Category: Politics

NO WINNERS IN WHITE HOUSE VERSION OF CELEBRITY APPRENTICE

So, it has come to this. In our toxically polarized world, the battle for moral superiority between left and right rests on a surrogate matchup of Kathy Griffin and Ted Nugent, with an undercard starring Bill Maher and Tila Tequila.
In one ring, battling to the death for bragging rights as the most offensive and despicable, is Griffin, clutching a simulation of Donald Trump’s severed skull, and Nugent, with thoughts of an assassinated Obama dancing in his head. In the racist ring is Trump supporter and reality star Tequila, flashing her finest anti-black-and-brown Nazi salute, facing off against TV host Maher and his it’s-only-a-joke N-word banter. Que Michael Buffer: “Let’s get ready to rumble!”
Sadly, the rumbling never stops. Like tinnitus’s constant ringing, this high-pitched, acrimonious roar shows no sign of abating any time soon. It’s enough to make you long for simpler times when a celebrity saying stupid stuff was . . . well, just a celebrity saying stupid stuff. As opposed to an escalation of our endless ideological war.
The latest battleground surfaced last week when, for some inexplicable reason, Griffin, a comedian, released a picture of herself holding a faux bloody Trump head. There was no context, no lead-up, no punchline and, as far as anyone can tell, no laughter. As the excrement hit the fan, Griffin offered the standard comedic defense that she was only trying to be funny, that crossing the line of appropriateness is the heart of humor. Yeah but, there still has to be a hook to make the inappropriateness funny. Years ago, Joan Rivers used this line in her stand-up: “Boy George is all England needs – another queen who can’t dress.” Inappropriate? Sure, but it had a hook, a context that got a laugh – even from Boy George. All Griffin had was a bloody head.

As a result, her world began to crumble. Despite her apology, CNN fired Griffin from her standing New Year’s Eve gig with Anderson Cooper, who independently blasted her for the prank. Most of her summer tour venues have canceled on her. At a tearful press conference Friday, the comedian said Trump was out to get her, insisting, with a level of self-absorption rivaling the president’s, that the White House is “using me as the shiny object so that nobody is talking about his (Trump’s) FBI investigation.” Obviously, it would take much more than a bully comic holding another bully’s head to divert attention from this FBI investigation.

Meanwhile, Twitter and Facebook exploded into a fully involved proxy war. The president’s fans, predictably, expressed wildly indignant outrage over Griffin’s severed Trump head bit, many proposing acts of retribution outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. Then came a quick liberal chorus of “nana nana nana” with posts about Nugent, a 60s rocker who made a sharp right turn, and recently dined with Trump at the White House. Where was the conservative consternation, these posts asked, when Nugent called Obama a “mongrel” and invited him to “suck on my machine gun”? Then came a retrospective of various Obama-in-a-noose memes offered up by his many passionate detractors, raising this bizarre dialectic of moral equivalency: images depicting the lynching of our first black president versus a beheading of his successor. If the founding fathers had envisioned social media, the First Amendment would likely have come with an exclusionary clause.

With no ceasefire in sight, the war opened a new front Friday night when sharp-tongued comedian and Trump critic Maher used the N-word on his HBO show, “Real Time”. A guest, Republican Senator Ben Sasse, jokingly invited Maher to Nebraska to “work the fields.” The host’s response: “Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n***r.” Maher’s subsequent apology did little to subdue the Twitter rants. Conservatives, still bristling from their loss of Fox News idol Bill O’Reilly, demanded that HBO fire Maher. It was, of course, a tough case for them to make in 140 characters, given their party’s dismal track record on matters of race. So the tweets were mostly a gotcha thing, as in: “Fire him! You know that’s what Democrats would say if Sean Hannity used the word.” That provoked a liberal response about Tila Tequila, a fallen reality TV star and Trump supporter who has said vile things about blacks and Latinos and led a white nationalist audience in a “Heil Trump” salute last fall.

Yet, it was refreshing to see a number of messages from the left, many from black leaders, that unequivocally condemned a white comedian for using a racial epithet that has no business even residing in his vocabulary. It is, indeed, possible to abhor the deeply divisive and Draconian policies of the Trump administration while, at the same time, castigating entertainers of our political stripe when they jettison every line of decency.

Unfortunately, social media lulls us into the illusion of tribalism, complete with its us-versus-them modality. We lob our verbal grenades at anyone who seems to be part of the other side, slicing and dicing with an angry indignation that never stops. When one of our own is attacked, it’s time to re-powder, circle the wagons and fire away again, or so we think. These are, without a doubt, the most emotionally strained and troubled political times many of us have gone through. Our country is as torn and divided as it has been since the Civil War. There is so much at stake. To suggest, for even a moment, that Kathy Griffin is a victim worthy of our attention diminishes and denigrates the real Trump victims, like the 23 million people who would lose medical insurance under his plan, displaced workers denied job retraining benefits under his budget, families split and devastated by the cruelty of his deportations.

So let’s take some deep breaths and try to avoid the peripheral skirmishes that really don’t matter. That will make it easier to focus on the real challenge – reversing the course this country has been on since January 20.

WHEN TRUMP TALKS, ENGLISH TEACHERS TRY NOT TO LISTEN

The first review of our 45th president’s verbal skills came seconds after he finished his inaugural address. According to New York Magazine, the 43rd president, George W. Bush, turned to those next to him and said, “That was some weird shit.” This from the guy who once said, “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.” Clearly, the torch of presidential inarticulateness has been passed.

Donald Trump makes Bush look like a master wordsmith. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, here’s how the Donald responded to a question about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election: “ . . . there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself – and the Russians, zero.” Weird shit, indeed.

Trump’s difficulty in constructing a compound sentence without merging two disparate thoughts, mixed with a propensity to drain meaning from words through overuse, has been analyzed by a host of academicians. Linguists used something called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test to place his speeches at a fourth grade level. Psychologists compared transcripts of Trump interviews in the 1980s with those from the last four months and concluded that there has been significant cognitive decline. All this must be pleasing the president in some perverse way. The very elites who Trump thought were ignoring him are now giving him the kind of rapt attention that Jane Goodall bestowed on her chimps.

As for this expert analysis, I’m inclined to heed the cautionary observation of New York Times columnist David Brooks: “We’ve got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar.”

And beep they do. Responding to the Manchester concert bombing this week, Trump told the world that, from this day forward, he will refer to terrorists not as “monsters, which they would like,” but as “losers.” This nomenclature upgrade, as the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank noted, puts suicide bombers in an eclectic grouping. Here are just a few of the prior inductees in Trump’s Loser Hall of Shame: Rosie O’Donnell, Cher, Rihanna, Mark Cuban, George Will, an astrologer in Cleveland, Gwyneth Paltrow, John McCain and the Huffington Post. Using the same description for Rihanna and a terrorist empties the word of all meaning.

Yet, this limited vocabulary is not the biggest impediment in deciphering the president’s messages. That prize goes to an attention span that frequently changes subjects multiple times in the same sentence. In the AP interview, for example, Trump was asked about the funding of his proposed wall along the Mexican border. His answer: “People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it – you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. Big, big, big advantage. . .The Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall.”

Trump’s unofficial record for a run-on sentence came during the Republican primaries when he once managed to utter 285 words on more than 15 subjects, all without ever taking a breath or using a period. Slate posted the monstrosity on its website and invited readers to take a crack at diagramming it with the Reed-Kellogg method, the bane of many an English class back in the old days. In lieu of cluttering this space with a 285-word Trump sentence, here’s the link, if you are up for a challenge. Like most of his off-the cuff soliloquies, it is peppered with repetitive words and phrases, like: “very good, very smart”, “oh, do they do a number” and “who would have thought?” Linguists, reported Slate’s Katy Waldman, have suggested that Trump’s overuse of such semantically non-meaningful words implies that he is “too distracted by the pleasure and theater of vocalizing to deliver any actual substance.”

Emphasizing theatrics over substance, may be an acceptable rhetorical device in sales, but a lot of folks expect meaningful and understandable content from the leader of the free world. Imagine the shock this week when Trump, after flying from Saudi Arabia to Tel Aviv, told a room of Israeli leaders that, “We just got back from the Middle East.” The smiling president thought he’d just delivered an applause line, but instead got a stunned reaction from an audience wondering how the guy who wants to broker a regional peace deal has no idea that Israel is in the Middle East.

In reporting on advance work for the president’s first trip abroad, Foreign Affairs said White House staff took precautions to protect their boss from verbal stumbles. Heads of state were advised to limit themselves to two-to-four minutes of discussion time, knowing how difficult it would be to hold Trump’s interest past that point. In an effort to keep him on script, Washington Monthly reported that aides tried to limit briefing notes to one page and inserted Trump’s name in every paragraph because, said a staffer, “he keeps reading it if he’s mentioned.”

Say what you want about George W. Bush, and there is a lot to say. Yet, nobody ever had to childproof his foreign trips.

THE WHITE HOUSE HELL WEEK THAT DOESN’T END

Even in a four month presidency that made Alice’s rabbit hole adventures look normal, last week was extraordinarily bizarre. The entire White House staff now understands what it was like in 1969 for those Woodstock revelers who ignored the warnings about the brown blotter acid.

Any other week, Vladimir Putin’s offer to share with Congress state secrets gleaned in an Oval Office meeting would have been hot, above-the-fold, front page news. But not last week. There was way too much competition. It started with the revelation that Trump disclosed highly confidential intelligence while showing off to Russian envoys. Then came the report that the Donald attempted to pull the FBI off its investigation of his former national security advisor, followed by a scoop about 18 undisclosed contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

By week’s end, we were reading about the appointment of a special prosecutor, a possible subpoena for a “person of interest” in the top echelon of the White House, and my personal favorite: Trump telling his Russian visitors that he fired the FBI director because he was “a real nut job”. Depending on the interpreter’s adeptness with pronouns, the Russian officials may have left the Oval Office a tad confused over who the nut job was, the president or the fired FBI guy. Alas, it didn’t really matter. In the context of last week’s totality, they, like the rest of us, were quite capable of figuring it out for themselves.

To quote a favorite cliché of Washington speech writers, “Make no mistake about it.” Last week was some kind of turning point for this country’s 45th president. The New York Times Roger Cohen: “All this is right out of Despotism 101.” The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: “Trump’s conduct further devolves into truly unhinged autocratic madness.” Conservative blogger Erick Erickson: “The sad reality is that the greatest defense of the president available at this point is one his team could never give on the record: He is an idiot who does not know any better.”

After such a dystopian week, it’s easy to fixate on the darkness, finding sweet solace only in thoughts of an impending impeachment. To that I offer two notes, one of caution and the other, oddly, of guarded optimism.

Here’s the caution part: Yes, the White House staff is pulling out the procedural files on impeachment. Most media outlets are running thumb-suckers on the subject. Still, it would be unwise to plan any Trump farewell parties just yet. Donald Trump does not possess the propensity to go gentle into Dylan Thomas’ good night. Most of us counted him out at least a dozen times before the election. His base is still chugging the Kool Aid. More importantly, Republicans control both houses of Congress. They may be disgusted and disheartened by Trump. They may even privately accept that he is brain dead. But they won’t take him off life support until they are certain such a move serves their political interests. Besides, impeachment hardly takes us out of dystopia. It merely gives us Mike Pence, a functioning-but-rabid right winger who has never met a human right he likes (here, here and here).

As for optimism, as guarded as it may be, the architecture of our 241-year-old democracy has so far succeeded admirably in restraining a severe assault from the first authoritarian strongman to hold the presidency. Trump’s election pumped new life into a long forgotten novel by Sinclair Lewis, “It Can’t Happen Here.” Written in 1935, as fascism was slowly taking its hold in Europe, Lewis wanted to wake up sanguine Americans to the realization that they were not immune to such a totalitarian takeover. Against the backdrop of a populist uprising called the “Forgotten Men,” Lewis’s antagonist, Berzelius Windrip, was elected president, largely on the Trump-like premise that he, alone, could solve the problems of the forgotten. Once in office, Windrip made three immediate moves that would have left Trump drooling. He strong-armed Congress into turning all decision-making power over to the president. Then he abolished the courts. Finally, he imprisoned reporters who wrote bad things about him.

Trump would trade Mar a Largo for that kind of power. As it stands, the Art of the Deal president hasn’t gotten one substantive bill through Congress. He has repeatedly railed at all the judges who have dared to block his travel ban and other executive orders. Among the morass of last week’s news stories was the revelation that Trump told the former FBI director that he wants to put journalists in jail. He has had one bromance after another with foreign authoritarian despots who have jailed or killed anyone who dared get in their way, including Russia’s Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte.

Thanks to our constitutional underpinnings, Donald Trump is only a wannabe dictator. Last week’s crazy chain of events showed that the system is working. As much as he’d like the Russian influence investigation to go away, it’s here to stay, complete with grand jury and subpoena powers. As much as he’d like to take over Congress, there are 535 ego-driven members there worrying much more about their reelections than his. And despite his fantasy of locking up reporters, Trump’s antics have fueled a revival in journalism that defies the business models of the struggling news outlets that employ them.

Although it is always reassuring to get even part way through a hurricane without the roof caving in, this storm is by no means over. Let us remain ever vigilant until the all-clear signal is given. Sinclair Lewis was right: it can happen here. We need to do everything possible to see that it doesn’t.

TRUMP’S FORGOTTEN PEOPLE ARE STILL FORGOTTEN

After a five-day binge of all things Trump and Comey, along comes this story about bad teeth to poignantly capture the essence of our current quagmire. Don’t get me wrong. The coverage of the White House’s latest cataclysmic adventure in governance has been compellingly entertaining. It’s not every day you get to watch the president’s aides frantically scramble to assemble a cover story for firing the FBI director, only to be upstaged by their boss’s declaration that he canned the guy because of the Russia investigation.

But a cracked molar brought it all home, a dental narrative that sadly and succinctly depicted a leaderless America that has lost its way. The Sunday Washington Post ran a front page story on the chronic tooth decay facing millions of the working poor who have neither the necessary insurance nor disposable income to maintain their dental health. The piece described a scene on a cold March morning on Maryland’s eastern shore. More than 1,000 people had huddled in blankets for up to 12 hours, waiting for a chance to get free dental care.

Dee Matello was in that line. She’s a small business owner, but has neither insurance nor budget for dentist bills. She told Post reporters that she’s had a cracked tooth for years. It causes constant pain, forcing her to chew on only one side of her mouth. She also said she was a strong Trump supporter because politicians stopped caring about people who work hard but can’t afford to take care of themselves.

“The country is way too divided between well-off people and people struggling for everything – even to see the dentist,” Matello told the Post. “And the worst part is, I don’t see a bridge to cross over to be one of those rich people.”

Trump, she said, was the only person talking about “the forgotten men and women of our country, people who work hard but don’t have a voice.” It was Trump, Matello recalled, who repeatedly said that he was running to be a voice for those people. She was particularly taken with his assurance that he would create a “wonderful” health care plan that would cost less and provide far more services than Obamacare.

As she shivered in line, waiting to get her tooth fixed, Matello shared her deep political disappointment with the Post. “I am hearing about a number of people who will lose their coverage under the new plan,” she said. “Is Trump the wolf in grandma’s clothes? My husband and I are now saying to each other, ‘Did we really vote for him?’”

More than any story since Trump’s inauguration, this rotting teeth article captures the depth and breadth of last fall’s electoral catastrophe. The daily headlines inundate us with the president’s buffoonery, his never-disappointing adeptness at accessing his ignorance. When I started writing this post, the Comey fiasco was on center stage. It was replaced two paragraphs ago with breaking news about Trump revealing top secret intelligence to Russian officials. But the dental care piece takes us beyond the purview of chaotic stage management, and gives us a direct view into the marrow of a critically wounded American life.

Working adults can’t afford to fix their teeth, and nobody in Washington is doing anything to help them. Those in the investor class, buoyed by a Trump-induced bull market, think nothing of spending thousands a year on cosmetic tooth whitening, while millions of hard-working Americans don’t make enough to pay for basic dentistry. These are the forgotten people, the downtrodden and heartbroken masses left behind by politicians beholden to the moneyed interests that put them in office.

Donald J. Trump was their last hope, an unlikely billionaire hero who took up their cause, spoke their language and promised to drain the swamp of the bought-and-paid-for Washington functionaries catering to the rich and powerful. They voted for him because their anger was his anger. They voted for him because he was wholly different than every slick, smooth-talking, glad-handing politician who came before him. They voted for him because he was going to blow Washington up and get them fantastic jobs and absolutely wonderful health insurance. The forgotten people would never be forgotten again.

Sadly, Trump has only delivered on half the promise. He has, indeed, blown up Washington. He shocked and stunned the FBI, pushed the intelligence community into a state of suspended animation and invoked paralysis on a Republican Congress totally transfixed on the most chaotic White House since Richard Nixon spent long alcoholic nights talking to the portraits of dead presidents.

As for the forgotten people, well, they were promptly forgotten by a president who had something far more important to consider: himself. Donald Trump was absolutely right when he promised never to be tied to special interests and outside influences. This is a man with absolutely no interests outside of himself. He can’t stop talking about his election, how many counties he carried, how remarkable his campaign was, how he got cheated out of the popular vote, how the whole Russian scandal seeks to delegitimize his humungous accomplishment.

The forgotten people? They are still waiting in line to have their teeth fixed. Some 24 million of them will lose health insurance under the House Republican bill that Trump supports but doesn’t understand. Millions more stand to lose job retraining opportunities under his proposed budget. Did he sell them out to special interests? No, not really. It’s just that his whole campaign was about him, not them. It was about his need to be loved and admired, to be seen as a truly remarkable person. He didn’t drain a swamp; he created a new one, a swamp filled with his own insatiable and grandiose ego needs. There is no room there for the forgotten people. Even if there was, this guy doesn’t have the skill or the chops to help them. He is far too busy pretending to be remarkable.

NIXON’S GHOST TO TRUMP: I WAS BETTER THAN YOU!

The nation’s toxic presidency just hit a new low. And I’m not talking about the firing of FBI Director James Comey. The administration’s rock bottom moment of the past 24 hours came when the Nixon Library told the news media to stop comparing Donald Trump to Richard Nixon.

Less than an hour after Comey’s discharge was announced, major news outlets posted sidebars recalling the “Saturday Night Massacre” of 1973. For those not yet on Social Security – and those recipients with memory loss – here’s a quick scorecard from that October Saturday of 44 years ago: Slowly sinking from the Watergate break-in scandal, Nixon ordered his attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to fire Archibald Cox, who was then leading the independent Watergate investigation. Richardson refused the president’s order and resigned. Nixon then passed the order to the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus, who also refused to fire Cox and resigned. That put Robert Bork, then solicitor general, in charge of the justice department. Bork carried out Nixon’s discharge order. Two days later the bumper stickers were out: “Impeach the Cox Sacker.” Ten months later, with impeachment proceedings underway, Richard Nixon resigned the presidency.

So, as the inevitable comparisons between Trump’s and Nixon’s motives to fire their investigators surfaced last night, this tweet, with the hashtag “notNixonian”, was sent out by the Richard Nixon Library: “President Nixon never fired the Director of the FBI.” You know you are in trouble when the ghost of Richard Nixon distances himself from you. In fairness to both sides of this intense Worst President Ever competition, it should be noted that Nixon didn’t have to fire his FBI director. J. Edgar Hoover died in sleep in May of 1972.

Although an obvious and inviting comparison, the 1973 “massacre” was not the first Nixonian image that jumped into my head as the Comey story broke. Instead, it was Nixon’s dogged insistence, expressed in a five word sentence at a November 17, 1973 news conference.

Here’s what Nixon said: “I am not a crook.”

Here’s what Trump wrote to Comey: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.”

In Nixon’s case, when a president is compelled to say he is not a crook, you can be pretty sure he is a crook. In Trump’s case, when a president is compelled to say he is not under FBI investigation, you know darn well he is under FBI investigation.

The most amazing aspect of this latest piece of Trump theater, is the president’s innate inability to follow his own script. Here’s how it was supposed to go: They get a nonpartisan, career deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, two weeks into the job, to write a memo recommending Comey’s discharge based on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Trump sycophant, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, concurs with his deputy’s recommendation, setting the stage for the Donald to fire Comey on the basis of a Clinton investigation that Clinton believes put Trump in the White House.

Get it? The key storyline of this script is that the discharge is wholly apolitical; it’s all about integrity and good government. That’s why he’s firing the guy who messed up his opponent’s investigation. Okay, so it’s not the most believable scenario in the world; it was still their script, crafted in an inexperienced writers room, where everyone figured that Democrats would welcome Comey’s Clinton-linked firing because they blame him for her election loss. Of course, days earlier, according to the New York Times, Comey asked the Justice Department for additional funds for the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and a possible link to the Trump campaign. But that would be omitted from the script. This was about how badly the FBI guy bungled the Clinton matter. Just stick to that storyline and the public will be none the wiser. Then the star had to go and improvise. Badly. He had to throw in that seemingly non sequitur of a phrase, “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation. . .” before telling the guy he is fired.

Early in my journalism career, I covered small town and village governments. There wasn’t a staff member in any of them who would have allowed a script like this to be performed. And there certainly wasn’t a mayoral aide who would have allowed their boss to allude to the very subject you are trying to avoid in discharging a department head. In a city of 20,000 people, political pros knew about optics, audience reaction and how to manage both. Those basics are either totally missing in this White House or are being ignored by a president who seems perpetually wired to deliver messages that go against his own interest.

Trump was madly tweeting this morning about Democrats who couldn’t stand Comey expressing outrage over his discharge. It was as if he really anticipated a Palm Sunday reception from the opposition for firing the point guy on the Russian interference investigation. The unanticipated blowback was so bad for the administration that Kellyanne Conway was released from the Witness Protection Program to run interference. She insisted to reporters last night that Comey was fired because Trump had “lost confidence in him,” not because of the Russian investigation. Think about that for a while. Based on what we know about this president, God help us all if we end up with a director of the FBI who has Trump’s confidence.

AFTER 100 DAYS OF TRUMP: NO MORE, PLEASE!

After reading way too many stories about Trump’s first hundred days, it dawned on me that a vital angle of this analytic ritual was missing. Here’s the real question: how have the rest of us coped with 100 days of the Orangeman in the White House? Forget about how the Donald performed. None of us needed a hundred days to figure that one out. When the shock of election night hit, we knew this wasn’t going to be pretty. America had elected everyone’s crazy uncle, a creepy old cuss who says weird stuff, a guy with a 75-word vocabulary and an attention span shorter than his fingers.

Yet, Donald J. Trump, the most unlikely of presidents, has changed our lives in ways small and large, like no other political figure has. For example, people are:

• FREAKING OUT. Remember when we longed for November 9, thinking that our nightmare would finally end? It had just begun. Now we had to accept the reality that our new commander in chief was an accused sexual predator whose foreign policy promise was to “bomb the shit out of them. . . . I’d blow up the pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, I’d blow up every single inch, there would be nothing left.” Understandably, the first 100 days of Trump threw most of the country into high anxiety. In an updated version of Joseph Heller’s “Catch 22”, you had to be nuts not to go insane over this presidency. Doctors noted a sharp increase of patients experiencing Trump-related high blood pressure, chest tightness and gastrointestinal distress. Psychotherapists in all parts of the country reported soaring caseloads of patients with severe anxiety and depression over the new White House occupant. (Here, here and here.) Many, according to one psychologist quoted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, complained of “insomnia and a dark, permeating sense of fear and powerlessness.” Most large city public school systems have established hot lines and counseling services for students upset by daily Trump news, particularly those from minority, LGBT and immigrant groups.

• RESISTING. Trump has motivated more sustained protests since the Vietnam War and civil rights days of the 1960s. Folks who have never marched before are hitting the streets regularly on behalf of women, LGBT rights, science, Muslims, immigrants, workers, the disabled and a score of other issues. A week has not passed since the inauguration without numerous demonstrations. Much of the resistance’s organizing and advance work is being done by volunteers who had not been politically active before Trump. “To have a sustained (protest), every weekend, every couple of days, and it’s a different issue – I’ve never seen anything like this before,” David Meyer, a sociology professor at University of California-Irvine told CNN. The resistance even managed to launch the first protest in space last month when the Autonomous Space Agency Network floated an anti-Trump banner 90,000 feet into the stratosphere.

• LAUGHING. The Donald has given comedians their first bull market since George W. Bush and his malapropisms moved back to Texas. Alec Baldwin’s career has surged through his Saturday Night Live Trump impressions. Comedy Central hired its own presidential impersonator and launched a weekly parody. Thanks to his acerbic anti-Trump bits, Stephen Colbert rose from the ashes of the late night talk show wars to overtake Jimmy Fallon, who never overcame his pre-election tousling of Trump’s hair. Just a week ago, there was fear and trembling over a potential writers strike and what it would have meant for an anxious nation dependent on a nightly dose of presidential humor. Not to worry. With this president, comedy writers are a superfluous luxury. All these producers need is the original transcript of the president’s words. If he’s not kicking off Black History Month by referring to Fredrick Douglas in the present tense, he’s declaring that Andrew Jackson opposed the Civil War 16 years after he died. Donald Trump is his own parody. Still, when he calls North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a “smart cookie”, or invites his Philippine murderous counterpart, Rodrigo Duterte, to the White House, we’d all sleep better at night if those lines had been delivered by Alec Baldwin. Humor is more fun when it doesn’t have adverse consequences.

• CONSUMING NEWS. Despite Trump’s relentless war against the mainstream media, – or maybe because of it – there has been an unprecedented stampede for news about what this president is doing. In the three weeks after the election, the New York Times added a whopping 132,000 digital subscribers. Then, in the first quarter of 2017, it picked up another 308,000 net new subscriptions. The Washington Post has added more than 60 newsroom jobs this year, an unheard of number in this era of editorial retrenchment. At least six of those positions will be used on a “rapid response” investigative team covering Trump and national news. Television news continues to enjoy record ratings, largely due to an intense interest in what Trump is up to.

Of the 11.6 million articles written about Trump’s first 100 days, my favorite came from the distinguished dean of the conservative punditry, the Washington Post’s George F. Will. He began with: “It is urgent for Americans to think and speak clearly about President Trump’s inability to do either.” Will then makes the case that Trump has a “dangerous disability”, and needs to be quarantined. He writes: “His fathomless lack of interest in America’s path to the present and his limitless gullibility leave him susceptible to being blown about by gusts of factoids that cling like lint to a disorderly mind.”

Nothing captures the first 100 days of Trump better than that. As for the rest of us, let’s keep resisting and laughing as much as possible. There are 13.5 additional hundred-day periods left in this administration. I’m pretty sure that at the end of each of them, the lint in that disorderly mind will still be blowing in the gusting wind of factoids.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN WHO SEXUALLY HARASS

The sexual harassment geezerhood is finally enduring some tough days, though hardly tough enough. From Bill Cosby to Bill O’Reilly, these dirty old men have the mental acuity of that Japanese soldier who spent 29 years on an island in the Pacific refusing to accept that World War II had ended. How else do you explain a guy like O’Reilly, 26 years after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill episode, allegedly telling a subordinate that he’d like to rub her vagina with a falafel?

Headlines over the last six months have clearly established that you are never too old for sexual predation. Roger Ailes, the 76-year-old former Fox News CEO, faced sexual harassment accusations from more than 20 women who had worked for him. The initial case had been filed by former Fox Anchor Gretchen Carlson. She settled for $20 million. Ailes lost his job, but walked away with $40 million. O’Reilly, Fox’s 67-year-old star commentator, bit the dust a few days ago, on the heels of a New York Times investigation showing that the company had paid out $13 million to settle sexual harassment suits against him. Fox finally fired him and gave him $25 million. See the mathematical pattern here? Under Fox’s “Fair & Balanced” notion of distributive justice, there is approximately twice as much money distributed to the harassers than there is to the harassed.

Then there’s Cosby, 79, allegedly the Golden Arches of sexual abuse, with – at last count – 58 women drugged and violated. With an estimated net worth of $400 million, the former comedian has assembled a top notch legal and PR team to help him issue repeated denials, just as Ailes and O’Reilly have done. It remains to be seen how well his money was spent. Jury selection begins May 22 in a Norristown, PA court where Cosby faces sexual assault charges.

There is, of course, one prominent septuagenarian in this aging pack of sexual predators who has lost neither fame nor employment from extending his reach beyond the bounds of decency. That would be Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States of America. According to statisticians who track these things, the commander in chief has been accused of sexual assault and/or harassment by 15 women since 1980. A number of those suits remain active.

You might think that dodging the sexual assault bullet, at least for now, would prompt Trump to keep his distance from less fortunate fellow perpetrators. Just the opposite. Trump has served as a highly placed sexual harassment consultant to all of them. For example, drawing on his own approach of castigating, insulting and threatening to sue his accusers, the Donald was dumbfounded that Cosby was using a passive, reticent defense. Here’s what he told the E Channel: “. . . he should say something because he is being accused of terrible things,” Trump said. “And to have absolutely no comment ― I think he’s getting very bad advice from a PR standpoint.”

The president’s role with Ailes and O’Reilly was more breathtaking. He participated in meetings and conference calls with Ailes leading to the $40 million buyout. Early in the O’Reilly quagmire, after numerous sexual harassment accusations surfaced, President Trump declared that O’Reilly “is a good person,” He told the New York Times, “I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.” As president, Trump leads the executive branch, including the agency that handles sexual harassment cases, making his comments a most extraordinary verbal pardon.

Given his coziness with Fox News and its former accused sex offenders, Trump has managed to make one positive and deliciously ironic contribution to the battle against sexual harassment. His behavior is being held out as an example of what not to do in the workplace. According to the Hollywood Reporter, 21st Century Fox, parent of Fox News, is using the infamous Trump “grab-them-by-the-pussy” Access Hollywood tape in human resource training on sexual harassment. In the 2005 recording, Trump is heard boasting that he gets by forcing himself on women because he is famous. Although the revelation didn’t keep Trump from being elected, HR trainers hope the president’s abhorrent conduct will be a reminder for employees on how not to behave.

As much as I’d like to believe that the well-financed fall of two Fox giants represents a cultural sea change for sexual harassment victims, I’m afraid such an assessment is far off the mark. Experts in this field say most people who experience sexual harassment at work don’t come forward out of fear, of losing their jobs, not being believed, how they will look to their family and friends. Gretchen Carlson, a former Miss America making seven figures as a top on-air performer says she kept silent for years out of fear. Think of what it must be like for a minimum wage bank teller or grocery clerk.

Sexual harassment at work is an offense of power. It’s about powerful men (mostly) taking what they want because they can. The revelations about Ailes and O’Reilly didn’t just pop up. Fox spent years and millions of dollars quietly settling litigation with nondisclosure clauses. The company’s business plan was to pay whatever it had to for the sexual harassment by men they saw as profit centers. The strategy was jettisoned only when the harassment costs grew more expensive, including the loss of 50-some advertisers and a possible disruption of Fox Cochairman Rupert Murdoch’s plan to purchase a lucrative British satellite television operation.

And therein lies the lesson from this whole sordid affair. The eradication of sexual harassment will come only when offending employers are hit hard in the pocketbook, much harder than they are now. CEOs would have a quick come-to-Jesus moment on this issue if the EEOC had the authority to levy eight or nine figure fines, on top of punitive damages. Don’t count on that happening anytime soon, not with an unabashed sexual harasser in the White House.

BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR AS SEASON 1 OF TRUMP’S REALITY SHOW DRAWS TO A CLOSE

As the 100-day presidential gestation ritual draws to a close, nothing could be finer than a good old shit-kicking bombing in Syria. “Absolutely beautiful,” said MSNBC’s Brian Williams as he watched video of the missile attack. At CNN, Fareed Zakaria fawned over the man who calls his station the headquarters of “fake news”, declaring that those 59 cruise missiles finally made Trump a real president. Had The Donald known that before the election, he could have bombed California, won the popular vote and looked presidential.

The post-inauguration story line, although bizarrely compelling and borderline fantastical, has been mostly horizontal. Trump says crazy stuff that bears no resemblance to reality, signs executive orders in the presence of white men wearing drab suits, tweets up a storm, and then gets up the next day and does it all over again, rinse and repeat. The narrative has been lacking in significant curvature. There is no arc there, no story routing that takes the protagonist from exposition, upward in rising action, then a climax, a descent through falling action and, eventually, resolution. It happens on “House of Cards” all the time. We saw it frequently with former president Obama. He evolved from an inexperienced junior senator who wrestled his party’s nomination away from an entrenched heavyweight, into a progressive visionary with superhero powers, and then, once elected, fell all the way down to mere mortal status, unable to get his agenda past the Republicans. Finally, Obama disengaged from those ashes and moved the country leftward with style and grace. Those are the kinds of arcs that keep contented smiles on the faces of political writers. The ideology is irrelevant; it’s the ebb and flow of the story line that matters.

Alas, Trump is to conventional story telling what reality television is to a dramatic series. Most of the Trump Land characters – especially the star – are marginally interesting, but lack both cohesive motivation and growth potential. The dialogue is less scintillating than what you might overhear in a dentist’s office. The actions of the various players seem almost unrelated to each other. Still, this reality show of a presidency produces some terrific bits.

Nothing from Beckett’s or Ionesco’s best absurdist works could top Trump’s recent chocolate cake scene. In case you missed it, the commander in chief was dining with Chinese President Xi Xinping at Mar a Largo when the missiles hit Syria. It was the dessert course. Trump, in a later retelling to a Fox News reporter, described the offering on the plates of these two world leaders as “the most beautiful piece(s) of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen.” He went on, in great detail, like he was doing a Martha Stewart guest shot. Here is Trump telling the story: “I said (to President Xi) we’ve just launched 59 missiles heading to Iraq and I wanted you to know this. And he was eating his cake. And he was silent.” Whoops. The president – ours, not China’s – misspoke. It was Syria he had bombed, not Iraq. But the cake really was chocolate. And beautiful. That much, Trump got right.

So here’s where we are as this presidency’s Hundred Day Clock ticks down: 59 missiles dropped on Syria (not Iraq), the unfortunately named “mother of all bombs” dropped on Afghanistan, and U.S. warships stationed in the Korean Peninsula. Well, make that now headed to the Korean Peninsula. As North Korea paraded its collection of phallic-shaped artillery, teasing the West with its emerging nuclear capabilities, the White House announced it had dispatched warships to the area and was all done with “strategic patience”. (In reality, neither of those words – strategic or patience – has ever had a home in the Trump White House.) Turns out, according to today’s breaking news, that the warships were 3,500 miles from the Korean Peninsula, taking part in exercises with the Australian navy, even though Trump insisted they were right there on North Korea’s heels, as leverage against nuclear chicanery. Another whoops moment.

If you squint hard enough, you can almost see a conventional story arc here. Trump’s inaugural speech painted a picture of a new America First, isolationist administration. Ninety days later, he’s ready to bomb everything except the chocolate cake. His secretary of state, however, insists nothing has changed and that the president is as anti-interventionist as ever.

Meanwhile, Vice President Mike Pence pulled the format back to reality TV level, sounding very much like a professional wrestler, name-dropping the Syrian and Afghanistan bombings in warning North Korea not to mess with his tag team partner, the Trumper. In the other corner, is that country’s Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, a NBA fanatic with his own strongman track record that includes the execution of his uncle and extended family. Think how much safer we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis with Kennedy and Khrushchev at the table. The current showdown is so alarming, Russia and China are trying to calm both sides down.

Back in the ‘60s, during my formative years of high school debate, the national subject was nuclear disarmament. I remember arguing that the effectiveness of mutual assured destruction was limited to sane, rational leaders and meant nothing to crazy despots. I can still hear the shrieky, pubescent voice of my opponent in one tournament, all dolled up in his private boys’ school uniform, as he tore into my argument. “Preposterous and speculative,” he insisted. “I demand that the affirmative team point to one modern national leader who would ever be reckless with nuclear power.” Well, smarty pants, it’s taken me 50 years to answer your question. See that orange tinted man shoveling chocolate cake into his mouth? That would be Exhibit A. And that short Korean guy with a bad haircut, holding a Dennis Rodman bobble head doll? Exhibit B.

There is only one thing we can count on right now. This reality show will not end with a rose.

LET’S BUILD A WALL AROUND NORTH CAROLINA TO PROTECT THE REST OF US

True to my stereotypical Minnesota-Scandinavian roots, I’m a pretty laid back guy. I don’t spend much time wallowing in anger. But North Carolina is really pissing me off. (Stop now, sports trolls; I’m not talking about the Final Four). This is about the Final One Hundred and Seventy, the idiots who make up the state’s general assembly. Wait, my math is wrong. Make it 171 Tar Heel bozos, 170 in the general assembly, and the poorest excuse for a “reform” governor since the likes of George Wallace and Lester Maddox.

There are, to be sure, some kind, intelligent, even wonderful people in North Carolina. They just don’t get elected to public office. The result is a disastrous déjà vu of barbarically fascist legislation and a human rights record that rivals Syria’s.

Just a year ago, then-Governor Pat McCrory courageously ventured out on a political limb in order to strip away the dignity and basic rights of LGBT people. The general assembly passed, and a smiling governor signed, what came to be known as the Bathroom Bill. The law’s original intent was to make transgender folks use a public restroom based on their birth certificates. That meant, for example, that a 35-year-old buxom woman with long flowing blond hair, in a clinging dress and stiletto heels, must hobble into a men’s room if she was identified as a male at birth. Stunned commentators at the time envisioned a genitalia monitor for every stall. But the law was even more abhorrent. Fully transitioned lady and man parts didn’t matter; toilet venue was based solely on whether the M or F box was checked at birth.

Of course, North Carolina lawmakers never think small when it comes to obnoxiousness. Disgusted with renegade liberals on the Charlotte City Council, and their audacity to pass an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification, the legislation expanded to retroactively revoke the authority of cities to ban discrimination. It was much more than a bathroom bill. It was a mandate to discriminate against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

The rest of the world reacted in horror, spurring economic boycotts by corporations, entertainers and athletic groups. According to one estimate, good old North Carolina homophobia and transphobia were on track to cost the state $3.7 billion over a span of 12 years. That quickly translated into political problems. Most of the state’s voters could have lived with the discrimination, but they had no hankering to pay that kind of money for it. McCrory, the Republican governor who championed the law, was defeated in November by Democrat Roy Cooper, who promised to get the measure repealed.

In a hyper-technical sense, Cooper, and a new session of the state’s general assembly, pulled off that repeal last week. And then simultaneously replaced it with an equally atrocious law. Up against a NCAA deadline to either dump the law or face a continued boycott, the state’s lawmakers pulled a quick sleight of hand by ditching one bad law and adopting another. As a result, there is now a moratorium on any anti-discrimination protections for LGBT folks through 2020. The new law prohibits cities and counties from banning such discrimination.

Governor Cooper, the Democrat elected on the promise of cleaning this mess up, sheepishly issued this baffling understatement: the “compromise was not a perfect deal or my preferred solution.” No shit, Sherlock. He runs for governor as a savior for human rights and then signs a bill banning them for more than three years. That’s no compromise. It’s a complete capitulation to right wing nut jobs who want it all: an end to the boycotts and continued discrimination.

It obviously never occurred to the governor that he was bargaining from a position of strength. He didn’t win the election because of his opponent’s anti-gay-and-trans views. He won because the state got hit hard economically over the legislation. The NBA pulled its all-star game out of Charlotte. The NCAA canceled games and threatened to withhold years of events from the state. Numerous corporations pulled back on plans to build or expand in North Carolina. Hundreds of entertainers refused to perform there, including: Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Cyndi Lauper, Maroon 5 and Itzhak Perlman. This was a fight, brilliantly guided by the Human Rights Campaign, that cost North Carolina hundreds of millions of dollars and greatly diminished the quality of North Carolina life.

A governor committed to human rights for all would have vetoed the sham repeal and, if overridden, let the boycott continue. Obviously, the majority of assembly members need to feel more heat before they can see the wisdom in doing the right thing. Hopefully, the NCAA, the NBA and other corporate and entertainment forces will continue to stay clear of this state until that happens.

This is what it is like in Donald Trump’s America where the federal government leaves human rights up to the states. Protection from discrimination should not be legislated by zip code. But that is exactly what is happening as a result of Trump putting state’s rights above human rights. Just this year, legislators in 16 states have filed two dozen bills to scale back legal protections for transgender people. Nonsense has a way of spreading, making the continued boycott even more essential.

North Carolina lawmakers are not apt to see the error of their ways without pressure. After all, this is the only state in the country with a law that prohibits cotton growers from using elephants to plow their fields. Of course, the state was fine with purchased black people doing the same thing, and even fought a war to keep those slaves in the cotton fields. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of elephants’ rights, but humans need them too.

TRUMP’S REAL ART OF THE DEAL: DON’T NEGOTIATE, BLOVIATE

One of the biggest boasts behind last fall’s election died suddenly last week. Now buried in the Republican Graveyard of Wishful Thinking is the congenitally defective assertion that Donald Trump is a master negotiator.

“There’s going to be health insurance for everybody,” the new president declared in January, insisting it will cost far less than it does now. Asked how Trump could be so confident of those claims, his resident sycophant, Sean Spicer, had a quick-but-ludicrous answer: “He knows how to negotiate great deals.”

Nothing is ever final in Washington, but hopefully the Republican healthcare debacle of 2017 has forever put an end to the utter foolishness that Donald Trump is a world class negotiator. The guy huffed and puffed his way through real estate sales, insulting, assaulting or suing anyone who got in his way. That’s not a skillset that translates into effective leadership on the world stage.

Yet, there is this lingering myth, a distorted caricature, of what an effective negotiator looks like, and the composite, unfortunately, bears a strong resemblance to guys like Trump: a loud, brash, boorish, bullying slug who pounds the table while lobbing loud threats and insults. The archetype represents an archaic bargaining style that was occasionally effective in limited circumstances involving one-shot transactions and no ongoing relationship. It has absolutely no application to resolving conflict with Congress or foreign leaders.

Here, thanks to Politico’s reporting, is all you have to know to conclude that President Donald J. Trump is a terrible negotiator: In a last ditch effort to change the minds of conservative House Republicans, Trump The Closer summoned the 30-some members of the Freedom Caucus to the Cabinet Room of the White House.

Although these folks had been a thorn in House Speaker Paul Ryan’s side, they liked Trump and were excited about the opportunity to get the president to make some changes in the healthcare bill in exchange for their support. They thought they could deal with him. After all, he knew how to negotiate. So they laid out their problems and sent some clear signals about what needed to be changed and why it mattered to them. And here is what the master negotiator told them: “Forget about the little shit. Let’s focus on the big picture here.” The “big picture”, Trump told them, was that the bill’s failure could imperil his reelection chances in 2020. Self-absorption might have served The Donald well in his mogul life, but it’s one of the worst traits a negotiator can bring to the table.

I don’t profess to be an expert on legislative negotiations but, over a career of more than 30 years, I helped bargain hundreds of contracts in the news industry. In order to get a deal, I had to know everything I could about the little shit. I wallowed in the little shit because somewhere in all that excrement was a key that would unlock the door to settlement. Obviously, I had to know what was important to our side, but I also needed to know management’s issues and what it needed in an agreement. That was the only route to a resolution that would have value for both sides.

Most negotiations are long and drawn out. Arguments are repeated ad nauseam, and it often appears that agreement will never be reached. There are, however, rare moments when the parties tire of the conflict and really want a deal. A good negotiator knows how to recognize those moments and seize them. Trump had that opportunity in the meeting with the Freedom Caucus and he totally blew it. Not only that, he blew it for the worst reason imaginable: he didn’t understand any of the issues. He acknowledged he was “not up on everything” in the bill. Hardly the mark of a master negotiator.

In his much touted book, “The Art of the Deal”, Trump offers this pearl of wisdom on his style of conflict resolution: “I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.” If he doesn’t get what he wants, he says he walks away and gets it someplace else. That might work for building casinos and hotels, but it’s a recipe for disaster in government. Trump views a negotiation as a zero-sum transaction, one that produces a winner and a loser. Virtually all of the academic literature on effective dispute resolution rejects that approach (here, here and here). Effective negotiating in an ongoing relationship – which is to say 95% of all negotiations – means doing the very things Trump disdains. For example: show respect for the other side; never lie; forget about an “amazing” deal so you can focus on getting one that works for all sides; try to overcome mistrust; find a way to let everyone win a little; and help your adversary save face if they back down on an issue.

Obviously, those of us appalled at the prospect of 24 million Americans losing health insurance, can find easy solace in the president’s incompetence as a negotiator. Sadly, the feeling won’t last long. If this guy can’t find common ground with members of his own party, what happens when he takes on Iran, North Korea, China , or other hot spots? With a bag of tricks consisting of aiming high, pushing and walking out when you don’t get your way, don’t count on world peace anytime soon.