BREAKING NEWS: WEINER LAPTOP EMAILS HACKED

(Confidential sources have provided me with the emails found by FBI agents examining the laptop of former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner. In the finest WikiLeaks tradition, and to combat secrecy wherever it may lurk, I pass them on to you unvarnished. As you will see, some of the emails involve official U.S. State Department business, while others appear to be linked to Weiner, who sometimes uses the nom de plume Carlos Danger. FBI Director James Comey was busy writing another letter to congressional leaders and unavailable for comment on this email release.)

From: McHale, Judith A McHaleJA@state.gov
To: Abedin, Huma AbedinH@state.gov; Reines, Philippe I reinesp@state.gov
Sent: Fri Oct 15 12:35:32 2010
Subject: Pakistan

Americans recognize that our security and prosperity depend on having stable global partners, able to contribute to solving shared problems. Americans also know that our influence in the world and our ability to rally peoples and nations around common challenges rests in large measure on our reputation as a beacon of humanity and human dignity.

******************************************************************************
From: Danger, Carlos cDanger@horndog.org
To: McHale, Judith A McHaleJA@state.gov>
Sent: Fri Oct 15 12:48:57 2010
Subject: Pakistan

Judy, Judy, Judy. So, r u hot, or what? I say F Pakistan. Better you should play with my package. Want to see it?

******************************************************************************
From: Abedin, Huma AbedinH@state.gov
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Clinton, Hillary HDR22@clintonemail.com
Subject: Ilan Grapel released by Egypt, en route to Israel

Grapel was freed in exchange for 25 Egyptians jailed in Israel, media report. He is expected to meet Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu upon arrival in Tel Aviv.

******************************************************************************
From: Weiner, Anthony awein@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2011 2:38 AM
To: Abedin, Huma AbedinH@state.gov
Subject: I Swear to God

Sweetheart, I had no idea she was 12. I mean, Jesus Christ, she used polysyllabic words. I mean, like she totally understood triangulation. You have to believe me on this!

******************************************************************************
From: Mills, Cheryl D MillsCD@state.gov
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:14 PM
To: Clinton, Hillary HDR22@clintonemail.com
Subject: FW: Anthony Weiner: ‘Nothing Huma can’t do’

By: Jonathan Allen, POLITICO
July 19, 2012 10:18 AM EDT

Some Democrats are whispering that it might be Abedin, not Weiner, who has a future in
elective politics.
“There’s nothing Huma can’t do,” Weiner said in an email Thursday morning.

******************************************************************************
From: Sydney Leathers leatherMe@uporn.com
To: Danger, Carlos cDanger@horndog.org
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:28 PM
Subject: Getting Off

Carols, baby boy! Time for me to get you off in ways your wife could never do.

******************************************************************************
From: Mills, Cheryl D MillsCD@state.gov
To: Clinton, Hillary HDR22@clintonemail.com
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:05 PM
Subject: Kabul update

As of this hour of Thursday night there is no deal on an ironclad, substantive, political platform of national solidarity and governance reform, in return for Abdullah’s gracious concession which would obviate the constitutional and political need for a problematic 2nd round. Karl and I remain in close touch with the candidates as they continue their engagement. But short of a miracle, there will be no such deal at least until Friday evening or Saturday morning, if then.

******************************************************************************
From: Anthony Weiner awein@yahoo.com
To: Morehead Community College Cheerleading Squad wecheer@Morehead.edu
Subject: Bad Spelling

No, No, No! Not crotch rot. I meant to type crotch shot. Send me a crotch shot. F’ing auto correct!

******************************************************************************

From: Cheryl Mills MillsCD@state.gov
To: Hillary Clinton HDR22@clintonemail.com
Date: 2012-08-16 06:15
Subject: Bill Clinton reunited with 14-year-old Uganda boy named after him

So good!
You have a new child — hope you all are taking good care of him!
Such a nice story.

******************************************************************************
From: Weiner, Anthony awein@yahoo.com
To: Clinton, Bill hill.hubby@ clintonemail.com
Date: 2012-08-16 07:32
Subject 14-year-old Uganda boy

Jesus, Bill! Heard you were trying boys. Wild, man! At least there’s no messy blue dress to worry about. LOL! Let me know how it goes, Bro.

FBI IS THE WEINER OF THIS ELECTION

We probably should have seen this coming, but the quadrennial dialectic over our country’s governance, has devolved into a shambles that makes a middle school food fight look profound. Let’s review:

Four years ago this week, a divided nation, torn between giving a second term to President Barack Obama or replacing him with Mitt Romney, was transfixed on the question of whether tax cuts scheduled to expire should be renewed. Four years earlier, the closing argument between Obama and John McCain was how to best recover from the country’s economic collapse. And four years before that, when John Kerry ran against President George W. Bush, the focus was on the Iraq War – was it a mission of folly or an essential predicate for stability in the Middle East?

And now? Forget about tax policy, job creation or wealth redistribution. The endgame for this 2016 presidential campaign has us slowly twisting. . .no, make that sinking, in a quagmire of pussy and Weiner. Up until Friday afternoon, Donald Trump was having another bad week. On Thursday, Miss Finland of 2006 became the twelfth woman to accuse Trump of sexual assault, in effect adding to the validation of his “Access Hollywood” claims that he uses his star power to forcibly kiss women and/or grab their private parts. She said Trump squeezed her rear end while she and Miss Australia, Miss Puerto Rico and Miss Columbia posed for a picture. And that is as close as his campaign got to a discussion of foreign affairs this week.

By Friday, however, The Donald was suddenly a born-again believer in the sanctity of U.S. elections and his chances of securing the presidency. That’s because the FBI supposedly stumbled upon some Hillary Clinton related emails while conducting an investigation into Anthony Weiner’s exchange of sexually oriented texts with a 15-year-old girl. Or, as the New York Post headline put it: “Stroking Gun”, with a kicker of “Dickileaks: FBI Reopens Email Case”.

The unfortunately named Weiner, of course, is the now the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s top aides. The FBI had subpoenaed his laptop in search of underage sexting evidence and came across emails that might be related to Clinton’s use of a private server when she was secretary of state. From a strictly factual matter, of course, the FBI did not say it was “reopening” the closed investigation of Clinton’s email. Nor did it say that it found any emails that it had not already reviewed, or even if any of them came from candidate Clinton. But none of that matters much when you are Donald Trump and trying desperately to move the conversation away from the growing parade of women he allegedly groped, fondled, squeezed and/or forcibly kissed.

“This is bigger than Watergate,” the always hyperbolic Trump said yesterday. “This changes everything.” Actually, it changes absolutely nothing. It is merely one more piece of bizarre absurdity in a campaign jammed packed with them. The most important byproduct of a national election is the conversation it creates about the kind of country we want. How people should be taxed, corporations regulated, students educated, justice distributed. There has been nothing resembling a conversation this year. Just shouting: “Lock her up!” “Build the wall.” “Nasty woman.”

The only serious policy positions in this campaign have come from the Clinton camp because, love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton has spent her political life as a policy wonk. She has always been more comfortable in the deep weeds of complicated issues than pressing the flesh on a rope line. But you wouldn’t know much about her positions unless you visited her website. Trump has ignored public policy altogether, relying instead on simplistic but dangerous solutions to complicated problems: “build the wall”, “keep Muslims out”, “America first”. That lack of substantive symmetry has made serious policy conversation impossible. Saying “wrong” seven times in one debate does not qualify as a national conversation.

In lieu of substance, campaign media coverage has focused, understandably, on the elephant in the room. That would be Trump and all of the off-the-wall stuff he says and does, whether it is promoting one of his hotels, introducing women who claim Bill Clinton groped them 30 years ago or repeatedly calling Hillary “crooked” or “corrupt” without a scintilla of substantiation. As soon as the FBI director mentioned the existence of Clinton emails, Trump immediately characterized his opponent as a modern day Lizzie Borden.

Meanwhile this week, it was just another day on the Trump rally circuit. According to the Raleigh News Observer, a young black man, a Trump supporter, wandered up to the stage of the Kinston, NC get-together, intending to hand his candidate a note containing some tips on how he could appeal to more African Americans. A black face stands out in the whiteness of Trump Land. Security was called and they hauled the man away, presumably for being black at a Trump rally, while The Donald goaded him with accusations of being a paid disrupter.

When the Weiner Gate dust finally settles, we will be right back where we always have been: the worst excuse for a presidential campaign in the country’s history. And a choice between a razor sharp woman who knows policy inside and out, but has made her share of mistakes over the years, and a racist buffoon who abuses women and has never developed a serious public policy position in his life. In my book, that’s an easy decision – even if those emails spell out top state secrets in Haikou.

SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD TRUMP

I am, hopefully, less than 24 hours away from yet another surgical attempt to extricate the latest in a series of invasive protrusions on my upper back. As reported earlier, these benign-but-annoying tumors have been popping up faster than Donald Trump’s sexual assault victims. The current one expands its girth on a daily basis, rubbing up against a muscle and creating general havoc on my central nervous system. I’ve found some mitigation from a delicate and precise arrangement of pillows on the back of my office chair. That and 10 milligrams of Percocet every six hours.

It is from that opioid induced fog of critical thinking that I address you now. Reviewing my last few posts in this space, it occurs to me that I have been exclusively critical of the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. My late mother raised me with the mantra of “always look for the good in people.” In the heat of this most divisive presidential campaign, I regret that I have failed to follow her edict. I have not sought out the goodness in Donald J. Trump. With tomorrow’s scheduled surgery, I am one slip of the knife away from having written my final blogpost. So this one is for Mom: a compendium of Trump Goodness.

1. A Trump presidency would give President James B. Buchanan his first good night’s sleep in 160 years. Buchanan has long been regarded by most historians as the worst president in U.S. history. If elected, Trump, in a selfless act of charity, would relieve the 15th President of the burden of being the worst.

2. Trump is singlehandedly responsible for taking Billy Bush off the air.

3. Thanks to The Donald, business is booming for Taco Trucks.

4. He performed a miracle by making Mike Pence, a raving lunatic of a wingnut, look like the adult in the room and, as a two-for, spared the good citizens of Indiana from the possibility of a second Pence gubernatorial administration.

5. He prompted the Tic-Tac company to issue a statement in support of women.

6. Trump has done more than any other individual to spur Latino voter registration.

7. He has pulled record numbers of American Muslims into the country’s political process.

8. In the waning moments of print journalism, Trump framed a brand new issue for vigorous debate in the daily news huddle: “Can we use the word ‘pussy’ in a headline?”

9. He created unlimited possibilities for memes, country western songs and B movies with his delectable combination of “Nasty Woman” and “Bad Hombres.”

10. Finally, and best of all, Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of his most significant act of goodness – making it possible for the United States to have its first woman president.

And that concludes my pre-surgery act of contrition. The next time you hear from me, I shall be lumpless. And with nothing good to say about The Donald.

EVEN WITHOUT CONCEDING, TRUMP IS A LOSER

I am struggling to understand the universal shock-and-awe reaction to Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the results of this election. My lack of comprehension may well be a side effect of the pain meds I’ve been on this week, but I really don’t get it. Every major news outlet led its Wednesday night debate coverage with Trump’s remarks challenging the legitimacy of an election he appears to be losing.

The lede on the Associated Press debate story began with these words, “Threatening to upend a basic pillar of American democracy. . .” Serious politicians and thinkers of all political stripes have been shaking their heads in deep disdain ever since.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the defeated 2008 Republican nominee for president: “A concession . . . is an act of respect for the will of the American people, a respect that is every American leader’s first responsibility.”

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer: “This is political suicide.”

Veteran Republican campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, saying Trump’s remarks were “disqualifying,” added, “The campaign is over.”

New York Times editorial: “Donald Trump turned . . . from insulting the intelligence of the American voter to insulting American democracy itself.”

Believe me, I am not rising to his defense. Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the validity of the election process he willingly entered into was absurd and nonsensical. But I would submit, from the totality of the record, that, (a) we should not have been at all surprised, and, (b) he has repeatedly repudiated decency, respect for law and the American way of life. When it comes to graven depravity of political thought, Trump has mastered the art of consistency.

After all, The Donald has called for: the assassination of Kim-Jong-um and the families of terrorists, shutting down the mosques, deporting U.S. citizens whose parents entered the country illegally, reducing U.S. debts by defaulting on them and banning Muslims from entering the country. This is the candidate who wished for the housing market to crash so he could make money off it, kept a collection of Adolph Hitler speeches in a cabinet by his bed, refused to rule out using nuclear weapons on ISIS, fraternizes with avowed white supremacists on Twitter and urged supporters to beat up protesters at his rallies. And this is the candidate who secured his party’s nomination on the back of one word: “winning.” America doesn’t win anymore, he said. The other candidates were weak losers. Trump defined himself as a winner, the only person who can make our country win again.

Did we actually expect him to walk onto that final debate stage, down seven points and falling, and tell Chris Wallace that yes, of course, he would graciously concede this hard fought election to Hillary Clinton, should that be the outcome, and then pledge to do everything he can to help the Clinton Administration Make America Great Again? If he had, that would have been one hell of a story. First year journalism students are taught that it’s not news when a dog bites a person, but you’ve got yourself a story when a person bites a dog. In Wednesday’s debate, Trump merely bit himself, just as he has been doing since the start of this campaign. Had Mitt Romney or John McCain said the same thing about not recognizing the validity of the election process, it would have been a stop-the-presses moment. In 2016, it was merely Trump being Trump.

It is abundantly clear that this guy is, in every way, totally ill-equipped to handle even the lowest level of public leadership, let alone the presidency. He lives in his own world, constantly creating and revising a reality to suit him for the moment. He supported the Iraq War when he thought it was the thing to do, but denies it now. He supported abortion rights, but says he didn’t. He spent his life objectifying, denigrating and sexually assaulting women, but insists that “nobody respects women more than I do.” The very predicate of his presidential candidacy is that he, Donald J. Trump, is a winner. When he wakes up on Nov. 9 with less than 270 electoral votes, he will experience the worst bout of cognitive dissonance in his life. He will sputter with foolish excuses and scapegoats. Ultimately, it won’t matter. Our country is stronger than that. Under the law of the land and in our hearts, The Donald will be what we’ve always known him to be: the World’s Biggest Loser.

RETURN OF THE GRAPEFRUIT

Three Trump blogposts in a row and what do I get? Another grapefruit. Let me tell you: the karmic fix is in. You may remember my recent surgical lament. I went to have a benign tumor, allegedly the size of a key lime, removed from my back. Out came a grapefruit and a rougher than expected recovery period. This is the sequel to that story.

I returned to the surgeon’s office for the obligatory post-surgical visit. My doctor has a stellar reputation, one of the best cutters in the Washington, D.C. area. His down side is that he is the spitting image of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. When he studies an image of my anatomy, I imagine him looking for an artery to close in order to mess up bridge traffic. Given some of the things I’ve written about his guy Trump, the thought of him lurching over me with a scalpel is a tad disconcerting. Then again, what are the odds that he is among the five regular visitors to this site?

So Christie’s doppelganger stood behind me, peeling the bandages off my back. I heard a couple of affirming grunts as he surveyed his work product. He backed up for a more global view. “Yes, very good,” he said. “Oh, yes. Perfect.” It was as if he were looking at the Venus de Milo at the Louvre, not a seven-inch incision on my upper back.

He invited my wife, Melissa, to join him at the viewing station. I would have thought the fact that I was still alive a week after surgery would have been sufficient validation for him. But he wanted more. He craved recognition for what he clearly thought was a remarkably compelling incision line, subtle in tone with an unassuming texture. Melissa, an artist in her own right, specializes in the rapid deflation of the male ego. She assumed the position adjacent to the beaming surgeon, who pointed to his handiwork and said, “See how nice this came out?”

Melissa, without skipping a beat, pointed her finger to a prime piece of upper torso real estate six inches from the incision. “What’s this,” she asked, “another tumor?” There was awkward silence behind me now. I felt two hands poking and kneading what felt like an enormous lump, very similar to the extricated grapefruit, except larger. It might be approaching small melon territory. Silence hung heavy for three or four minutes.

Then the surgeon uttered a long sigh, followed by, “Jesus, I’ve never ever seen anything like this.” The art show abruptly ended. He thinks the mass is a seroma, as was the one he removed. A seroma is a benign soft tissue tumor usually caused by trauma. I broke two ribs in June, giving rise to Seroma I. The most common source of trauma leading to these tumors is surgery. It is very possible that the surgical removal of Seroma I created Seroma II. My life seems to be evolving into an continuous surgical loop of Ground Hog’s Day seromas.

I was scheduled to undergo surgery today but was bumped at the last minute by some emergency life-and-death cases. Seroma II is now set to meet the knife on Tuesday of next week, unless the governor can work me in sooner. Meanwhile the mass continues to grow. As it does, it presses something fierce against a nerve, generating more pain than a Trump rally.

So that is my tale of woe for the day. Rest assured I have no intention of turning this into a medical blog. The world is overrun with medical blogs, most of them self-indulgent chronicles of everything you wouldn’t want to know about someone’s condition. For example: Jenni’s Guts, Celiac Chicks, I am Not My Disease, and my personal favorite, At Your Cervix. Yet, I wanted to let you know that I may need to skip a cycle or two of appearances here, depending on the pain level. Then again, I may decide to write through the pain. If my next post sounds like I have plagiarized the Unabomber’s manifesto, you deserve to know why.

TRUMP AND WOMEN: JUST ANOTHER POWER GRAB

At least Bill Cosby made one good decision in his life. He rejected Donald Trump’s advice on how to handle allegations of sexual assault. As reported by the Washington Post, Trump told an E! reporter in 2014 that the 79-year-old comedian was making a big mistake by not personally responding to the dozens of women who said Cosby forced himself on them. The Donald, of course, faced his own growing cavalcade of accusers this week, women who, one by one, came forward to say they were forcibly groped and/or kissed by the Republican presidential candidate.

Trump followed the advice Cosby turned down, and I am willing to bet half my 401(k) that, at some point this weekend, one of Cosby’s lawyers pointed to the candidate’s traveling freak show of a defense and said to his client, “Do you see now why we told you to keep your mouth shut.” Trump didn’t merely deny the accusations, he held rallies to denigrate and belittle the accusers. He claimed some were ugly, not worth his grope. The cult-like crowd was right out of a Rocky Horror Picture Show. Trump would cite an accusation of sexual assault and the audience would chant “we don’t care,” followed by laughs and jeers. Trump called the women liars and the faithful Trumpians chanted “Lock them up,” the official campaign refrain for non-believers.

One woman in a North Carolina rally Friday wore a hand painted t-shirt with the words “Trump Can Grab My” followed by an arrow pointing to her crotch. Two days earlier in an Ohio revival meeting, women wore shirts that said, “Hey Trump, Talk Dirty to Me.” In case there was any doubt, this is no longer Mitt Romney’s Republican Party. To these folks and their candidate, sexual assault is a myth, just like global warming, a conspiracy hatched by vile liberal interests designed to stop Trump from making America great again. Why else would all of these women come forward now with their accusations?

Of course, we know the answer to that question only too well. This is the way it always works. Women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted cower in shame and insignificance, afraid to come forward because no one would believe them. They spend years in turmoil and agony and powerlessness, wondering, in their darker moments, if maybe they somehow brought this on themselves. And then, later – sometimes years, decades later – one woman steps forward with a story she can’t hold in any longer. Another woman sees it and suddenly recognizes that she is not alone, not the only one, and she too goes public. Then the dam bursts and the flood begins.

I saw the pattern so many times in my work as a union representative. A young woman in her first job would find the boss’s hands all over her. To him, it was just another power grab. To her, it was the most traumatic moment of her life. Never once was there a single victim. Within days of the first complaint, the others quickly followed. None of it had anything to do with how the women looked, dressed or what they did. It wasn’t about sex. It was about power, about men in powerful positions taking what they wanted because they could. It had always been that way and would forever remain thus – until the first victim ends her silence and frees the rest to do the same. Just ask Bill Cosby or Donald Trump.

For me, a seminal moment in understanding this dynamic came in 1991. I was visiting my aunt who was 79 then, long retired from a career as a department store clerk. We were watching the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Anita Hill, who had accused Thomas of sexual harassment, had just completed her testimony. My aunt, rarely at a loss for words, sat in silence, seemingly in another place. I wasn’t sure what to make of it. Finally, she spoke.

“I never knew it was wrong,” she said. “I mean we didn’t like it. Actually, we hated it. But these men were in charge. They were over us. And we didn’t want to lose. . . no, we couldn’t lose our jobs. We didn’t have a choice. It’s just the way it is.” It was the only time I saw my aunt cry. The moment was transformative for us both. She was apprehending a new day in which it was simply wrong for a man to use his power over a subordinate that way. And I, for the first time, was realizing there had actually been a point in our history when sexual harassment was an accepted norm: “just the way it is.”

So here we are, in 2016 – three weeks from electing the 45th president of the United States. Have we finally moved the gender fulcrum far enough to elect a woman? Or are we about to knowingly choose a sexual predator, who not only flaunts the rules of decency, but brags about it? My aunt has been gone for 15 years. She never missed an election and always voted Republican. Had she been around these past few days, however, I can tell you without hesitation that Donald Trump would not get her support. Once she saw a world where sexual harassment was wrong and not a way of life, she would never, ever, vote to go back.

GOP’S ANSWER TO TRUMP PROBLEM IS BLOWING IN THE WIND

When our newest Nobel Laureate wrote that “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,” Bob Dylan had never met the current crop of Republican politicians. These folks desperately need emergency meteorological assistance. Their old windsocks of public opinion are no match for the velocity of the October gusts of Donald J. Trump.

Ordinarily, politicians publicly shower fellow party members with obligatory superlative prose that has all the sincerity of an Eddie-Haskell-to-June-Cleaver compliment. That’s only when the mic is on. Behind the scenes, it is more Jerry Springer than Leave it to Beaver. Alas, this is no ordinary election. The challenge for Republican congressional candidates has been how to distance themselves from a toxic presidential nominee without losing votes from the deplorables who love him. After anguishing through months of tortured Trumpisms, each raising the level of racism, misogyny and xenophobia one step higher, most GOP leaders and candidates managed to stake out deeply contorted positions on The Donald. They were tightly parsed and highly nuanced, a natural result of simultaneously condoning that which they condemn. Then the Access Hollywood tape hit and all bets were off. And then on again. Consider, for example:

Darryl Glenn, Republican Senate candidate from Colorado, withdrew his endorsement of Trump after the tape hit the news. In it, the presidential candidate boasted about using his star power to get by with sexual assaults. Glenn told Fox News that “America cannot have a man who speaks this way about women be the face of our country to the Free World.” After 48 hours of backlash from Trump supporters, however, Glenn reversed course and threw his support behind Donald to be the face of our country to the Free World.

Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) came out against Trump on Saturday, telling Politico that the Republican nominee’s remarks were “disgraceful” and that he “is not fit to be president of the United States.” By Tuesday, however, Byrne was back on the Trump Train, regardless of how disgraceful and unfit he may be.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has outdone the Kama Sutra in finding unique positions. She clearly loathes the guy but is involved in a very competitive reelection battle in a state where Trump has a solid base of support. Initially, Ayotte refused to endorse him but said she would vote for him, a dubious status akin to being a little bit pregnant. Then she was asked during a television appearance if she thought Trump was a role model for children. She said yes. The next day, however, she reversed herself, saying that Trump was no role model but that she would still vote for him. After the groping tape was released, Ayotte made a clean break and said she would not vote for Trump, a stand she says may end her political career.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) had supported Trump until the tape went public. She immediately reversed course, according to the Omaha World-Herald, saying that his comments were “disgusting and totally unacceptable under any circumstance.” She reversed herself once more on Tuesday and said she will vote for Trump.

The list goes on and on, with changes occurring hourly. There has been far less fluctuation in the stock market this fall than in the Trump positions held by Republican leaders. What remains unknown at the moment is whether any of the un-endorsement “recanters” will flip once more on the heels of new allegations by women who say Trump sexually assaulted them. The only law that matters right now is the uncertainty principle of physics: positions constantly change based on the momentum of events.

Even those who have gone a few days without a reversal are left with some curious juxtapositions. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) says Trump is a “pathological liar” and “utterly amoral.” Yet, he has endorsed him. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) characterized Trump’s remarks as “textbook definition of racist.” He refuses to campaign with him. But, for the record, the Speaker has endorsed the racist.

There is, of course, an unprecedentedly long list of high ranking Republicans, who have publicly repudiated their party’s presidential candidate. For the most part, they are the ones not up for reelection this year. As for those who are, this is my plea:

Donald Trump is a very mean man, a man who brags about the women he has forcibly groped, a man who has denigrated every minority group, a man who can’t tell fact from fiction, a man who has most of us frightfully scared over what will become of our country, our world, should he be elected. For the love of God and America, please don’t let this man bring us down. No job is worth that price.

PUSSIES AND THE UNMAKING OF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

So let’s recap. Prior to last Friday, we knew that Donald Trump believes:

Laziness is a trait in blacks;
Mexican immigrants are rapists;
It’s funny to mock a disabled reporter;
Muslims should be prohibited from entering the country;
Megyn Kelly had blood coming out of her whatever;
His money should be counted only by “little short guys that wear yarmulkes”; and
The Pope is disgraceful.

Yet, Trump was only a couple of poll points behind Hillary Clinton and enjoyed the backing of most Republican office holders. Then came the Pussy Tape and all hell broke loose. At least now we know there is a line never to be crossed. This will be helpful for future campaigns. You can denigrate blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Jews, the disabled and the Pope and still be acceptable to most Republicans. But boasting about grabbing women by their pussies is a deal breaker.

Well, maybe it’s not quite that linear. There is another explanation. Jacob Riis, a 19th century photographer and social reformer, taught that progress comes from the cumulative effect of many events. The same is true of regression. Here’s Riis:

“. . . I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.”

Applying the Riis paradigm to Trump’s fall from GOP grace, it took more than a pussy grab to throw the Party of Lincoln into a cataclysmic frenzy. As Hillary suggested in Sunday night’s debate, if Donald’s bus ride peroration on groping, extramarital seduction, furniture shopping and Tic-Tacs had been a singular aberration, he might have gotten a pass, particularly if he promised to forever keep his two small hands to himself. But coming as it did, on the heels of serial character flaws, rarely seen by someone not on a registered sex offender directory or a terrorist watch list, it was almost too much to take. Even open-minded, understanding Republican congressional leaders like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan called the boys on the bus dialogue sickening, repugnant and unacceptable. And then, just to hedge their bets, continued to endorse Trump to become the leader of the free world.

Pussygate’s most fascinating feature has been the Rorschach quality of responses from party leaders. See if you can pick out a unifying theme in this sampling of reactions from GOP White Guys:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (Trump’s running mate): “As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump. . .”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: “As the grandfather of two precious girls, I find that no apology can excuse away Donald Trump’s reprehensible comments degrading women.”

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: “Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters. . .”

Utah Senator Mike Lee: If anyone spoke to my wife or my daughter or my mother or any of my five sisters the way Mr. Trump has spoken to women, I wouldn’t hire that person. . .”

Get it? Thank God these men have women in their families so they can muster enough empathy to recognize that forcibly grabbing them by their genitals is not an appropriate precursor to the presidency. Then again, neither is calling blacks lazy or denigrating Muslims, Jews, the disabled or the Pope. It’s just that those demographics don’t have a seat at the table in most white Republican households. Some foibles are easier to overlook, but this talk of groping white women really hits home with these guys.

It harkens back to some really messed up gender role stuff, a quid-pro-quo known as The Art of a Very Bad Deal. In days of old, when men ruled the roost, social norms required that they protect and revere their womenfolk. House Speaker Ryan actually touched on that notion when he explained why the Trump pussy tape “sickened” him. Said Ryan, “Women are to be revered and championed, not objectified.” The basic deal was that men would open doors for women, pull out their chairs, lift them to their pedestals and forever protect them from harm. In exchange, men called all the shots, held all the power, owned all the property and cast all the votes.

So here we are, in a new era. Not only can women own property and vote, one of them is on the verge of becoming the next U.S. President, thanks in large part to her blustery, braggadocios, bloviating, blowhard of an opponent. And his penchant for grabbing women by their pussies. Although we may not necessarily live happily ever after, there could not be a more delicious ending to this very grim fairytale.

A RED PARACHUTE MADE OF GOLD

Golden parachutes are back in the news these days, and as ever before, getting the black eyes they so richly deserve. Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes quickly bit the dust after long-time anchor Gretchen Carlson brought sexual harassment charges against him. She settled for $20 million while Ailes walked away in shame and disgrace – and with an exit package of $40 million. Only through Alice’s looking glass would Fox’s “fair and balanced” world give the harasser twice as much as the harassee. Former United Airlines CEO Jeff Smisek was fired last year and left with close to $37 million. Then there is Carrie Tolstedt, Wells Fargo’s vice president for sales, who was all set to parachute out of the fraudulent bank account scandal her division created with a $124 million package.

Those examples were noted in a recent Harvard Business Review piece characterizing the emerging trend of using such compensation packages to rid corporate suites of scandalized executives. That, says HBR, was never the purpose of a golden parachute. Instead, it argues, these payout packages originated in the 1970s to protect executives from being fired in corporate takeovers, not to enrich CEOs who were either dismissed for poor performance or just wanted to walk away with a bundle of cash.

What neither the fallen chieftains of capitalism nor the Harvard Business School may know is that the underpinnings of these enormous exit packages can be traced to the teachings of Karl Marx and the Communist Party. A golden parachute is severance pay on steroids. Severance is a common term in our lexicon now. It means paying workers who are laid off or bought out when a company reduces its workforce. Back in the early 1930s, however, such a practice was unheard of in this country. Severance pay originated in the newspaper industry in 1933 and quickly spread to other employment sectors. I learned all this during my career as a negotiator for The NewsGuild-CWA, the union that represents newspaper workers, among others. Here’s the quick story:

The Guild was organized in 1933 by a group of reporters and editors led by a then-prominent New York columnist, Heywood Broun. The newspaper industry was facing a recession back then and publishers were getting rid of journalists left and right. So the immediate burning issue was that dedicated, hardworking employees should not be summarily fired without some sort of compensation for their years of service, a.k.a., severance pay. Many newspaper owners agreed, and before the first comprehensive contract was negotiated, a number of papers entered into interim agreements with the Guild providing for severance pay based on length of service for laid off workers.

Those were the seeds of the golden parachutes. Because Broun and his Guild colleagues, detached journalists that they were, had little aptitude or patience for the nitty-gritty of union building, they hired a number of young, passionate organizers from the American Communist Party. It was a pragmatic, not ideological, move. The Commies knew how to organize and they helped set up local unions at newspapers throughout the country. Once the national union was up and running, the Guild, like many unions in the 1950s, got rid of the reds. But not before they had an opportunity to inject a little Marxism into the newspaper contracts.

That meant that those early severance pay agreements dealing with layoffs evolved into a system in which employees built equity in their jobs with each passing year, equity that would be liquidated when they left the company through a severance payment based on years of service. The formula in most contracts called for two weeks’ pay for each year and it was paid regardless of how the employment ended, whether by resignation, retirement, disciplinary discharge or layoff. In the event of death, the benefit was paid to the employee’s estate. The principle of severance pay was not a cushion against unemployment. It was a recognition of the Marxist concept that workers have a property right in their jobs, based on their contributions of labor. Severance was the means of cashing in that ownership stake.

Various national labor publications in the 1930s took note of this unique provision in newly negotiated newspaper contracts and the concept quickly spread. As the years passed, however, the benefit lost much of its leftist luster. When pension plans were negotiated into subsequent contracts, severance pay was scaled back so that it was paid only on dismissal or layoff. But the culture had been changed. There was an accepted practice that employees should get something more than a handshake or a kick in the rear end when walking out the door. That DNA then wildly mutated into parachutes made of gold now carrying disgraced corporate fat cats out of their executive suites. Somewhere Karl Marx is shedding a tear and insisting that this is not what he had in mind.

A FRUITFUL DAY IN THE OPERATING ROOM

If life had gone according to plan, a scintillating piece of ponderous commentary would be appearing in this space. You’d be sipping a warm beverage while taking in my words of wisdom, nodding and smiling between paragraphs. Either that, or I would have hit a raw psychic nerve mid-sentence, sending you to You Tube’s cute kitten channel for immediate relief and redemption. Well, my friends, I am here to tell you that life does not always go according to plan. Just ask Jeb Bush, or if you want a second opinion, Rick Perry, the guy who got tossed from “Dancing With the Stars” faster than he did from his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. Oops.

My diversion was far less profound, but just as frustrating. I was scheduled for minor outpatient surgery at Washington Adventist Hospital yesterday, the second of two procedures in a month aimed at removing a benign mass from my back. A benign mass, I learned from Dr. Google, is a non-cancerous tumor, not a pre-Vatican II Catholic church service conducted by hippie folk singers. There are, I guess, some valid procedural reasons why an allegedly minor operation needed two surgical dates. But the explanation is so dry, and uninteresting that it should never be reported outside of a medical journal, and even then only if it is really hard up for copy.

Here’s the deal, along with a full waiver of my HIPAA rights. Initially the tumor was, in the highly technical jargon used by physicians with five years of graduate school and a two-year residency, the “size of an orange”. Then came the first surgery. When the bandages finally came off, my appendage had been reduced to, again in the medical vernacular, the “size of a key lime”. Yesterday’s surgical adventure was to have been a brief cut-and-stitch aimed at the final excision of the devolving fruit. Instead, it was a day-long adventure.

I arrived, as instructed, two hours ahead of my 9:30 a.m. operating table time. I was prepped and ready to get this done by 8 a.m. Because nobody in the nation’s capital has been able to come up with a way for people to move from one point to another in an expeditious and orderly fashion, my surgeon was held prisoner in I-270 traffic until 11 a.m. I gave thanks for needing only a simple key lime removal instead of a life-saving quadruple heart bypass.

“This won’t take long,” he said, as the anesthesiologist sedated me. I awoke hours later in the recovery room. The surgeon was standing by my bed, sputtering words you never want to hear in these circumstances, “You aren’t going to believe this,” he said. “It was the size of a grapefruit.” He positioned his hands, as if holding a county fair blue ribbon grapefruit, his face flashing the smile of a prideful fisherman boasting of a trophy catch. I told him I was glad he was having such a good day and then fell back to sleep.

All of this, dear readers, is my feeble way of explaining why you are not looking at an insightful commentary on a burning public policy issue. It takes a lot of slicing and dicing to extract a grapefruit. Given the state of our current world, pain is not a useful ointment for the dissection of complicated issues. Try to think fondly of me whenever you have your next fruit salad. I’ll be back soon.