No More Mr. Nice Guy

I just received Time in the morning mail, and the cover reminds me of an old joke.

The good news is that Jesus is coming back.

The bad news is that he's p****d off.

Donald Trump, as even his followers would agree, is not a paragon of virtue even by human standards, but he does wield enormous power as a President whose own party controls both houses of Congress.

(Mr. Trump's power, however, pales before President Obama's, whose Democratic Party held 257 seats in the House and 58 seats--later rising to 60--in the Senate in 2009.)

As to whether he is truthfully angry, all that matters is that his friends and enemies believe he is, and he makes it work for him.

Against the Stereotype

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson flanked by
husband Patrick and daughter Leila (Chron)

Do Supreme Court justices mostly make decisions that favor their own personal politics?

Partisans seem to think so (Catholic justices are anti-abortion, Democratic justices-of-color are in favor of quotas, etc.)

Indiana professor Leslie Lenkowski cites one prominent example of when justice-in-waiting Ketanji Brown Jackson went against the stereotype by ruling against the Obama Administration's targeting of a non-profit linked with Israel: [bold added]

The case involved Z Street, which provides information to the public on issues related to Zionism, Israel and the Middle East. At the end of 2009, it applied for tax exemption as a public charity under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Six months later, an IRS representative allegedly told Z Street a decision would be delayed because the agency had a special unit to examine requests from groups dealing with Israel to determine whether their views contradicted the Obama administration’s policies.

Z Street sued, and the case was assigned to Judge Jackson. In a 2014 ruling, Judge Jackson dismissed the IRS’s argument that its judgments about tax exemptions had immunity from judicial review. She accused the IRS of using procedural claims to block litigation of a constitutional issue.

After Z Street finally received its tax exemption, Judge Jackson approved a 2018 agreement in which the IRS expressed its “sincere apology” for the delay and acknowledged that its criteria for approving requests for tax-exemption shouldn’t include political beliefs—though the agency still denied it had applied a political test to Z Street’s application. In her conclusion of the case, Judge Jackson declared it was “wrong” to use the tax laws against any group “based solely on any lawful positions it espouses on any issue” or its “association with a particular political movement, position, or viewpoint.”

President Obama weaponizing the IRS against his opposition was not a fevered dream of Republicans but was confirmed by government audit:

the retrospective audit turned up almost 150 organizations that had been subjected to unusually intense IRS scrutiny, generally during the early years of the Obama administration. These organizations faced what the inspector general called “unnecessary questions” and longer-than-normal delays in processing their applications. This was on top of the nearly 300 groups that a separate 2013 audit found had received special IRS attention because of their association with the tea party.

Justices appointed by a Republican President, e.g., David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, regularly disappointed Republicans. Although few expect them, don't be surprised if Justice Jackson will have a few surprises during her term.

It Wasn't Meant to Halt Construction That We Like

The list of billionaires and celebrities who live in Woodside, California is as long as your arm. The typical house is on a multi-acre lot, some on hundreds of acres.

Woodside is also politically liberal--Neil Young and Joan Baez are residents--and is home to supporters of Democratic campaigns. On his pilgrimages to the Bay Area President Obama often stopped at Woodside.

Not a lion come lately: ABC7 News from seven years ago

All the above is prelude to an amusing development, at least amusing to this humble blogger. Woodside is using California environmental law to halt a Progressive push to build denser housing in the Bay Area. [bold added]

A Woodside official said the city cannot comply with a new state law that expedites construction of two-unit housing in areas zoned for single family homes because of its mountain lion population.

On January 27, Woodside Planning Director Jackie Young released a memo explaining why the town cannot do its part to ease a chronic housing shortage. Young said no permits for accessory dwelling units (known as SB 9 Projects) would receive building permits so long as the mountain lion is a candidate for the endangered species list in the Central Coast habitat which includes Woodside.

A petition to list the mountain lion as threatened or endangered is under review by the California Fish and Game Commission. According to state law a species listed as a candidate is due the same protection as a species that has been declared threatened.

California prides itself on being stricter than the Federal Government on environmental matters. Ironically one Progessive law is being used to stymie a different Progressive dream. The reaction from those who want to force Woodside to allow denser housing is entertaining:

This is so absurd,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, a activist group that supports construction of more housing everywhere. “It is an example of the extreme absurd lengths cities will come up with to evade state law.”

...You can build a McMansion and that somehow won’t hurt the mountain lion,” said Foote. “But if you build two units the lions will somehow fall over and die.”

State Senator and housing advocate Scott Weiner tweeted: “Woodside announced it’s exempt from state housing law because of … mountain lions. I’m all for mountain lions. I’m also for people. You know, the ones who need homes. Can’t wait for the lawsuit against Woodside for this brazen violation of state law.”

Even San Francisco supervisors piled on. “The entire wealthy suburb of Woodside is claiming to be a protected mountain lion habitat to skirt state law allowing fourplexes. What shameless ridiculousness,” tweeted Matt Haney.

IMHO, advocates of the environmental law probably thought that halting all construction would be a good thing, but now that it's being used against them they don't like it, just as they don't like massive solar projects in the California desert being halted by an endangered tortoise.

As the Progressives who rule California battle it out, the rest of us can pass the popcorn.

Return of the Greedy Corporation....Excuses

Gerald Ford's pleas to Whip Inflation Now failed,
as did his 1976 election campaign. (Ad Age)

As predictable as the sun rising in the East, Democrats are blaming inflation on corporate greed.

White House officials said Mr. Biden would continue publicly calling out industries that he believes are raking in large profits while raising prices for consumers, amid calls from some of Mr. Biden’s outside advisers to respond aggressively to inflation to counter mounting criticism from Republicans.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren adds her two cents:

Wondering why your Thanksgiving groceries cost more this year? It’s because greedy corporations are charging Americans extra just to keep their stock prices high. This is outrageous.

Through the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations inflation ranged between negative 0.4% and 3.8%. For the past several months inflation has run above 5%. [bold added]

The Labor Department said the consumer-price index—which measures what consumers pay for goods and services—increased in October by 6.2% from a year ago. That was the fastest 12-month pace since 1990 and the fifth straight month of inflation above 5%.

The core price index, which excludes the often-volatile categories of food and energy, climbed 4.6% in October from a year earlier, higher than September’s 4% rise and the largest increase since 1991.

(GIF from rebloggy)

Not only have "greedy corporations" failed to raise prices significantly for the previous 20 years, boardroom avarice has been dampened by the growing emphasis on "stakeholder capitalism" and Environmental, Social, and Governance goals. In my humble opinion--and I'm no economist--business is not to blame for high prices.

And inflation is not the fault of the government, as those in charge of government have said.

It's truly a puzzlement.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

For the generations that grew up with only three TV networks (plus PBS), this was a familiar problem:

The Trouble With Words We’ve Read but Not Heard

My high school classmates and I may have developed reasonably large vocabularies and become good spellers, but unless we heard the words spoken aloud in the classroom or on TV, mis-pronunciation was a common “fox pass."

The dictionaries were not much help with their pronunciation keys:

Vowels
                as in…
i              fleece /flis/
i              happy /ˈhæpi/
ɪ              kit /kɪt/
ɛ              dress /drɛs/, carry /ˈkɛri/
æ            trap /træp/
ɑ              father /ˈfɑðər/, lot /lɑt/
ɔ,ɑ          hawk /hɔk/, /hɑk/
ə              cup /kəp/, alpha /ˈælfə/
ʊ              foot /fʊt/
u              goose /ɡus/
ɔr            force /fɔrs/, north /nɔrθ/
ər            nurse /nərs/

If you know how to sound out the symbols in the left column, you were a better student than I.

When a prominent person misspeaks publicly -- for example, when President Obama mispronounced corpsman as "corpse-man" in a speech --it not only lowers our estimation of the person but we also feel pained empathy from remembering our own similar embarrassments.

Mine was in high school, when I spent days crafting a speech on moral philosophy. It would have been pretty good had I not pronounced mores like the marshmallow sandwich (S'mores) instead of the eel (Moray). Of course, I wasn't aware of the error until the teacher interrupted with the correct pronunciation.

It's not the million dollar words but the simplest ones that can trip you up.

Justice Ginsburg (1933-2020)

We take a break from the partisan wars to honor the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Chief Justice John Roberts: “Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her—a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”

Former President Barack Obama: "Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be."

Time:

1958: Martin, Ruth, and 3-y.o. Jane (Time photo)

The longer she lived, the wider her reach and the deeper the appreciation for her years on the bench. At the opening concert of the National Symphony Orchestra in Sept. 2019, Kennedy Center chair David Rubinstein introduced the dignitaries in the audience. When he got to the justice, women rose to applaud her. Then, the men quickly joined in until everyone in the hall was standing...

This wasn’t an audience of liberals, but a cross-section of the capital touched by a once-young lawyer who saw unfairness and quietly tried to end it during her 60 years of public service.

Proclamation by President Donald Trump:

In India with the late Justice Scalia (Instgm)

Today, our Nation mourns the loss of a trailblazer, not only in the field of law, but in the history of our country. Ruth Bader Ginsburg served more than 27 years as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was a loving wife to her late husband Martin, and a caring mother to her two children Jane and James.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an inspiration to all Americans. Having lost her older sister and mother before graduating high school, she entered law school as both a wife and a mother, and one of the few women in her class. After graduating from law school in 1959, she worked tirelessly for more than 34 years as a litigator and jurist and, in 1993, she became just the second woman to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Renowned for her powerful dissents at the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg epitomized powerful yet respectful argument; that you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable to them. Justice Ginsburg’s work helped bring about greater equality for women, secure rights for the disabled, and will continue to influence our Nation for generations to come. In addition to her quick mind, she brought flair to the bench with her stylish jabots and her warm friendships among colleagues, even those with whom she often disagreed, most notably with the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

A fighter to the end, Justice Ginsburg defeated cancer and the odds numerous times — all while continuing to serve on the Court. Her commitment to the law and her fearlessness in the face of death inspired countless “RBG” fans, and she continues to serve as a role model to countless women lawyers. Her legacy and contribution to American history will never be forgotten.

As a mark of respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the United States, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including section 7 of title 4, United States Code, that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and on all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, on the day of interment. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same period at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

Thank you, Justice Ginsburg. R.I.P.

Making Climate Models Great Again

Headline: Up in the Sierra, nearly normal snowpack shows drought predictions wrong [bold added]

Tahoe in November (Times Herald)

Before the rains began, the U.S. government’s Drought Monitor classified 81% of California as “abnormally dry.” Forecasting models suggested more of the same was on the way, prompting the experts to soberly predict a long dry spell this winter, possibly veering into drought.

But those experts, with their sophisticated computer models and learned talk, were wrong. The high-pressure patch off the coast broke up in late November and the state has gotten a pretty good pounding of rain and snow ever since.

Remember, these are the same experts who predicted we're all gonna die in 10 years from climate change.

Another benefit of the rain: I won't have to listen to solemn pronouncements from non-scientists that a dry winter is proof of global warming. As a matter of interest, below is California's weather during the "teens":

Year	POTUS	Weather
2019	Trump	Rainy
2018	Trump	Rainy
2017	Trump	Rainy
2016	Obama	Dry
2015	Obama	Dry
2014	Obama	Dry
2013	Obama	Dry
2012	Obama	Dry
2011	Obama	Dry

Source: Wikipedia. After Donald Trump was elected, California had so much rain during the 2016-2017 winter that the Oroville Dam was on the verge of collapse.

If the experts inserted the political affiliation of the President into their computers,
1) the models would have been much more accurate, and
2) they would say that Donald Trump should be re-elected to keep the water flowing.

People who should know better often use two or three data points as evidence to support their position on climate change. I've got nine. The science is settled.

The Decade Past: Remind Me Again?

WSJ montage: I could name about 80% without looking anyone up.

There were no World Wars or moon landings, but the past decade did have its share of memorable events that will have an impact far into the future. The WSJ's Decade in Review shows just how much happened and how much we may have forgotten.

Every year had at least eight such items. Below is your humble blogger's entirely subjective assessment of the top three each year:

2010: 1) iPad introduced; 2) Obamacare signed; 3) Deepwater Horizon explodes.

2011: 1) Arab Spring; 2) Japan quake and tsunami; 3) Steve Jobs dies.

2012: 1) Facebook IPO; 2) Xi Jinping is leader of China; 3) Obama re-elected.

2013: 1) Pope Francis named; 2) Boston Marathon terrorism; 3) U.S. #1 energy producer

2014: 1) Ferguson riots and verdict; 2) Malaysia Flight 370; 3) Trade with Cuba ok'ed.

2015: 1) Gay Marriage legal; 2) Apple joins Dow; 3) Paris Accord.

2016: 1) Brexit; 2) Trump elected; 3) 4 states approve recreational marijuana.

2017: 1) Hurricanes Harvey and Maria; 2) New tax bill passes; 3) Harvey Weinstein resigns.

2018: 11) Tariffs imposed; 2) North Korea diplomacy; 3) Wildfire destroys Paradise, CA.

2019: 1) 737 MAX grounded; 2) Hong Kong protests; 3) Trump impeached (kind of).

There is a possibility that none of the above will be regarded with importance in a few years. It may turn out that we'll all be dead from climate change by 2030 or that life extension science will enable human beings to live well past a hundred.

But very few people are betting hard dollars as if either of those are coming to pass, and neither am I.

Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop The Subject

(WSJ graphic)

The state of politics stresses out many Americans: [bold added]

A study published in September in the journal PLOS One found that politics is a source of stress for 38% of Americans.

“The major takeaway from this is that if our numbers are really anywhere in the ballpark, there are tens of millions of Americans who see politics as exacting a toll on their social, psychological, emotional and even physical health,” says Kevin Smith, lead author of the study and chair of the political science department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The study included 800 people in a nationally representative poll and asked them 32 questions. Among the findings:
* 11.5% say politics has adversely affected their physical health.
* 18.3% say they’ve lost sleep because of politics.
* 26.4% say they have become depressed when a preferred candidate lost.
* 26.5% say politics has led them to hate some people.
* 20% say differences in views have damaged a valued friendship.

...Common problems include sleep disturbances and falling out with family members and friends with divergent views. Social media battles are another source of tension. [Dr. Amanda Johnson, Iowa psychologist,] advises patients to take breaks from social media and watching the news. “If they want to be engaged, we work on finding ways they could have some effect on change, like becoming more involved with a campaign,” she says.

She also encourages patients to set boundaries with family and friends to avoid inflammatory conversations.

Too bad the survey didn't provide details about the political views of those who are losing sleep, initiating the breakup of friendships, or feeling angry. I daresay the vast majority of the troubled oppose President Trump. Living in the great Blue State of California, I often experience people bringing politics into discussions--usually out of nowhere and usually not just critical but scornful of the President.

I remarked on this anger and polarization in 2008, breathing a sigh of relief when President Obama was elected though I didn't vote for him:.

Put in the pictures of Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump, and the matrix is still valid

For nearly eight years we’ve had to put up with not just whining but vituperative outbursts at home, in classes, at work, on TV, in coffee shops, and in bookstores. Exposure to the enraged is very wearying, if not hazardous to one’s health. Most conservatives avoided political arguments because they often culminated in personal insults and screaming fits.

Frankly, I feared a McCain come-from-behind win because of the anger his victory would have unleashed. (Take the Proposition 8 protests in California and multiply by a thousand.) The Obama triumph, on the other hand, has triggered overwhelming exultation in those who voted for him and only anxiety and disappointment---but very few instances of anger---in McCain supporters.

I thought that not only the Obama victory but the Democratic sweep in 2009-2010 would have ratcheted down the temperature in American politics. Everyone can see that the pendulum swings, power isn't permanent, and each side gets a chance. Boy, was I wrong; in 2019 the anger seems more pronounced than ever.

My advice, which I've followed (most of the time) during the Obama and Trump years: Turn Off the television, Tune Out the news, and drop politics from your discussions.

California: Marshes and Wildfowl Over the People

For decades environmentalists have regarded the Environmental Protection Agency as their bailiwick. Where the law was ambiguous, sympathetic EPA staffers, especially under Democrats, often gave environmentalists what they wanted through regulations, rulings, and interpretations.

President Trump has reversed some of these regulations and Executive Orders that he believes were not in keeping with the original laws passed by Congress. The latest skirmish is over the Clean Water Act: [bold added]

Andrew Wheeler (NPR photo)

At issue is the reach of the Clean Water Act and, more precisely, what waterways should be regulated. While for years it was unclear whether the nation’s small tributaries warranted protection by the federal government, President Barack Obama sought to remove the ambiguity by ordering the EPA in 2015 to safeguard all bodies of water that feed larger rivers and lakes.

Andrew Wheeler, the current EPA administrator, claimed the law amounted to government overreach that left landowners at the mercy of “distant unelected bureaucrats.”

The new rule maintains federal jurisdiction over navigable waters and their tributaries, Wheeler said, but removes ponds and sloughs unconnected to larger bodies of water from EPA jurisdiction.

The environmental groups, co-represented by the Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy law firm of Burlingame, claim the Trump administration’s decision to repeal the rule opens up thousands of miles of streams and wetlands throughout the country to development, including pipeline construction.

In the Bay Area that specifically re-opens the question of developing the Cargill salt ponds:

Homes on the Cargill site would be only a few
miles from Oracle and Facebook.

The salt ponds have been owned since 1978 by Cargill Inc., which withdrew a proposal to build 12,000 homes on the flats in 2012 in the face of intense community opposition. Environmental groups would like to see wetlands restored there.

“We’re not going to stand by while Cargill uses the Trump administration’s eagerness to gut our environmental laws for its own economic advantage,” said Megan Fluke, executive director of the Committee for Green Foothills. “The salt ponds are part of the bay. Development here would not only destroy restorable natural resources, it would put homes and businesses in the path of sea-level rise, on an earthquake liquefaction site and next to heavy industry.”

What the environmentalists are really thinking, but not saying, is that thousands of homes, including the entire cities of Foster City and Redwood Shores, don't meet their criteria and would never be approved today. If they really prioritized alleviating the housing shortage and eliminating carbon emissions from thousands of cars, they would welcome building where the jobs are. Judging by their actions and not their fine words about "climate change" and "inequality" they really don't.

President Trump may be impulsive, a bully, uncouth, obnoxious, and any number of other bad things. But he has exposed the progressive left as elitists who choose marshes and wildfowl over people. Hey, I don't mind; restricting the supply keeps my house price up.

One Narrative Finally Wins

Two years ago I wrote about the two narratives that preoccupied the nation then and concluded:

the current or the past President is a "bad (or sick) guy!" (or maybe both are).

Now that the special counsel's report has been submitted, we have an answer. But back to the March, 2017 post, which does hold up remarkably and pathetically:

Who's the good guy and who's the bad guy? (WSJ photo)

Narrative One: Trump Stole the Election
President Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians to hack communications between Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and other Democrats. The release of this information harmed the Clinton campaign, enough to swing the election. Transcripts confirm that meetings and phone calls occurred between key Trump staff and Russian officials. In exchange for help from the Russians, President Trump will make concessions to Russia on a range of issues; he and his staff also will personally profit from their cooperation. The communications continue to this day.

Narrative Two: Obama is Worse than Nixon
After the Obama Administration unsuccessfully applied for a law-enforcement warrant in June, 2016, the FISA Court approved a surveillance warrant in October. The court made its decision because of false or exaggerated evidence, and the eventual scope of the surveillance over Trump personnel was far wider than the warrant allowed. Since October information on Donald Trump and his staff has been feloniously leaked to the media by Obama appointees, some of whom remain in government. The purpose is to derail President Trump's timetable and question the legitimacy of his election. President Obama used the power of his office to damage the candidate of the opposition party much more than Richard Nixon ever did.

There are many details and nuances that the above summaries don't include. However, unless there are other major explanations, the current or the past President is a "bad (or sick) guy!" (or maybe both are).

Because the narratives are so different, and their respective premises are alarming, it behooves us to get to the truth as soon as possible. Per the WSJ ("Washington Goes Nuts"):

Political collusion with a foreign power and the abuse of intelligence collection to smear an opponent threaten the integrity of democratic institutions. Let’s hope the intelligence committees rise above their putative party leaders and tell America what really happened.

On this Sunday, a very old declaration:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

2019: unfortunately, we now know that "the intelligence committees [did not] rise above their putative party leaders and [did not] tell America what really happened." America is more divided than ever, people have stopped listening to each other, and arguments are impervious to facts (both sides say that about the other).

Wake me when it's 2021.

Not On My Reading List Until 2020, Maybe

Time says that one of the must-read books for January is the memoir by freshman Senator Kamala Harris.

Oh, please. The Time reviewer's political motivations are transparently obvious. Kamala Harris' book is the first one of the eleven listed (in case you're a reader who drops out after 4-5 paragraphs). This "review" is pure public relations: [bold added[

Her memoir highlights her dedication to public service, detailing her journey as a prosecutor out of law school to becoming District Attorney of San Francisco to her rise to the U.S. Senate. Democratic Sen. Harris’ passion for helping others is on full display in The Truths We Hold, where she shares her insights on leadership, problem solving and the power of speaking your truth.

But Time is just echoing what the newspaper of record is trying to do. Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse believes the New York Times is writing disparaging articles on other Democratic candidates on "the path the NYT would like to clear for — let's be honest — Kamala Harris?"

Politicians are always trying to recreate the past. Democrats constantly refer to JFK, who brought "Camelot" to Washington. Republicans compare their leaders to Ronald Reagan, whom they view as the greatest Republican President since Lincoln.

IMHO, one of the reasons Hillary Clinton was nominated was to restore the glory days of her husband's administration, but Hillary did not have Bill's charisma or political skills.

And Kamala, though attractive and black, so far has not shown that she's anywhere close to being Barack. I suppose, if she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll be picking up her book. So 2020, maybe.

Hungarian Mish-Mash

Vladimir and Viktor, 2015 (WSJ photo)

Donald Trump's foreign policy--whether it be tariffs, North Korea, Iran, climate change, you name it---comes under daily criticism from the media, the foreign policy establishment, academics, and Democrats. Meanwhile, not a peep about the performance of Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama.

Case in point: Hungary. [bold added]

When Russian troops poured into Georgia in 2008, [Hungarian now-Prime Minister Viktor Orban] denounced “the raw imperial power politics” of Mr. Putin, expecting a hard line from the incoming U.S. president. Instead, Barack Obama attempted a reset to mend relations with Russia. Meanwhile, the global financial crisis and Europe’s dithering response to it left Mr. Orban skeptical about the West’s attachment to political pluralism and globalization, say former officials.

Kind of reminds me of Chamberlain's "reset" with Hitler in Munich.

I Like the Old Rules Better

Microaggressions occur when people don't
conform to stereotypes (Buzzfeed)

Joe Biden, describing Barack Obama in 2007: [bold added]

"I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man."

Mr. Biden's utterance was a textbook example of a microaggression:

a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority)

His statement, meant as a compliment to Mr. Obama, instead was taken as evidence of an old white guy's unconscious racism.

Under the new morality what were once regarded as insensitive remarks to be endured by minorities, women, and other "marginalized" people is now justification for public shaming and even firing from one's job. (Disclosure: I have been the recipient of such remarks in my 40+-year career, and, yes, it was unpleasant, but c'mon, no one should be fired because my feelings got hurt.)

Perhaps you don't micro-aggress, dear reader, but do you micro-cheat?

Micro-cheating refers to “a set of behaviors that flirts with the line between faithfulness and unfaithfulness,” says Maryland-based couples therapist Lindsey Hoskins. But much like full-blown infidelity, Hoskins says it’s near-impossible to concretely define micro-cheating because “the line is in different places for different people in different relationships.”

Virtually anything, from Tinder swiping for fun to flirting with a cute stranger, could be considered micro-cheating, depending on someone’s values and relationship priorities. But Hoskins says some of the most common transgressions she sees include frequent text or social media communication with a possible flame, regularly talking with an ex-partner and growing too friendly with a co-worker.

God may have retreated from the world, but an implacable, angry Judge has arisen in His place.

Alan Wong's

"Da Bag" appetizer: I was taken aback when it arrived.

I was the only one in our party of four that had never been to Alan Wong's, one of Honolulu's best restaurants. (President Obama, known for his impeccable taste, dined at Alan Wong's every time he returned to the Islands for his vacation.)

The prime dinner slots on Saturday night were taken, so the only times available were 5:30 and 8:30. We chose 5:30 and were seated promptly.

In "Da Bag": Steamed clams, kalua pig, shiitake mushrooms

Service throughout the meal was excellent. The waiters explained each item on the menu and gave us plenty of time to make our selections. Each of us ordered an appetizer and entrée and split a dessert. The four fish entrées all were fresh, moist, delicately seasoned, and neither under- nor over-cooked. Portions were ample.

Though the restaurant fell behind schedule, and arrivals soon filled the small waiting area, they never rushed us though we had three years of catching-up to do with our friends.

The final bill, including drinks and tip, was roughly $100 per person. It may seem pricey, but Alan Wong's, IMHO, was a better value than restaurants costing a fraction as much. Yes, I'd happily go back, but there are so many new Oahu restaurants to try...

The Economist: Korean Peace Will Be Kim's Doing

Peace is threatening to break out on the Korean peninsula, and the Economist credits....Kim Jong Un. [Bold added for laudatory phrases]

Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in
(South China Morning Post)

Even six months ago, no one imagined Mr Kim capable of leading a diplomatic dance that has drawn in not just South Korea but America and China. He is proving to be an adept young dictator....

Yet right after the test, and little remarked, Mr Kim declared the fulfilment of a sacred national goal, the completion of a “state nuclear force”. The flurry of launches suddenly ceased. Mr Trump claims that his sanctions and threats brought Mr Kim to the table. But since that declaration it is Mr Kim who has set the diplomatic tempo and selected the mood music—literally so, when he invited K-pop bands from South Korea to Pyongyang, his capital...

Given such canniness, a reassessment of the rest of Mr Kim’s rule is overdue....Mr Kim, says Andrei Lankov of Kookmin University in Seoul, is a deft dictator: “smart, calculating and cruel—yet not sadistic for the hell of it.” (That must be scant comfort for all the innocent prisoners being beaten with hammers in his gulag.)...

he needs the summits, and to keep Mr Moon, Mr Trump and Mr Xi dancing. It is unclear how the dance will end. But what is certain is that he will have rehearsed the steps more carefully than they have. After all, Mr Kim has more at stake.

He executed his girlfriend by machine gun in 2013.
That Kim!

The Economist contends that Mr. Kim had been planning rapprochement ever since he came to power in 2011. The assassinations and purges (he executed five government officials with an antiaircraft gun) were just, we suppose, necessary steps on the road to peace.

Had Barack Obama known what a good guy Kim Jong Un was, he and Secretary of State Clinton could have negotiated peace in 2013, which would probably have cinched the 2016 election for Mrs. Clinton.

Added bonus: she would have gotten a Nobel Prize, too. Coulda, woulda, shoulda....

For a Long Time

(New York Times photo)

Not surprisingly, the portraits of the Obamas that were unveiled today sparked reactions that were colored by the politics of the reviewer.

The New York Times, predictably, was sycophantic: [bold added]

...each radiating, in its different way, gravitas (his) and glam (hers).

Mr. Wiley depicts Mr. Obama not as a self-assured, standard-issue bureaucrat, but as an alert and troubled thinker. Ms. Sherald’s image of Mrs. Obama overemphasizes an element of couturial spectacle, but also projects a rock-solid cool.

The National Review was mocking:

Take your pick: he’s sitting by the ivy on the outfield wall at Wrigley Field in Chicago, he’s in the Garden of Eden, or this is all an elaborate promotion for The Weed Agency. (Perhaps it’s meant to suggest that when he sat in power, some Bushes were behind him?) Or maybe this is just what happens when earth tones get a lot of rain.

Let's set politics aside for the moment and just react to the art. Let's also set aside what members of whichever tribe we belong to will say about our reaction.

I liked the portraits. I think they're both beautiful, and I didn't vote for the guy.

Sure, the portraits break with tradition because they're not photo-realistic, but this is not the 18th century; now we have many thousands of images of our public figures and we don't need another picture to remind us how they actually looked like. It's much more interesting to see how an artist sees them....though I'll be puzzling over the extra finger on Barack's left hand for a long time.

This Conspiracy Makes Sense.

Nearly everyone knows the adjective, how about the noun form?

Donald J. Trump, Jr., naïf:

Donald Jr and Fredo (John Cazale) (Vox juxtaposition)

when the Obama administration couldn’t get permission from the FISA court to surveil Trump, they allowed Veselnitskaya back into the country to take part in those Washington activities aside from whatever legal work she supposedly would be doing, and in the meantime the administration’s pals at Fusion tasked Goldstone with attempting to hook Trump Junior, whose performance makes him not a terrible analog for Fredo Corleone, into a meeting at Trump Tower to pass along “opposition research.”

And once that meeting — which on its surface was a waste of everyone’s time — was had, the Obama administration now had something to sell to the FISA court to get that warrant — from which they snagged Mike Flynn and gave the Democrat party and the media a mechanism to shroud the Trump administration in what can best be described as a rather dubious scandal. Remember how Hillary Clinton was accusing Trump of being a Putin’s puppet at the October 19 debate?

The hypothesis, at its essence: The Obama Administration ensnared the Trump campaign by allowing visa-already-denied Natalia into the U.S. just in time for a meeting with Donald Junior. Aha! Junior is meeting with Russians! FISA warrant approved.

Even liberals will admit that this "conspiracy" makes more sense. The much smarter Democratic operatives played chess while the Trump rubes thought the game was checkers. Yet, somehow, the naïfs won when it counted.

It Would Have Been a Catastrophic Victory

The failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obamacare) has been covered--gleefully---as a defeat for President Trump, House leadership, and Republican governance in general, but the outcome was foreseeable. There were too many disputes about what should be in the "replace" portion of the bill, and, frankly, the one-sidedness of media coverage made the mountain too high for politicians with an eye on 2018.

No, this is not another leftwing-media-are-biased post because the Republicans must shoulder the principal blame, but, dear reader, what do you remember most about the original coverage of the debate in 2009 and 2010? It was individual, heartbreaking stories about people who couldn't get coverage and who went bankrupt trying to care for a loved one.

The result was a government health care system that is inefficient, didn't drive down costs, didn't achieve universal coverage, didn't allow patients to keep their doctors, and had numerous other flaws. Yet while the Republicans debated this month, what were the media stories about? It was individual, heartbreaking stories about people who may lose their coverage and may go bankrupt if Obamacare were repealed.

One doesn't go changing a system where hundreds of billions of dollars are spent without some good, innocent people being harmed. In 2017 we would have been treated to stories about people who lost due to Obamacare's repeal. The difference was that in 2013 we didn't hear about people who lost their doctor and/or their insurance plan because of Obamacare. Unfair, but that's the media landscape.

President Trump is viewing this week's event as a setback, while others are making it seem as his Waterloo. I'm inclined to think it is a setback that he should be grateful for.

Peggy Noonan: [bold added]

Fatal? No. Damaging and diminishing? Yes. It is an embarrassment too for Speaker Paul Ryan...

Seven years ago, when ObamaCare was on its way to passing with not a single Republican vote, I called it a catastrophic victory. It wouldn’t work; the government would not be able to execute; it was a Rube Goldberg machine. It was a bill created not by visionaries or political masters but by technocrats—and the worst kind of technocrat, the one who sees himself as a secret visionary. On top of that the Democrats would always own it, and when the program failed, Republicans would have no motivation to help them save it.

That is what RyanCare or TrumpCare would have been if it had passed: a catastrophic victory. No Democratic support, an opaque and impossible-to-understand bill, one that is complex and complicated, one that would be unpopular back home. And created by technocrats who think themselves visionaries.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams has a different take on why this is really good news for Donald Trump [bold]:

In the 2D world, where everything is just the way it looks, and people are rational, Trump and Ryan failed to improve healthcare. But in the 3D world of persuasion, Trump just had one of the best days any president ever had: He got promoted from Hitler to incompetent. And that promotion effectively defused the Hitler-hallucination bomb that was engineered by the Clinton campaign.

It's much more advantageous for people to think you are incompetent instead of one of the most evil persons in history. Not only are opponents willing to talk to you, they want to talk because they can take advantage of you. The Trump turnaround begins today.

Sunday....Sad!

Who's the good guy and who's the bad guy? (WSJ photo)

Narrative One: Trump Stole the Election
President Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians to hack communications between Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and other Democrats. The release of this information harmed the Clinton campaign, enough to swing the election. Transcripts confirm that meetings and phone calls occurred between key Trump staff and Russian officials. In exchange for help from the Russians, President Trump will make concessions to Russia on a range of issues; he and his staff also will personally profit from their cooperation. The communications continue to this day.

Narrative Two: Obama is Worse than Nixon
After the Obama Administration unsuccessfully applied for a law-enforcement warrant in June, 2016, the FISA Court approved a surveillance warrant in October. The court made its decision because of false or exaggerated evidence, and the eventual scope of the surveillance over Trump personnel was far wider than the warrant allowed. Since October information on Donald Trump and his staff has been feloniously leaked to the media by Obama appointees, some of whom remain in government. The purpose is to derail President Trump's timetable and question the legitimacy of his election. President Obama used the power of his office to damage the candidate of the opposition party much more than Richard Nixon ever did.

There are many details and nuances that the above summaries don't include. However, unless there are other major explanations, the current or the past President is a "bad (or sick) guy!" (or maybe both are).

Because the narratives are so different, and their respective premises are alarming, it behooves us to get to the truth as soon as possible. Per the WSJ ("Washington Goes Nuts"):

Political collusion with a foreign power and the abuse of intelligence collection to smear an opponent threaten the integrity of democratic institutions. Let’s hope the intelligence committees rise above their putative party leaders and tell America what really happened.

On this Sunday, a very old declaration:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.