This is the second day and the second post on the topic of the election and DtheT. I will continue to refer to our president-elect that way, as saying President Trump out loud makes me wince. As I often called President Obama “Barry” when I was annoyed with him, Trump will remain DtheT. He deserves no more respect than that – unless he changes, which isn’t going to happen.

Yesterday I calculated that I will have 1,610 opportunities to write on this topic, assuming a once per day blog post. I intend to use every single one of them, so gird your loins, it’s comin’ atcha.

Back to the topic at hand: core of decency. President Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s concession speeches were dignified and thoughtful. They both ask us to give DtheT a chance. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have a core of decency, no matter what. DtheT has no moral center. He is an opportunist of the worst stripe. He has taken advantage of people’s fears – inchoate tho’ they may be – and used that fear against the country. We will give him a chance, but we’ll be watching him very closely. There won’t be a honeymoon period, of that I am sure.

Remember Ren and Stimpy? The goofy cartoon enjoyed by GenX’ers with two creatures of indeterminate identity. One of them (I forget which was which) had a catch phrase: “You Iiidddiioot”. Well, I’m invoking that now: You Idiots.

Oh my God. What have you done? You have elected a sociopathic personality to be the leader of the free world. You have given that sociopath’s party control of both houses of Congress, and allowed them to appoint the next Supreme Court judge. You idiots.

The NY Times has a slew of editorialists moaning about the effects of the American voter’s choice. Only one mentioned that this man is now in charge of the nuclear codes. Oh my God! You idiots.

I am still in shock, and since it’s 4:38 in the morning, I haven’t had a chance to parse the numbers. But I’m not sure I’m going to. What’s the point?

You idiots need to be afraid. I am.

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

Leo Tolstoy,

Anna Karenina.

Brother, you said a mouthful.

So I’m going to have lunch Saturday with two of my favorite lady friends, Pat and Susan. Pat is a triathlete who wants to become a writer. Sue is a gifted artist who likes to talk about writing, and is most encouraging. What could make for a nicer luncheon? I have a book to give Pat, entitled Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. It’s a book about writing. I read it about 20 years ago, and many of its lessons stuck with me when I began to write in earnest. Guess they got into my subconscious, because I didn’t recall reading the book or hearing her advice. Isn’t that the best way to learn something?

In preparation for this luncheon, I summoned my inner voice, and we had a dialogue about writing, which led to some thoughts about literary criticism. You know the old saw: those who can write, those who can’t become critics? Christopher Hitchens may be the exception: didn’t he write “I am a Camera”, from whence cometh Cabaret? I think so – have to look it up, but I don’t want to lose my train of thought, so stay tuned on this one.

OK – so I asked my inner voice, “What is our favorite book of all time?”

Inner voice: “Gee, that’s easy: Diary of a Mad Housewife by Sue Kaufman. You noodlehead, you were just reading some early chapters of the book this morning when you couldn’t sleep.”

Me: “Oh yeah – that’s right.”

So I thought I’d ask the ladies whether they have that kind of book – a ‘go-to’ book in times of trouble and/or happiness – just for the pleasure of reading it again?

Then I recalled that when I was a charter member of the Millstone Book Club from 2010 to our departure in 2016, I only recommended two books to the group: Temple Grandin’s book, Animals in Translation and, of course, Diary of a Mad Housewife.

They ladies in the group didn’t understand or appreciate either one of them.

I’ll dispense with a discussion about Grandin’s book, because it was just not something they had any interest in. But we had a most lively discussion about “Diary” and the main character, Tina Balser. The book club ladies fell into two very distinct camps: liked it; hated it. Loved the main character; despised the woman. Hmm.

But here’s the thing: I recall going into writer’s mode, so as not to get defensive when one of the more vocal ladies trashed the book I’d read 162 times (well, maybe I’m exaggerating, but likely not by much). Going into writer’s mode allowed me to probe why she hated the character and the book. Here’s what she said, and the gaggle of haters vehemently agreed that this was the problem:

“I could not understand why this woman was so unhappy. She had everything a woman could possibly want or ask for. And for that woman to jeopardize it all by having an affair was disgusting.”

Wow.

Okay!

The likers couldn’t overcome the animus of the haters, but that’s not important here. Because the most vocal hater then asked me the magic question: “Why did you like this book enough to recommend that we read it?”

I recall being surprised by the question, and hence had a most inarticulate response, something like “I first read it at a very difficult time in my life and it helped me cope with stress and difficulty.” How’s that for lame?

But I loved the book because it was intelligent. The main character was nothing like me, yet because Kaufman likely wrote about her own life, she did so with total authenticity. I didn’t necessarily want to be her – I wanted to know her and have her as a friend. Sort of brings to mind the friends in the movie An Unmarried Woman. It also brings to mind Anna Karenina, because – as I figured out so many years later – “Diary” is just another version of “Anna” set in New York in the 1960’s. The difference is Anna loses everything and throws herself in front of a train. Tina loses nothing and decides to settle for urban mediocrity. But I think it’s fair to point out that Sue Kaufman jumped off the balcony of her 18th floor apartment at age 50. That was the real end of Tina Balser.

So now I have two friends that are intelligent, artistic and just great fun to be with. I hope we have regular times together, lunches, social gatherings, whatever, that allows us to talk about art, books, movies and writing. Because there is nothing better than taking that cocktail party in your head and transferring it to real dialogue with real women you really like.

Post script: Oops – big time wrong. It wasn’t Christopher Hitchens – it was Christopher Isherwood, who was not a critic. So no exceptions to the rule, I suppose. Hmm..

First of all, let me say I’m frankly sick and tired of hearing about Donald Trump. All this attention he’s getting from everyone and everywhere just feeds his endless narcissistic, insecure and pathetic little ego. Have you seen those statues of him placed all over the country? Somebody’s gonna go down for that – someone named Ginger. Very cool sculpture. Oh, you say you haven’t seen them? Here ya go!

By now, the word has spread about these statues, and they are everywhere on the net. Because they’re everywhere, there’s no way to stop the laughing and ridicule. As I’ve noted before in previous blogs, relative to ISIS, the best way to destroy evil is to get people to laugh at it. It makes evil’s little johnson wilt and eventually it makes evil go away.

But now to the serious part of this blog post. By his very nature, Donald Trump has made a mockery of this year’s presidential election. It would have been inconceivable – ever – in the past for a presidential candidate to be so hated and yes feared, that a mocking statue of him in the buff would appear in at least five different cities simultaneously. There’s even a YouTube video of how the statue was made – quite a stunning likeness of his … face.

Sorry – I really am trying to be serious. But I guess that’s my point. He isn’t a serious candidate, and never has been. After the better part of a year trying to figure out what this is all about, I think I’m finally onto it. Hence the title. Still don’t get it? Let me ‘splain.

Think

Hitler and the National Socialist Movement in 1929. They had staged an attempted coup which was a complete disaster. Hitler had been thrown in jail, where he dictated Mein Kampf and his little buddy Rudolph Hess typed it. After serving 9 months of a five year sentence for treason (?!?) Hitler comes out and loses election after election. In 1929, he is ridiculed and laughed at – just like Trump.

Then comes the Depression. Fear and inflation come to Germany. Within a very short time, Hitler has become the leader of the most popular movement in Germany. He gets appointed Chancellor, with the politicians thinking they could control him if he’s a member of the cabinet. Unfortunately, the president, Paul von Hindenburg, dies and guess who becomes President? Yes indeedee.

That was 1933. So Trump is the equivalent of Hitler in 1929 – laughed at and ridiculed by the media, by people other than his fanatical followers (sound familiar?) and by the rest of the world. They weren’t laughing so hard after he took over Austria five short years later. And you know the rest of that story.

So here’s the point: Donald will lose this election – but he knew he would. He will use this loss to generate bitterness, fear and hatred for the ‘ruling class’ – anybody that knows anything about anything. He will virtually destroy the Republican Party, accusing it of every possible failure, leading to his loss. The ‘experts’ are on their way out, and Trump, aided and abetted by Breitbart News, Roger Ailes and the other toadies that speak for him (shudder) will create Trump Media. This they will use for another run in four years – a run that will allow him – or his surrogate – to be successful in winning the presidency. All we need are a few more terror attacks and an economic slowdown, with a pinch of inflation to leaven the mix.

So don’t be heaving a sigh of relief on November 9th. He’ll be back, and when he returns, it’ll be Adolph all over again. And it won’t just be in the US – it will be half the world, including Britain, France, Russia and goodness knows which other countries. Nationalism is, once again, rearing its ugly head, but this time in the nuclear age. That makes for a uniquely dangerous reality.

Maybe after the war is over and America (and likely the rest of the civilized world) is reduced to rubble, generations will go by without anybody naming their son Donald. It’s the least we can hope for.

I’ve been semi-binge-watching the show Community thanks to Hulu. One of the episodes in the third season featured six different timelines imagined by Abed, one of the more colorful characters. What’s that, you say? It depicts six different versions of what happened when six different members of the Community College study group are each sent to answer the door and retrieve pizzas from a delivery guy.

I liked the episode and thought I’d apply the concept to the presidential election. So here’s six different timelines for the outcome.

Timeline 1: Donald Trump wins, but dies before the inauguration, having been trampled in a gay pride parade.

Timeline 2: Donald Trump loses, but moves into the White House by declaring squatter’s rights, an idea he got from a Disney movie.

Timeline 3: Donald Trump wins, and the first act of the 2017 Congress is Articles of Impeachment of Donald Trump after he sells the White House to China. Trump got the idea watching a History Channel show about Warren G. Harding, who gambled away the White House China.

Timeline 4: Donald Trump loses the election, but wins the states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas in the electoral college. The rest of the United States expels those five states from the union. They reform and are henceforth known as the Trump Republic, with Donald as their President for Life. President Hillary builds a wall around the Trump Republic to keep out the riff raff.

Timeline 5: Donald Trump loses, but insists that he won in some parallel universe, and therefore should be co-president.

Timeline 6: Donald Trump loses, but then declares himself the winner when he is able to produce a birth certificate showing Hillary Clinton was really born in Antarctica and is, in fact, really a penguin. Or maybe THE Penguin. Hey, you know she does walk kinda funny.

So there you have it – six different options – pick the one you like best. My personal favorite is Timeline 4. Good riddance to those idgits.

Let’s talk about the current state of the Republican ‘establishment’. I think the picture to the left says it all. Why do I label them as lemmings? Because they are acting like those little critters. Let me ‘splain.

Here’s the scoop from Wikipedia.

A lemming is a small rodent, usually found in or near the Arctic, in tundra biomes. Lemmings are subniveal animals, and together with voles and muskrats, they make up the subfamily Arvicolinae (also known as Microtinae), which forms part of the largest mammal radiation by far, the superfamily Muroidea, which also includes rats, mice, hamsters, and gerbils.

Wikipedia goes on to say their breeding habits are somewhat chaotic, resulting in either an overabundance that stresses the habitat, or near extinction. So let’s talk about what happens when the habitat gets stressed.

Lemmings have become the subject of a widely popular misconception that they commit mass suicide when they migrate, by jumping off cliffs. It is in fact not a mass suicide but the result of their migratory behavior. Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. In such cases, many may drown if the body of water is so wide as to stretch their physical capability to the limit. This fact, combined with the unexplained fluctuations in the population of Norwegian lemmings, gave rise to the misconception.[6]

Which brings us back to Republicans. Apparently their breeding has exceeded their habitat, so they are figuratively jumping off cliffs into fjords or some other cold body of water. Why do I say that?

1) Donald Trump;
2) The Senate refusing to confirm Merrick Garland as the next Supreme Court justice;
3) The North Carolina bathroom caper
4) The eternal, perpetual do-nothing Congress.

Only a weakened party would have a candidate like Trump rise to the fore; only a suicidal party would allow him to actually get the nomination, without so much as a whine or a whimper. With Trump as the Republican nominee, any 5 year old could tell that Hillary Clinton will win the election, with a majority of electoral votes from winning the usual blue states, along with Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia and maybe even Nevada. When she wins, there will likely be a tie in the Senate when you include the Democratic Vice President. With that on the horizon, the lemmings, er Republican lame duck Congress will try to quickly get Judge Garland confirmed as the replacement for Scalia. Then the Democrats will say, “Wait until after the inauguration and let the ‘people’ have their say.” Funny and ironic? Not really.

And then there’s the Republican hijinks in North Carolina that may very well defeat the sitting Republican governor, who ran on a platform of moderation. If this is moderation, holy moley! I think the cartoon says it all. But does the governor change his position? Nope. He’s taken his place in the Muroidea line and is well on his way to the big jumping off place into oblivion.

But what do all these Republicans have in common? The first two cartoons say it all: resolute and decisive leadership. Get in line and follow..all the way to the precipice. See ya!

And what will be the reaction after all these predictions come to be? “We weren’t sufficiently resolute and decisive. We need to be even more conservative. We must alienate even more people of color and gender.” Yeah…that’ll work. One of these days y’all will get around to realizing things have changed and you’ve become obsolete. Or, to quote that great line from A Knight’s Tale

Wat: You have been weighed.
Roland: You have been measured.
Kate: And you absolutely…
Chaucer: Have been found wanting.
William: Welcome to the New World. God save you, if it is right that he should do so.

I think God might take a pass this time. Too much using his name in vain for evil purposes. Oh whale…who nose?

6 inches

I saw this piece from Walt Hickey, who puts together Significant Digits for the Fivethirtyeight website. I laughed out loud, and had to read it to Erik, it was so clever. Here goes.

“Three months ago, Inky, an octopus being detained at a holding facility in New Zealand calling itself the National Aquarium, mounted a daring escape to freedom that involved breaking free of his enclosure, dragging his body along the floor, and exiting to the ocean through a six-inch drain. The details of how the prisoner of conscience — who was held without trial for two years on evidence of his affiliation with the cephalopod sect of the Mollusca phylum — escaped are only now coming to light. Worth noting is that octopi are vastly intelligent and capable of memory, and I can only assume that Inky is radicalizing his brothers-in-multiple-arms for the coming war.” [The Washington Post]

Don’t you just love it? A nod to Walt Hickey of Fivethirtyeight.com for his clever take on an otherwise pedestrian piece.

Yesterday, Paul Ryan said count him out as the Republican presidential nominee. I believe he will stick to his guns. Apparently bettors do as well, since his name has left the Predictwise building. So if not Paul, then who? And why won’t he take the mantle upon himself? Got some ideas.

First question: if not Paul, then who would be the nominee? I don’t think anybody knows that at the moment, as the final tally of delegates hasn’t appeared. But if all the indicators are correct, the two key states with a bunch of delegates are California (172) and Pennsylvania (71). California awards the bulk of its delegate by congressional district results; Pennsylvania keeps 80% of its delegates uncommitted. So DtheT has to take virtually every congressional district in New York to have a shot at amassing the 1237 he needs for a first ballot win. He’d have to get the bulk of California districts as well, and allegedly his organization is in disarray and unprepared to mount the disciplined campaign needed to take California. Or does it require discipline? I’d argue California Republicans would prefer Trump over Cruz, and Kasich might as well stay home. There you have it – Trump will get close enough to 1237 to go into the convention with a strong case for the nomination, if not the full 1237. Ryan saying, “Don’t count on me” nearly guarantees that outcome.

But the bigger issue is this: how come Paul Ryan won’t come to the rescue of the party? After all, the next generation of Supreme Court decisions needs for the Republicans to win. Is he being parochial – looking out for his own political interests? If he were, he’d not have taken the Speaker’s chair. No – I think he realizes they’re going to lose, and is trying to preserve the Republican majority in the House in case the Senate goes down with the higher ticket. That is a much higher likelihood than first seemed to be the case. It only takes 4 Senate seats to flip if Hillary wins. And Ryan is betting that Hillary wins and the Republicans lose the Senate. He’s the little

Dutch boy with his finger in the dike. Yoiks!

So which states are the 4 most likely to flip?

Wisconsin
Ohio
Florida
?

Wisconsin. Watch for Russ Feingold to come back. Ohio – Rob Portman is behind in the polls and the Democrat Ted Strickland was narrowly defeated in the 2010 gubernatorial race by John Kasich. Florida will see a very popular young Democrat, Patrick Murphy, against a more liberal Democrat accused of ethics violations, Alan Grayson.

The fourth one to flip is anybody’s guess, and there are actually a couple of vulnerable Democrats: Harry Reid of Nevada (who is retiring) and Michael Bennet from Colorado. But with the Republicans in disarray, I’d argue those seats will remain Democrat.

So bottom line: Senate will likely – once again – be evenly divided, when you include a Democratic VP. Sigh. Another 4 years of gridlock.

Oh – one last thing – remember that group called the Supreme Court? When Hillary wins, the lame duck Congress will try to get Merrick Garland approved beween November and January. If you were a Democrat in the Senate, would you go along with that? I think not. Sorry…no I’m not. The Republicans have been hoisted on their own petard, and as I’ve said before: there isn’t a more deserving group to suffer.

Well, 60 Minutes is clearly desperate for material, so they’ve again dredged up this story about the 28 page document initially suppressed by the Bush Administration. Inertia has set in, and the Obama Admins have no desire to open that proverbial can of worms. And frankly, at this point, why bother? Between the two retired pols that talked with Steve on the program, all’s been revealed anyway. Some lower level Saudi government officials helped the 9/11 hijackers get along in California until they were ready to fly on planes and blow up the buildings. Okay? That’s it. Big whoop.

But that got me to thinking and wondering: what would have prompted the Saudi government to support this plot in the first place? And after thinking a bunch of deep thoughts, I’ve come to three conclusions:

1) The lower-level Saudis helped the plotters because it’s what they’ve always done to keep the radicals happy and away from plotting against the Royal family;

2) They felt a certain allegiance to the group because they were followers of Osama Bin Laden; the Bin Laden family has close ties to the Royal family; and

3) Most important of all: the Saudi Royal family=Saudi Arabian government never thought they’d pull it off, and it would be safe to humor them and buy peace.

In other words, the foolish Saudis thought we Americans were smarter than we were. They certainly dropped enough hints to the Bush Administration – the intel community knew something was coming, and they failed to stop it because they didn’t think the group could pull it off either. After all, lots of plots had come and gone, and none had succeeded before, eh? So what we have here is the proverbial black swan. Who knew?

I’m not cynical enough to believe that the Bush Administration knew it was going to happen and let it for political reasons – only the Russians pull stunts like that, and only to cover up major corruption left over from the Yeltsin era. Nah – bureaucratic bungling is only part of the issue – the rest was a misguided belief in our security systems. That’s certainly changed, eh? But has it really?

We have spent more than half a trillion dollars on security since 9/11. And how many genuine plots have been uncovered? Obviously that’s hard to say because an uncovered plot generally doesn’t make the news. But I’d argue that since the 9/11 attack was effectively a black swan event, we have spent huge sums in pursuit of the unattainable – a 100% secure country. How much has France spent on homeland security since 9/11? Between 29 and 36 billion Euros a year. And has that kept them safe? Ask the staff at Charlie Hebdo; the Jewish deli; the concert hall. It has not kept France safe.

Okay, so nobody can buy safety. So what do we do?

1) Understand the roots of the problem and be candid about them;
2) Once the roots are understood, find ways to address the problems, recognizing that for some it’s too late and a certain level of violence can be expected.
3) Use statistical analysis to figure out how to best address existing violence. Trying to find everybody means we likely find nobody and plots will continue to be hatched and succeed.
4) After a generation or so, it’s likely the problem will go away on its own.

Wow – all that is heresy in this post-9/11, “let’s kill them all” world. But you can’t kill them all: killing the ones there breeds more terror and more terror breeds killing more and … you get the idea. So let’s find a new way to go about it and try telling the truth instead of covering up, making up and turning a blind eye to root causes. What is there to lose? Current strategy not working. Try new strategy.

So simple…hah!

Got to thinkin’ yesterday about Trump’s real role in this Republican presidential drama. Maybe he’s the teaser stallion here. Others have suggested such in posts, but for the wrong candidate – usually Hillary Clinton. Chuckle. Let me ‘splain.

On horse breeding farms, there are usually two or more very unlucky males who serve as ‘teaser stallions’. They are adept at sorting out which mares are in heat, and ready to mate. But the poor things never get to mate, because other stallions are better breeding prospects because of their background and genetics. So what does that have to do with this Presidential Primary season?

I now begin to see Trump as the teaser stallion, whipping the mares (the gullible schlemiels in the Republican electorate) into a frenzy, along with the not-so-gullible cynics in the media. His job is to be as outrageous and offensive as possible so the media will pay attention and so the schlemiels will think the Republican party is on their side, with every possible ism known to humanity. But just like with the teaser stallions, it’s his job to get close but not clinch the deal – i.e. not ‘mate’ by having more than 1,237 delegates committed to him.

Then, when the convention comes, because he is so outrageous, he will be bought off and the ‘real stud’ – Paul Ryan – who, by the way, is the Chairman of the Convention, can step in and be the putative nominee. I see it now for what it is – very slick. The question is: was this planned, or will it just work out this way? Is Trump the orchestra leader or just the horn player?

It really doesn’t matter. He’ll play his part, because it’s worth it to him in the only currency he truly understands – wealth. He doesn’t want to be President – that’s the only indication of his sanity thus far demonstrated. There won’t be “riots in the streets” – in fact, there will be a collective sigh of relief from all corners. And the docile Democrats won’t know what hit them until they lose Florida and Ohio in the election and slowly begin to see what happened. But too late. They will protest with their own version of conspiracy theories, but who’ll listen? Please – that’s yesterday’s news cycle. Wow – aren’t we all a bunch of suckers?

Will Paul Ryan be a good president? Maybe. But I think he is a very ambitious guy who is the ‘new’ Jeb Bush. I had the right idea all along – just the wrong generational candidate. Sorry, Jeb – you can go back to practicing devil craft, and let the new generation of Beelzebubs take it from here. I’m sure Paul will be around for pointers on how to be a good warlock. Sigh.