McCain Moment

Maybe McCain was having a 'senior moment' during his confusing line of questioning of former FBI Director James Comey. In fact, I don't know if it's fair to call it a "questioning" since it appeared we were really just witnessing an elderly man with dementia digress into an irrational, child-like temperament and complain to anyone who would listen about how unfair it was that evil Hillary got away with 'it' while poor Trump was being unfairly targeted....

Then again, hasn't this been Republican strategy for a quarter century: making non-existent connections between the Clinton's and all things nefarious?

Think about all those vague comments we heard from the Hillary doubters running up to the election? Very few could ever say exactly what they didn't like about her. And those who did would say things like she's "unapproachable" and "distant" but seems very "wonkish" and "intelligent."  (You know, basically the exact kind of person we want leading our country: someone who has a clue and doesn't roll over at the first sign of flattery.)

This display by McCain should give rise to discussions about what steps might be necessary to remove him from office. (Do we need two doctors' signatures to declare him mentally incompetent?) But in these interesting times, his insanity was barely noted because it was essentially in alignment with everything said and implied by every other representative questioning Comey. Just shove Hillary's name in whenever and wherever you can, and you will gain points with the general populace--Republicans and Democrats--who've been trained to unconsciously distrust Clinton through years of effective conservative propaganda.  

McCain's moment reveals the thoroughness of the brainwashing: even out of his mind, McCain toes the line.

Will Trump's Policies Give Us Chinese or Thai-Style Growth?

Trump promises growth above 3% and I say why not. China has done it for decades. Granted, they're measuring from a much lower starting point. It is far easier to generate growth going from nothing to something than it is going from having everything to having a little more of everything.

But Trump believes it's possible. 

Drop all the regulations meant to protect us (air, water, food, construction standards, gas exploration rules....) and then throw tons of taxpayer money at bridges, aircraft carriers, a 'yuge' wall between our arch nemesis Mexico... and we too can have China-style growth. 

Many economists question such rosy forecasts, but I say they're using Obama-era "logic." We can always build things we don't need. "Growth" is easy if you're willing to spend money. Trump's already incurring extra security costs for Trump Tower in New York, has the enforcement agencies working full tilt to round up 'illegals,' has military contractors salivating and construction companies hiring....

Could the same Republicans who wouldn't support funding to fight the Zika virus, now be willing to underwrite a federal spending spree? Maybe. It's been quite amazing to watch Republicans abandon all of their moral principles as well as many of their long-held political philosophies to support Trump. 

But even if they rediscover their fiscal roots, there remains the undoing of important regulations and pulling the rug out from under millions of Obamacare enrollees. In which case, another Asian country comes to my mind: Thailand. I have spent over four weeks in Thailand over the past seven years, broken up into three different visits. Some of the time was spent at resorts, but most of it in and around Bangkok. From my perspective, Thailand illustrates what happens when you have a corrupt, conservative political leadership (currently a military junta) combined with a relatively "free" economy (low taxes and limited--or unenforced--regulations). Based on my observations, the results appear as one might have expected: the rich have gotten richer, the poor have stayed roughly the same... and the air is much dirtier.

I hung out with Bangkok's elite at trendy new restaurants, drove with them in their fancy new cars and checked out their new high-priced lofts. I drove around Bangkok and saw artsy skyscrapers springing up everywhere. 

This picture was taken on an exceptionally clear day. But even when the visible pollution appears mild, the most dangerous type of pollution, so-called PM 2.5,  has increased steadily in Thailand recently.

Bangkok's legendary air conditioned shopping malls continue to flourish. (American mall owners should really take note; Thailand malls are the best.) Upper class Bangkok has all the usual amenities. And the Thai stock market agrees. Since my first visit in June of 2010 to my most recent visit in February, the Thai stock market's up nicely.

At the same time, all of this is taking place in an environment under siege. On most days, Bangkok smog limits high rise views to a few miles. This has been true for some time, but recent trends in so-called PM 2.5 pollution concur with my observations that it has gotten a lot worse since 2010: 

https://www.stateofglobalair.org/data

While economic growth favors the already-haves, pollution weighs on everybody. And at 68 million people, Thailand is bulging at the seams. Like many Asian cities, they have no where to go but up. Traffic is brutal and no one can drive their fancy new cars any faster than the ubiquitous moped hauling a family of five. The glorious Chao Phraya เจ้าพระยา watershed appears unsafe to swim.

Over development and poor planning has turned a super food generating estuary into a trash-distributing, food-tainting, man-made flood zone.

They choose not to fix telephone cables or repair sewage lines or pick up trash or perform other functions of government that us supposedly over taxed, heavily-regulated Americans expect, yet the Thai government finds time to pass a law against Buddha tattoos!

"Disrespect to Buddha is Wrong by Law."

The American parallel is the American Flag, our sacred object of national pride. While Trump is attempting to unwind rules to protect our land, air and water, he will stand for no flag disrespect:

The U.S. stock market has been on a tear since Trump was elected. A company's stock price should forecast its future earnings. Stock bulls believe American companies will have greater earnings because they will face fewer regulations going forward (or for at least a few more years). Companies that pollute will have less pollution control costs to worry about. Financial companies no longer need to be concerned about doing things in their client's "best interest." The cumulative effect of regulation reduction should mean higher profits for corporations, hence the stock market should rise.

Unfortunately, there's no free lunch. This rise comes at all of our expense. And this fact has long befuddled me. It appears many wealthy folks simply do not "believe in" the harmful effects of air pollution, water pollution, etc. These are the same folks who believe that "God" is in charge and only "faith" matters. A large contingent of conservatives believe God decides what harm comes your way based on your present or past behavior. The religious conservative worldview remains stubbornly consistent. A half millennium ago during the Bubonic plague era, no one understood that organisms existed that are invisible to our eyes. 

More commonly, though, I wager many rich folks do in fact fully understand that they're hurting themselves, their families and the planet in the long run. I acquiesce myself; I know my non-vegetarianism and wastefulness are chewing up this ever growing planet. But isn't it nice living in a material world? I see most of us succumb when saving the future demands even the slightest reduction to our present standards of living.  And "what's a little extra pollution in the whole scheme of things" and my own mortality haunting me.  "Why not make a boatload of money" even if it means a few less years for us all on average? This is the vibe I get from Trump.

It's always the same for the greedy rich. Obama's post-recession steady and solid growth and doubling of the stock market, all while providing health insurance for millions of low income families, was not enough, of course. Republicans continuously beat the drum that Obama's recovery has been the "slowest" recovery, never attempting nuanced coverage and never acknowledging that their prescription for the financial downturn was to dramatically cut government spending, the same strategy that flopped for Europe, who eventually came around to the Keynesian cure, a debt load that we should be unwinding today against the backdrop of a strong economy. 

Now Republicans seem to have flipped (quite possibly at exactly the wrong time again!). Debt is no longer immoral. (Of course, to be fair, spending for tax cuts and military have always been worth the interest charges for Republicans). 

With a Republican congress, Trump will have his way. But even without Congress, Trump can do some damage. Basically we're stuck between Trump moving us in a Chinese-style super growth mode if Congress acquiesces on infrastructure spending, or something more akin to a laissez faire Thailand-style growth model. Either way, expect more government corruption, censorship, civil rights violations... and more trouble breathing.

King Trump

Trump doesn't strike me as a deep thinker, so I'm hard pressed to believe he's orchestrating this takeover completely of his own imagination. Popular opinion has it that Putin is pulling the strings. However it is coming about, the performance has been masterful. He's offering a real time example of how to take control of a democratic nation. 

To be up front, I'm not concerned that Trump will actually become a true "Dictator" a la Adolf Hitler.

I don't, for example, expect Trump to burn down the Capitol or round up Muslims. I'm not saying that he wouldn't like to, it's just that it is not necessary. Putin has amply demonstrated that a nation can maintain the façade of democracy while being controlled by a small group of elites, perhaps led by a crafty "strong man" or merely headlined by a morally flexible con man such as Trump. So far, Trump could have taken his script directly from The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. As the authors note...

 "...a challenger need only do three things.  First, he must remove the incumbent. Second, he needs to seize the apparatus of government. Third, he needs to form a coalition of supporters sufficient to sustain him as the new incumbent."

Trump removed the "projected" incumbent, the likelier candidate Hillary Clinton, through skillful campaigning. It serves as a classic example of how to campaign toward a specific aggrieved voting bloc. Trump tricked people who have never seen a Mexican into thinking they were swarming our sourthern border to come rape their wives and daughters. He engaged their religious righteousness by suddenly becoming staunchly anti-abortion. He played like he was the defender of the downtrodden as he implied wealthy industrialists were unpatriotic to offshore jobs. Trump fueled their latent misogyny by showing that he doesn't have to take it from a woman--"it" being honest and straightforward questioning from female reporters like Megyn Kelly. At one point in a debate he called Hillary a "nasty woman." Yet liberals found themselves scratching their heads when it turned out that a majority of white women voted for Trump. This is the "bubble" belonging to liberals who thought it was fait accompli for Clinton to garner the female vote. But Trump understood there is tremendous self-loathing subconsciously ingrained in Trump-supporting women long subjected to patriarchal "Christian" religiosity. Ok, to be fair, maybe Trump didn't understand this, but his campaign managers understood it well, and then Trump spoke the words well and won. 

Of course, Russia hacking DNC servers and releasing emails may have helped Trump. And certainly newspaper headlines reading "FBI Investigating Clinton" hurt Clinton. But unless Russia hacked actual ballots or James Comey admits his investigations were politically driven, it will never be possible to know how much Russia and certain traitors in the U.S. government helped elect Trump. But, he won, so that's that. On to challenger step number two: seizing "the apparatus of government."

One key "apparatus of government" is the military and other security agencies, especially the more secretive and therefore initially more dangerous services such as the CIA. (They have the ways and means to make your death look accidental, at least I assume so....). One of Trump's first moves was to ask West Point graduate but otherwise outsider to the security apparatus Stephen A. Feinburg to do a "review" of the intelligence agencies. It remains to be seen how much independence the agencies can maintain, but Trump has definitely set his sights on quelling the large, powerful and loosely monitored national security apparatus.

There remains the "media" and the Judicial Branch of our government to "check" Trump's ambitions. And it appears the courts survived their first test, having intervened and sidetracked Trump's efforts to block refugees and immigration from certain war-torn regions. But the open Supreme Court seat which he's sure to fill (it's hard to imagine the Democrats sustaining a 4-year filibuster) and the 118 judicial vacancies (as of 2/20/2017), give Trump and Co. tremendous power to pack more authoritarian-friendly thinkers into the judicial system. Again, Trump does not need to burn down the Supreme Court to get his way. If you can get the laws and results you seek while maintaining the appearance of a functioning and fair judiciary, all the better. There are numerous legal moves Trump can attempt to improve conservative representation in the courts, from top to bottom. There's no need to get radical.

What about the "Fourth Estate?" Every kid in America is taught about the all-important "media" and its role to keep an eye on our greedy politicians--from both parties. But now Trump has taught us that the media can't be trusted.

In the past, the media consisted of journalists and buildings, both of which could be physically seized and silenced or intimidated. This still goes on, but the war doctors have conjured new means of "psychological" warfare requiring only frequent, tantalizing, lies:

This is the scary part of the Trump victory. By discrediting, obstructing and feeding lies to the media, Trump has effectively seized the Fourth Estate.  

At the same time, Trump appears to be working every angle to ensure he can reward his key backers and establish a "coalition of supporters" who can help him sustain power. Again, it's not necessary he maintains the Presidency if he can achieve great wealth post-Presidency. Helping out the already rich and powerful is a time-proven strategy. 

One example, Trump's second executive order gave the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) the ability to fast track major infrastructure projects deemed "high priority." The chairman supposed to consider "...the project's importance to the general welfare, value to the Nation, environmental benefits, and such other factors as the Chairman deems relevant." It's not hard to imagine how this order might play out in a Trump administration. Infrastructure projects involve big bucks and are ripe for facilitating corruption. The CEQ seems like a dream conduit through which to reward the key members in his "coalition of supporters." After first trying to whisk away healthcare for millions with the stroke of a pen, Trump's very next move was to give a White House appointee vast powers. More ominously, we don't even know what is happening at the CEQ because Trump and Company took the website down: "Check back soon for more information."  
So here we find ourselves with a President who came to power despite losing the popular vote and who appears to be doing everything he can to become a dictator, who serves with majority party support in congress, a tenuous court system and a private sector "media" in shambles or in cohoots. While this is not a traditional coup d'état, the resulting public policy that flows forth will resemble that which we see from most dictatorships: strict rules around freedom of speech and personal choice, tough rhetoric against an existential threat ["radical Islamic terrorism"], and protecting/rewarding wealthy backers ["eliminating regulations" and "lowering taxes"]. 

Get Ready to Rumble

Now that Donald Trump has been handed command, how soon and in what manner will he repay Vladimir Putin? There are sundry ways Trump could help Putin: relaxing/eliminating sanctions, 'turning the other cheek' on Putin's future transgressions against his political opponents, tacitly or openly abandoning support for Ukraine.... 

There are many ways Trump can help Vlad, but what Putin really wants and needs is higher oil prices. The collapse in oil has devastated the Russian economy. Some estimate oil needs to climb as high as $90 to reverse this trend. U.S. Oil closed at $52.42 on Inauguration Day ($55.49 Brent).

How will Trump bump oil? Heavy duty deficit spending to spur U.S. economic growth could help. But it is hard to imagine how increased government spending would drive a nearly 70 percent increase in oil the simple fact that frackers, sidelined now for a few years, stand eagerly awaiting the $60 range before ramping up in big numbers. The frackers should act as a cap on prices (if not another catalyst for a big drop again.)

War, on the other hand, could definitely spark a rally. And Trump just promised a big fight:

"We will... unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth."

His first target? Iran seems a likely candidate. His potential undersecretary of State, John Bolton, has already publicly declared his desire to bomb them (either directly or via our proxy Israel). But it doesn't really matter who so long as they have oil. It would also help if the country had a "proven" link to "radical Islamic terrorism...."

You Can't Fight Stupid With Smart

If you voted for Trump, well, I'm sorry--for all of us--that you're so stupid. Now you can stop reading. This rant is intended for those of you reeling in disbelief and asking yourself, "How could people be so stupid?" Ah, the mystery of life.... Now get over it, but don't forget it. In fact, learn it well or you'll lose again to a wiser fool the next time around. 

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic. #Ponder #PayAttention

— Sidney Rice (@sidneyrice) November 10, 2016

Trump won because logic loses to emotion every time. Sales 101 begins with finding out what people want and then promising you can deliver it, even if it means promising things you can't deliver. This is, after all, why Bernie Sanders was so popular and is now being widely proclaimed as the candidate who stood a better chance against Trump. Ah, be careful. Your brain may be telling you, "Bernie was too far to the Left.... His proposals are unrealistic, unaffordable, naive..." Stop those logical thoughts at once. Bernie knew that people are stupid and embraced it. Promise them everything and the people will love you. Put aside logical coherence. Don't worry about truth. Never mind facts. If you want to win again, tell the people what they want to hear. Appeal to their prejudices and greed. Don't worry, once elected, you can do whatever you want. 

Howard Stern for President

Howard Stern is my hero. Howard Stern has had a profoundly positive impact on my life and the lives of many others. I vote Howard Stern for President.

We usually reserve the word hero for someone who rushed Omaha beach on D-Day. When entertainers approach hero status, it is usually after they use their celebrity to bring attention to catastrophe, perhaps starving children in Africa or a hurricane in Haiti. Listeners know Howard will be found no where near Haiti. So, at first glance, it's hard to make a case for Howard's heroism.

Many people consider his fight for free speech heroic. No doubt Stern (and others) opened up American television and radio to where many topics once forbidden are now openly discussed, especially those of a sexual nature. This is definitely a positive step. But we should recall that Stern did not achieve a free speech victory in public radio. It appeared to me that he was chased from public radio by the FCC and found refuge in a private satellite radio company. Whoever you want to blame, Howard was tossed even before Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and the subsequent backlash that established the even higher fines for 'indecency' we have today. Although the FCC has been relatively quiet under Obama, it has all the tools it needs to censor and levy huge fines. The "public" airways remain firmly under government control. (And don't forget that Donald Trump is waiting impatiently in the wing, ready with lists of conservative judges and justices....)

I am impressed that Howard brought over his audience and grew SiriusXM to thirty million subscribers. I am impressed and delighted that he continues his free speaking ways. But these achievements do not a hero make.

Howard achieves hero status because he has taught an entire generation of listeners empathy.

Howard has an uncanny ability to understand and share the feelings of others. He demonstrates his skills each week for a minimal subscription fee. It's the best deal going for those of us who can't afford therapy.

To the uninitiated or occasional listener, Stern's show conjures a mean, vulgar "locker room" conversation. And if you catch only a few minutes at the wrong time, that is exactly what it is. The show's raw and uncensored nature, however, does not mean it is a free-for-all of indecent discourse. On the contrary, Stern is a maestro, carefully orchestrating a journey into the minds of his eclectic guests, quirky staff and his own jaded Long Island, New York raised brain with a singular goal in mind: truth. Keep listening and you'll begin to hear the music.

Be prepared though. Howard can be cold and disdainful. He is often angry and complains as a matter of course. He brutalizes some of his guests and his own staff even more. But whether Howard is in an angry mood or extra happy fawning over a female guest, Howard delivers from a position of truth and openness. He proclaims to the world: Here I am, a flawed man, oversexed, angry, jealous... yes, and then some. So, now that I've put my weaknesses out there for all to see, how about you? Are you the same as me? Are you better? Who are you?

Who are you? Isn't this the fundamental question we all have as we look around and wonder what the hell is going on? Who are you? And by finding out about you, I get to know a little bit more about myself. This is the magic of empathy.

Empathy seeks to understand, not condemn or condone. New listeners quickly notice that Stern accords as much respect to a prostitute as a movie star. He treats the drunk derelict as respectfully as he does a distinguished doctor. Everyone in his court is treated fairly. No one is above the law. Howard gives his undivided attention to everyone. He shows genuine interest. In return, they share their truth. Along the way, our prejudices begin to fade away.

On Monday's show, Howard and Lady Gaga conversed. (Howard no longer conducts "interviews;" Howard has conversations.) Howard deftly brought us into the life of someone somewhat alien to the male-dominated Stern audience. Of course, regular listeners know that he did this at her first appearance. After that first time, one listener after another called in to remark on how it "completely changed their view" of Lady Gaga. She's a regular now and a pretty good example of how easily Howard can break down walls with skillfully-applied empathic discourse.

Gaga credits discipline and hard work for letting her gifts shine. Howard too maintains a strict personal life: He is in bed on time, eats like a bird and keeps his drinking in check. He obsesses over his health in order to deliver the best he can for his audience. He sacrifices where others succumb to temptation. He's a paragon of the Puritan work ethic. Howard loves to share how hard he worked to perfect his craft: listening to himself, rehearsing, preparing... and living a healthy lifestyle all to ensure he could carry on for the long haul that he knew it would take to achieve success. And his practice paid off.

Herding the zoo of personalities Stern's cultivated over the years takes someone with a well-equipped communication toolbox. According to conflict resolution expert Bill Eddy, when faced with a "high conflict personality" (like just about everybody on the Stern Show to some degree) you should respond to them in a manner directly opposite to what they've come to expect. This is not easy. We instinctively want to fight or flee when we encounter "high conflict" people, and they are accustomed to being met with rejection or anger. Instead, Eddy teaches, show them "empathy, attention and respect." This tactic briefly takes them out of their normal high conflict state of mind, thus affording some time to communicate with them more reasonably. Eddy recommends you remember the acronym, "E.A.R.: Empathy, Attention, Respect" and apply it carefully. (You don't want to confuse empathy with approval or agreement, and you must keep strict time parameters....) Howard uses this technique expertly. To add this to your communication tool box, listen to Howard regularly.

I'm guessing there's no way to show it, but I believe Stern has reduced the amount of suicides, drug abuse, domestic abuse and drunk driving among his listeners. It's a bold claim, and I bet he would accept credit. Listeners know how much Stern likes to talk up talking down a would-be bridge jumper. Regular listeners believe it. Stern's symphony cleanses. His music teaches us that we are not alone, that many others share our same maladies, both physical and mental. Stern induces empathy in his listeners.

Empathy unveils truth. Truth reveals right and wrong. Howard's commentary has taught men of a certain age many basic notions of right and wrong, especially about how to treat women. Here again, the superficial observer sees Howard only denigrating and objectifying the opposite sex. But the long term listener recognizes Howard's love and respect for women. He draws men in with titillation, but leaves us with good information drawn out of women who trust Howard and therefore share with us. Sadly, men have few resources for real information. Most men learn very little about women from women. Even married men appear to suffer a shortage of truly open dialogue. And we get even worse advice from our friends in the proverbial locker room. Stern's ability to empathize yields truth... and men desperately need truth when it comes to women.

Empathy requires an open mind. Howard Stern changes his opinion when new evidence or better reasoning become known to him. Regular listeners know he's evolved on a variety of issues. He's evolved in some ways we would expect from a man with three daughters coming of age: Fewer strippers, more long-form interviews. More impressive to me, however, is that Howard changed his stance on an issue which tends to be less amenable to second guessing: the death penalty. Howard had always staunchly supported the death penalty, including making it a key plank in his run for governor of New York as the Libertarian party nominee. Regular listeners know he's a staunch "law & order" guy. In every controversial event, he gives the benefit of the doubt to the police. But on the issue of the death penalty, he came around to oppose it, noting, among other things, that a large number of people have been exonerated with the introduction of DNA testing. Howard has not only grown skillful through years of practice, but he's become wiser with age.

Howard teaches empathy by example. The journey is often uncomfortable and frequently awkward. He brings us into dimensions we sometimes regret. But we always walk away with a new perspective, and often additional wisdom too.

Is it possible that Howard could bring his wisdom, moral compass and hard work to the Presidency? Oh, that's right. No way. Howard has often stated he would never commit to such an awesome task. And, I'll confess, although Howard's my hero, I'm not sure if four years will be enough time for him to catch up on his foreign policy knowledge. It's as limited as you might expect from a self-described hermit. He makes Gary Johnson look worldly. We can only hope he'll learn to extend his empathy to the many people around the world who suffer from poor American foreign policy decisions.

For now, I'm satisfied that my hero can remain a radio D.J. and continue to do great things for our great country. Stern was apparently the only one in 2002 who could get Trump to answer directly (albeit half-heartedly) in support of invading Iraq. Lately, Stern has relentlessly skewered Trump for the infamous Billy Bush exchange. As vulgar as Howard gets, you'll never hear him cheer on uninvited pussy-grabbing.

To the untrained ear, Trump's locker room rhetoric may resemble Stern Show banter. But seasoned listeners can distinguish between words like Trump's, which appear to spring from a deep-seated hatred of women, and those coming from Howard, which emanate from a place of honesty and love. Even Rosie O'Donnell, a past target of some rough stuff from Stern, came around to celebrate him at his 60th Birthday bash. Meanwhile, Trump took time during the nationally televised debate to, again, take a shot at Rosie.

Howard recently provided the most eloquent rebuttal I've heard yet against those who plan to vote for neither Trump nor Hillary, but rather are going to vote their "conscience" and vote third party. Howard quickly called bullshit on this nonsense and decimated its reasoning. He correctly explained to his many listeners that a vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton is a vote for Trump. Stern knows when to stop joking.

Howard Stern's life demonstrates that discipline and hard-work, infused with honesty, humor and a kind heart, can lead to great success and public good. So, while Howard's Presidency is just a dream, we can still hold his life up for admiration. He can be your hero. He's mine.

The Millennial Crime Wave

No one should be surprised by the latest spike in crime and opioid usage. Our largest generation ever, the Millennials, is in prime crime age. Young immigrants are expected to continue to grow its ranks. At the same time, technological innovation continues to accelerate disruptive innovation and pressure our already stressed out labor force. Although official unemployment figures show "full employment," millions of people have given up looking for work and are not being counted in the headline statistics. (And the robot revolution is just beginning....)

The abundant, under-educated Millennials are being disrupted by technology and discounted by government statistics. Crime and drug abuse naturally follow... or so it would seem. Like any trend, pinpointing causation can be tricky. In fact during the 2007-2008 "Financial Crisis" and continuing until 2015, most crime continued it's long term decline. What other factors might be increasing crime and drug abuse today?

Could it be the so-called "Ferguson Effect?" Are we to believe that crime is increasing because police are unwilling to do their job due to the very real possibility that their actions will merit greater scrutiny today than a few years ago? Is police inaction causing more crime? Maybe, but I put more faith in our police.

Some have courageously ventured that Roe v Wade and the increase in abortions that followed led to a drastic drop in crime 18+ years after it's passage. Could we now be seeing a resurgence in crime related to the decrease in abortions that resulted from the growth of state-level restrictions that swept across the country in the 1990's? If so, then the crime wave has only just begun.

Dangerous Liaisons

Not since George W. Bush famously "looked the man in the eye" have we heard a major U.S. Presidential candidate speak so highly of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. 

Trump has tried to downplay their "bromance,” but, like a young, naive lover, he seems to have difficulty explaining their mutual admiration:

David Sanger of the New York Times: "...You've been very complimentary of Putin himself."

Trump: "No! No, I haven't"

Sanger: "You said you respected his strength."

Trump: "He's been complimentary of me. I think Putin and I will get along very well."

Sanger: "So I was just in..."

Trump: "But he's been complimentary of me."

Trump's relationship with Putin has sparked much speculation. "There's something strange and disturbing going on here...," Nobel laureate Paul Krugman recently suggested. Jeffrey Goldberg writing in The Atlantic was more direct:  "Trump has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin...."

I feel the Trump-Putin bromance went too far after we learned that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and targeted Trump's file. Most dismissed the hack as a predictable Russian spying activity, that Russia was motivated to learn more about a lesser known candidate for the U.S. Presidency. But sometimes the more plausible answer is in fact the correct answer. More likely, the hackers served those who would see Trump become President. The hackers got embarrassing internal emails and that which they knew only resided on DNC servers: the Democratic strategy against Trump. 

The DNC hack is our modern day Watergate, but instead of bumbling American burglars working on behalf of an overeager Richard Nixon, sophisticated Russian hackers stole the Democratic Party playbook on behalf of their overeager Republican partner, Donald Trump.

This turn of events is particularly scary. After all, Nixon was a crook, but he was our crook. Watergate threatened our democracy. The DNC hack threatens both our democracy and sovereignty.   

Smart Stupid America

"He is the archetypal businessman – a deal maker without peer."

America is now comprised of mostly stupid and smart-stupid people. Gone are the days of the well-rounded citizen. We are an overworked, under-educated people. The trend doesn't look good.

We should expect the dumb to succumb to Trump-baiting. But how do you explain the "college-educated" Trump supporters? Aren't they supposed to know better?

Apparently not, though it's not always their fault. To succeed in our highly technical and competitive world, it is becoming increasingly necessary to push ourselves harder and harder in our careers, often to the detriment of our families, but especially to our role as citizen. In this environment, reading history, philosophy and keeping up with the latest legislative proposals, community events, etc., becomes nearly impossible. 

But we should also remember that being "college-educated" doesn't mean one has a clue about public policy. Just ask your Trump-supporting friends what degree they earned. If they're making a good living, it's likely they don't have a degree in political science!

In addition, ask your "college-educated" friends what they do with their time when they're not working. An engineer, for example, who spends his non-work hours with family & friends, in Church services, watching TV or playing fantasy football, is likely to be as ignorant about public policy as the ignoramus. 

And they'll often even be forgiving to their ignorant politician. When I asked one of my ex-Trump supporter friends who has since turned his allegiance to Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson about how he felt when Johnson didn't know anything about the besieged city of Aleppo, he replied, "Who cares? I don't know where Aleppo is either." And, of course he doesn't. Who has time? 

So Trump support can be explained by the fact that many people are just plain stupid, that many people are desperately trying to succeed in our challenging economy and have no time to study up, or by the fact that many people who should know better remain willfully ignorant, being otherwise occupied with the plethora of time-wasting activities our wonderful capitalist system has spawned. 

So how do we escape a cycle that most of us don't realize is happening because we are either the stupid ones or the smart-stupid ones who can be so easily fooled by a shrewd populist? 

I heard one gem: "Maybe if we elect Trump, he'll be such a disaster, we'll learn our lesson and the next candidate we elect will be a mainstream moderate...." Haven't we been there already?

Political Sphere

We typically think of the political "spectrum" as representing the differences between liberals on the "Left" and conservatives on the "Right." 

But this linear view fails to emphasize an important distinction that exists within both the Left and the Right: Blind Belief vs Rational Skepticism. If we add this dimension, the political world is better represented by a sphere divided into four quadrants:

Blind believers refuse to compromise, even when confronted with contrary evidence. Blind believers move forward motivated by the faith in their own beliefs. 

Rational skeptics willingly admit when the 'other side' has valid points and they keep open the possibility that they may be wrong. Rational skeptics move forward by evaluating and selecting the most logical approach or answers. 

To be clear, this is not the same as being a "moderate" versus being "extreme." 

Rather, there is a fundamental difference between a Blind Believer and Rational Skeptic akin to the difference between religious belief and the scientific method. Skepticism is a process for analyzing a belief. Skeptics attempt to use an objective thought process when evaluating public policy. Blind believers borrow a set of ideas from someone else and defend those beliefs with great fervor regardless of the evidence.

To be sure, we all do some things motivated by our unquestioned beliefs, while some of our actions are carefully considered. It is an internal spectrum as much as it distinguishes those within different political groups.

In this election cycle, the Left's blind believers rallied behind Bernie Sanders, an enigmatic and energetic idealist who promised free healthcare, free college and efforts to "save the planet." 

But the Left's rational skeptics supported Hillary Clinton, whose views and actions suggest she better understands that politics is not religion, but the difficult art of reconciling conflicting public interests.

On the Right, you have no trouble finding the blind believers, strongly represented by the entire Republican Party and its multitude of Presidential candidates. 

Donald Trump may not believe (or even understand) traditional conservative political philosophy, but he resides firmly in the "believer" quadrant because he blindly believes in his own abilities and intellect. He does not let rational coherence interfere with his proclamations.

Rational skepticism arrives in conservative political philosophy under the guise of the "Libertarian." My conservative friends who have long declared they are "Republicans" now succumb to my arguments with, "well, I'm not so much a Republican anymore as I am a 'Libertarian." And this may be the long awaited Third Party that finally gains traction.... 

At least it appears that Gary Johnson, the "Libertarian" candidate, fits better in the conservative rational skeptic category than any other current Presidential candidate. He's willing to look at the evidence against the "War on Drugs," for example, and come to the conclusion it is a failure. But he does appear to reside firmly in the magical effects of budget cutting camp.  His website suggests we can go from a $503 billion deficit to a balanced budget basically overnight without reeking economic havoc. He has other questionable ideas too. But he and the Libertarians appear to arrive at their policy views through a rational process. This is rational skeptic conservatism. There is hope.

But there are few rational skeptic politicians. Most reside in the blind believer category, which should not be surprising because blind believers always have a better answer. Many will claim to lead by their "gut" or divulge they seek guidance from a "higher power." Trump, of course, loudly boasts that he's going to do better than Clinton because, well, just "trust me...." 

Blind believers are easy to spot because they frame complex issues in overly-simplistic terms, especially when pointing out perceived threats. 

Trump: "Trump is calling for the total and complete shut down of all Muslims entering the United States." 

Sanders: "The greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation." 

By not dwelling upon potentially contrary facts or nuance, blind believers feed off their own certainty, believing in their absolute righteousness and their opponents' absolute evil. There's no room for middle ground and the onus is on "them," and not ever ourselves. 

The blind believers on both the Left and Right present a huge threat to society and their danger is compounded during times of unrest or uncertainty. It is in these times that, at best, bad public policy is formulated, or, at worst, brutal dictators emerge. History is replete with blind believers who convinced us they could make us all great again, but only if we follow their rules....

But the good news is that skeptics on both the Left and Right share more in common than they know: Rationalism may diverge at moments, but it converges over time. In other words, smart people can disagree on the correct public policy, but given enough time, the correct policies prove themselves and no one analyzing the evidence can disagree. Rational skepticism is a process that eventually reveals truth. 

Inserting the notion of rational skepticism into the political discussion may offer some hope to suppress the appeal of the blind believer's promises.  

We voters should look toward politicians who acknowledge their own limitations and who are willing to compromise, regardless of their political party. This is a sign of wisdom, the essence of rational skepticism. 

We need to fight our own internal blind belief that sometimes wants us to vote for the super confident macho guy. Once upon a time the biggest ape among us was usually the best choice for leader. But we live in a different world today. We need to look out for our own 21st Century self-interests and seek out competent rational skeptics to lead us through these challenging times.
  

Smart-Stupid Ben Carson

Presidential candidate Ben Carson epitomizes the "smart-stupid" person, a term I first heard used by Bill Maher to describe people who are extremely knowledgeable about something or very skilled at a specific task, but who are otherwise morons. And no one should be surprised that brilliant neurosurgeon Ben Carson is ignorant about public policy and is ill-equipped to speak on most political topics. In an extensive interview given in 2010, Ben Carson said that he was "always interested in medicine" and it was the "only thing" that interested him in his youth. He became the youngest ever chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins at 33. At one point, Ben Carson was performing over 500 surgeries a year. This was, according to him, "too much" and he had no time for "outside activities." At the time of the interview in 2010, he had slowed down to a mere "300 to 315" a year. He just officially retired in 2013, exactly 36 years after he began at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Carson's career alone explains his ignorance about all things he would be expected to know as President. He had no time by his own admission to do anything other than operate on brains.

The belief among Carson supporters must be that, being a super smart brain surgeon, he will just study hard and quickly catch up. But the evidence indicates otherwise. He's sounding as uncertain and uninformed now as he was in 2010. Maybe Ben Carson's brain is only programmed for being a brain surgeon. Maybe his brain is just not wired to be an expressive politician or a policy wonk. Maybe we should ask Ben... Oh that's right, he's a surgeon and this question belongs to an entirely different subfield of neuroscience. It would be malpractice for him to answer questions on topics outside his field of expertise.... 

Just as it would be malpractice on behalf of the American voter to support such a glaringly unqualified candidate for such an awesome job as the U.S. Presidency. The American President must be well-versed in military, diplomatic, economic and legal affairs, at a minimum. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states...

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,...

Yes, he has help from the Senate, presumably. But otherwise the U.S. Presidency is a pretty awesome job. The U.S. President must command the military and oversee state militias, make treaties and appoint ambassadors AND judges. 

A U.S. President decides with whom we fight and with whom we make peace.  A Presidential candidate's resume is not burnished by successful separation of conjoined twins. The Presidential job descriptions specifically calls for someone Ben Carson is not. Ben Carson barely understands rudimentary conservative philosophy. We should expect more from a candidate for President, regardless of party affiliation.