless exposure of the candidates’ peculiar promises and reprehensible silences.”

Mr. Will thus compares Trump as “pithy” when promising the impossible to “settle” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 24 hours to Harris as “loquacious” in an interview about the US role in trying to influence events in the Middle East. He says, rightly, that Trump will not state, “Putin is an enemy” and Harris will not defend what he describes as Israel’s “right to fight as fiercely against genocidal enemies next door as the United States fought in World War II against enemies oceans away.”

I interject here if Mr. Will knew a tenth as much as he presumes to know about the Middle East, he could comment with authority. But it’s apparent to me he has either not read Bob Woodward’s new book, War, or simply refuses to understand the inconvenient realities of possibly the most complex political, cultural, ethic, and religious situation in modern history.

Mr. Will pivots again to whining about what he calls “entitlements,” referring to the large sums of my, and your, money withheld from your pay over your lifetime to assure you had a fiscal lifeline in retirement by returning your money to you. Entitlement? Nah. And Medicare, the other subject of Mr. Will’s angst? We might not need it if our health and related insurance systems weren’t such a pathetic joke.

I will here skip over some of Mr. Will’s further distortions of stated positions to the real beauty in this article. He purports to claim that the award for “most embarrassing voice” this year goes to an unnamed “Idaho Republican who, in a public forum, told a Native American to “go back where you came from.” Mr. Will concludes that part with “Let’s do go back to where we come from: the nation’s founding of a limited government.”

Ah! So, there it is. Mr. Will believes “where we came from” as a nation is “the founding of a limited government,” the siren song of the traditional, now long lost in the miasma of Trumpism, “conservative” understanding of what the country is all about and how it got there. Unwittingly, perhaps but likely not, Mr. Will gives us the “big reveal” by failing/refusing to grasp the parts of our national history that inconveniently ignore the “Americans” who were here before us and the abject inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation that failed to produce a national government that could manage even the rudimentary nation that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution.

The Articles were the “limited government” of Mr. Will’s fever dreams. They are close to the most likely model for the “government” that Trump/Vance promise to give us and that the Supreme Court has to some extent already ordained as the preferred method of managing our more than 330 million people spread over more than 3.7 million square miles of contiguous territory. Trump/Vance promise to eviscerate the federal government, returning us to the fantasy land of yesteryear when a confederacy of states each of which will be in charge of its own destiny (at least until the next hurricane strikes) and the “United” States will withdraw from most international relationships in favor of an isolationist “America First” that in the past has led straight to war.

Thus, in the end, while purporting to argue that the two presidential candidates of 2024 are deficient in all and mostly mutual respects, Mr. Will ultimately buys into Trump/Vance’s “vision” of a country consisting of 50 separate entities, each acting as its “locals” prefer with a national government populated by political loyalists of the President and free from the inconvenient constraints of the Constitution and criminal laws.

You would think Mr. Will has not read or understood much of American history, modeling Trump’s “don’t tell me, don’t ask me to read it, I already know everything I need to know to benefit me.” Mr. Will’s opening suggestion that both candidates are equivalent and deficient is overwhelmed in the end by his implicit recognition that his historical understanding fits neatly with Trump/Vance’s ravings. Thus, although Mr. Will claims the 2024 candidate have been “greeted … by grimaces from sea to shining sea” (sorry, but I had to include it), in the end only one will be victorious and if it’s Mr. Will’s “favorite among equals,” the nation is in for a disastrous end. See, for example, https://shiningseausa.com/2024/10/25/america-trump-wants-for-you-your-children/ and https://shiningseausa.com/2024/07/02/another-day-that-will-live-in-infamy/