Monthly Archives: June 2019

Tweet Baby Flames

Unable to sleep Thursday night, I began surfing late night talk shows.  There were all the usual suspects–Steven Colbert, the two Jimmy’s Kimmel and Fallon and Conan O’Brien followed by Seth Meyers and James Corden.  “Surfing” is not exactly what you would call it.  More like “speed dating” as no monologue, routine or guest captured my attention for more than a couple of minutes. Oh, did I ever miss Corden’s predecessor Craig Ferguson.

Image result for craig ferguson secretariat and geoff petersonIf wasn’t the two interns in the Secretariat horse costume.  Or his animatronic sidekick Geoff Peterson, operated and voiced by celebrity impersonator Josh Robert Thompson.  It was the fact Ferguson did not tell jokes, he told stories.  Whether during the opening monologue or sitting in the host’s chair with his feet up on his desk, this Scottish born naturalized U.S. citizen had your attention as he methodically wended his way from set-up to punchline.

This is never more evident than when he hits the road with his periodic one-man shows.  My wife and I experienced this in 2010 when Ferguson came to Cincinnati on his “Does This Need to Be Said” tour.  The set-up came in the first minute.

 I wanna try something I don’t normally do. Um, I’m gonna try and tell you a joke. I know what you’re thinkin’.
“Oh, Craig, come on.
“Not a joke!
“Not from you, Craig! There’s professional comedians for that kind of thing.
“Not a joke from you, Craig. From you, we want tales of the old country,
“Craig. Tell us about the time you lived in the swamp with Shrek. Tell us about that! What was that like, Craig?”

For the next 90 minutes, Ferguson promises he’s going to get to the joke but time after time self-diverts with, you guessed it, tales of the old country, what it’s like to choose a Yankee aristocrat to be his third wife or how he thinks Shrek voice-over Mike Meyers makes a living plagiarizing Ellen Degeneres’ material.  “New Craig” is pulled from the shelves and replaced with “Classic Craig.”

But if you’re patient, VERY, VERY patient the payoff is worth it.  The joke is about a simple lesson everyone needs to learn.  But even then you have one more set-up.

People are not meaner than they used to be. People have always been assholes, except you guys. But they… But they are, and people are not meaner. What happens is the technology is just faster. It’s just faster. What happens is, you have this crazy idea, And there’s a crazy, angry thought, and you’re like, “I’ve got a crazy, angry thought.” Tickety-Tick, tick, tick, boom! And it’s out. And you don’t have time.

And here it comes.  The joke.  The next two sentences as clear (and a bit as blue) as a cloudless sky.

You don’t have time to slow down and self-edit and ask yourself the three things you must always ask yourself before you say anything, which is, “does this need to be said? “Does this need to be said by me? Does this need to be said by me now?” Three fucking marriages it took me to learn that.

As Ferguson began that fall night in 2010, “I know what you’re thinkin’.” Damn it, Dr. ESP, get to the point.  You’re asking, “Why did you just spend so much time telling us about Craig Ferguson?  Where is this going?”  See, it works.

It was something Bill Maher said to George Will last night on HBO’s “Real Time.”  The conservative columnist has just released a new book titled The Conservative Sensibility, which chastises both parties for ignoring the basic tenets within the Constitution.  Not surprisingly, Maher admitted he disagreed with much of Will’s thesis, but praised the author for having presented his arguments in a way that forced him to rethink why he differed in opinion.  And then he asked, “Don’t you get frustrated when you spend so much time making a cogent argument and people don’t buy into it?”  Will’s response, “Books still matter.”

Later in the show, several of the panelists admitted they do not use Twitter.  The underlying reason being serious dialogue does not occur in 280 character segments.  Which is why more and more truly talented individuals–actors, writers, musicians–have abandoned the platform, leaving it to those with no talent other than promoting their own celebrity.

I have twice signed up for a Twitter account.  And twice I have abandoned it.  For the same reasons Craig Ferguson needs 90 minutes to tell a story or deliver a narrative disguised as a joke.  As I was preparing this post, I went back to a feature on WordPress called “drafts.”  These are blog entries which I started but never finished or published.  Sometimes it is the content, seemingly less important than when I began to flesh it out.  Often I am personally uncomfortable being the messenger.  Or maybe the timing just isn’t right.  In other words:

Does this need to be said!
Does it need to be said by me!
Does it need to be said by me NOW!

Thanks Craig, for having reminded us to think before we post and never to let writing become a lost art. It still matters.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

A Fair Shake (and a side of fries)

 

[UPDATE:  I began drafting this post on Tuesday, June 11, largely in response to images of the unrest in Hong Kong as Beijing seems to be reneging on its commitment to that special administrative region’s political autonomy following British transfer in 1997.  In light of Thursday’s overnight news of attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, I realize the message is not solely one of alliances among nations with mutual interests but one of contrast between the haves and have-nots.]

Should Ray Kroc be posthumously nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Related imageIn his 1999 book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman makes the following observation. Since McDonald’s international expansion, there had not been a war between two nations in which local residents could get a Big Mac or Egg McMuffin. It is hard to tell if that is still true, especially when post-1999 expansion includes foreign outlets in places like Iraq, where the Golden Arches marquee appeared in 2006, largely to serve deployed U.S. soldiers.

If this was a causal relationship, our federal government could dramatically decrease defense spending by investing in fast food restaurants in North Korea and Iran (where the last McDonald’s closed in 1979 following the Islamic revolution) rather than new weapon systems. Create a “military/intestinal complex.” Under this strategy, McDonald’s choice of locations is a modern day tribute to Willie Sutton, where banks have become countries where, instead of money, the currency is paying customers.  For the record, the threshold appears to be Andorra where five franchises serve a consumer base of approximately 75,000 residents.

If this theory is more than a “Kroc,” the Dr. ESP corollary states, “The strength of U.S. bilateral alliances should be directly related to the number of Mickey D outlets in the partner nation.”  In which case, China comes in second with over 2,700 franchises compared to #1 Japan, home of the クォーターパウンダー(translated Quarter Pounder) with 2,975 and #3 Germany (1,480),  #4 Canada (1,450) and #5 France (1,419).  [GASTRONOMICAL NOTE: The most popular menu item in Japan is the “satokohda” or “cheese tsukimi burger,” two slices of bacon, over-easy fried egg, ketchup and mayo, cheddar cheese and a chicken patty on a sesame seed bun.]

Of course, one could argue it is just a coincidence the three countries with the highest gross domestic product (GDP) are (drum roll) #1 the United States, #2 China and #3 Japan.  Or look at the imperial behavior of the current G-7 members–Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan the United Kingdom and the United States.  Since it’s formation in response to the 1973 oil crisis, none of the members of this “group of seven” have launched a preemptive strike against another sovereign nation with one exception, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. (American exceptionalism?)

Image result for mayor mccheesePerhaps, it’s not Mayor McCheese who is keeping the peace.  As mentioned above, the global location of McDonald’s franchise has more to do with disposable consumer income than the tastes or dietary habits of the location’s residents.  In other words, when you have a functional economy which, for the most part, serves both domestic purposes and international financial transactions, why would you put that at risk?  In fact, it would seem to make more sense to develop joint trade and intellectual property agreements which ensure continued stability and success.

Which brings me to the U.S./China trade war.  According to the latest data provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the combined GDP of the United States and China is $37 trillion dollars (US/21.4; China/15.6), more than the sum of the next 17 national economies.  The last thing Americans should want is a major downturn in the Chinese economy, especially at a time when the Chinese government faces a growing political confrontation with Hong Kong.  A wounded China is much more dangerous than a financially healthy one.

There is another option.  The model for future U.S./China relations surfaced in 1975 when Doug Chamberlain, a student at Adrian College coined a word which describes “conflict over how to divide up the benefits produced by cooperation.”  That word was “coopetition.”  Beginning in the 1980’s, it became the modus operandi of the emerging high-tech industry in Silicon Valley.  Representatives from competing firms would meet regularly in formal settings or socially after work.  The topic of conversation?  If we can grow the industry as a whole, there will be plenty of profits for all of us.  In colloquial terms, together we can bake a bigger pie, and everyone will get a larger slice.

Now, take a look at the flip side, the have-nots.  According to the IMF, Russian GDP currently stands at $1.8 trillion, less than a tenth of the U.S.  Iran’s is at $413 billion.  North Korea’s is estimated at $40 billion.  You might call this national income inequality.  And what do we know about behavior when people face desperate economic conditions.  They start to look outside legal sources of income.  They covet what others have and want “their fair share.”  They steal property (Russian appropriation of Crimea).  They extort (Iran threats to close Straits of Hormuz or North Korean development of nuclear weapons).

Maybe it’s Bob Dylan, not Ray Kroc who should be honored in Oslo.  I know, he already has been.  But this time for economics and peace, not literature.  In his 1962 classic “Like a Rolling Stone,” Bob Dylan laid out the unified theory of economics and militarism, “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Sitting on Tarp of the World

 

It’s been 17 days since Donald Trump was protected from seeing anything associated with the USS John S. McCain during his trip to Japan.  I know, that is a lifetime ago in this misdirection du jour political environment.  But, the fact a commander-in-chief’s mental equilibrium could be thrown off by merely viewing the name of the Senator he blames for taking away his ability to deprive millions of American of health insurance is laughable.  If it were not so serious.  But not for the reason, politicization of the military, raised by most critics, reporters and pundits.

While we should be concerned  someone requested the Navy move the destroyer outside Trump’s field of vision, the larger significance of this episode is the way Trump tried to deflect any responsibility.  Whether intentional or not, it should be considered a beta test of Trump’s likely defense if and when we see an un-redacted version of the Mueller Report or the House Judiciary Committee begins impeachment proceedings.  And, although you are not going to like it, my guess is he will be successful.

On May 30, Trump was asked about the incident during a a White House lawn gaggle.  After denying he knew anything about it, he let the cat out of the bag.

I was not a big fan of John McCain in any shape or form. Now, somebody did it because they thought I didn’t like him, okay? And they were well-meaning.

The sequence of this statement is important.  First, he reaffirmed his public disdain for the deceased Senator.  Second, everyone knows that.  Third, someone was just trying to please me.

Fast forward to the next day when we first got to see a transcript of a November 22, 2017 voice message from Trump’s defense lawyer John Dowd to Michael Flynn’s counsel Rob Kelner.  It suggests two things.  First, Trump’s implication in any wrongdoing would be a national security issue (not true) and Flynn should not forget the president still has feelings for him (whatever that means).  Impeachment enthusiasts were quick to jump on the voice message as evidence of obstruction of justice.  Trying to cloak executive malfeasance as a classified, national security matter was exactly what Nixon asked of the CIA during Watergate.  And the “my guy likes your guy, wink, wink” constituted witness tampering and a veiled reference to a potential pardon.

If Trump is ever cornered and required to comment on Dowd’s outreach to Kelner, I expect nothing less that a replay of the USS John McCain shake and shimmy.

Yeah, I like Mike Flynn.  Everyone knows that.  He was with me throughout the campaign and given the chance, he would have been a great national security advisor.  I still think he has been railroaded by Mueller and his posse of angry Democrats.  John Dowd knew that and wanted to help.  He may have crossed a line, but he was well-meaning.

When you have an actual recording of me asking Dowd or anybody else to do something illegal, give me a call.  Until then, how about reporting real news.

Remember, Senator Barry Goldwater did not lead a delegation of Republicans to the White House to seek Nixon’s resignation until they heard him on tape, directing subordinates to make payments to Watergate defendants and to use the national security apparatus to prevent the FBI from investigating the burglary and other campaign dirty tricks.

Without corroborating evidence to back up testimony that Trump personally directed anyone to obstruct justice, do not expect Mitch McConnell or even Mitt Romney to beat a path from Capitol Hill to the White House.  Every Republican member of Congress with the exception of Justin Amash will think he/she represents Missouri and demand the Democrats “Show Me” just one instance where Trump has attached his name in writing or his voice to the actions under scrutiny.  Watergate would have remained a “third rate burglary” without Nixon’s audio endorsement of obstruction.

What does all this mean in practical terms?  My alternate title for this post was “The Late Schiff.”  An obvious pun on the term “late shift,” it relates to my belief the job often gets done by those who are on the shop floor while the majority of us sleep.  And that person is House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA).  He knows, without a “smoking” text, email or recording of Donald Trump personally ordering a crime, there will be no trial or impeachment leading to a conviction.

Last week I suggested the 2020 election will be the equivalent of a re-trial following the non-unanimous vote in the Senate if Trump is tried on articles of impeachment.  Schiff, a former prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office understands this, from his own experience.  His most famous prosecution was that of FBI agent Richard Miller, accused of passing classified information to the Soviets.  Miller was convicted on the THIRD try after two mistrials resulting from hung juries.

You could see the lessons he learned from that experience on display during his response to committee Republicans who demanded he step down as chair for wanting to continue the investigation into Trump/Russian connections.  Present the argument in a way the jury must agree or appear to condone the defendant’s indefensible behavior.  Upon taking the committee gavel last January, Schiff refused to resign his position, saying:

My colleagues may think it’s okay that the Russians offered dirt on a Democratic candidate as part of what was described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign.  You might think that is okay.

My colleagues might think it’s okay that when that was offered to the son of the president who had a pivotal role in the campaign  that the president’s son did not call the FBI.  He did not adamantly refuse that foreign help.  No, instead that son said he would love the help of the Russians.

You might think it’s okay he took that meeting.  You may think it’s okay Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns also took that meeting.  You might think it’s okay that the president’s son-in-law took that meeting.  You might think it’s okay they tried to conceal it from the public.  And you might think it’s okay their only disappointment at the end of that meeting was the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better.

You might think it’s okay that when it was discovered a year later they lied about that meeting and said it was about adoptions.  You might think it’s okay that the president is reported to have helped dictate that lie.  You might think that’s okay.  I don’t.

I have always said whether this amounts to a case of conspiracy is another matter.  That decision would be up to the special counsel and I would accept his decision.  And I do.

But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is okay and the day we do think that is okay is the day we look back and say that is the day America lost its way.

And I don’t think it’s okay that during a presidential campaign, Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune.  I don’t think it’s okay that he concealed it from the public.  I don’t think it’s okay he was advancing a more favorable policy toward the Russians as he was seeking the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s okay his attorney lied to our committee.

As a former university professor, I know plagiarism is wrong.  But every Democratic candidate for president, whether they support impeachment proceedings or not, should memorize Schiff’s words.  And when asked about impeachment, should respond, “Whether you agree with me or not, you have to agree with Adam Schiff, as I do, when he said (and quote him word for word.”  And don’t rely on pithy chants like “Lock him up” to get the crowd worked up.  All they need to do is look at individuals in the audience, whether live or on television, whether it consists of Democrats, Republicans or independents and ask, “Do you think that’s okay?”  And dare them not to say, “NO.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Sound Bites v. Sound Policies

The results of the latest Des Moine Register/CNN poll of Democratic candidates were released this morning.  Here are the numbers for the five top-tier contenders for the nomination.

Candidate/Percentage Support/Change Since March

Joe Biden/24 %/-3 %
Bernie Sanders/16 %/-9 %
Elizabeth Warren/15 %/+6 %
Pete Buttigieg/14 %/+13 %
Kamala Harris/7 %/unchanged

The remaining 18 announced candidates polled at two percent or lower.  Eight months before the Iowa caucuses, absolute numbers mean nothing.  The same cannot be said about changes in those figures.  Each trend represents a data point which is more about what rather than who is resonating with potential voters.

The differences from March to June for Biden and Harris are within the margin of error and should largely be ignored.  At best, one could say they are holding on to their initial support.  Sanders is a different story.  Conventional wisdom says his decline is due to the fact the policy lane he had to himself in 2016 has gotten more crowded.  If you compare his latest standing against the results of the 2016 Iowa caucuses, his support has dropped by a whopping 33 percent (49.6 versus 16).  This morning, Joe Scarborough made an observation which deserves our attention.  While Sanders talks the talk, he has been relatively unsuccessful delivering the goods.  His record of enacting legislation he has sponsored is not what anyone would call distinguished.

In contrast, you have Warren and Buttigieg.  Warren was among the first and loudest voices calling for Wall Street reform before the 2008 recession.  And her strong advocacy for fair treatment of customers by banks and other financial institutions was key to creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Likewise, Mayor Pete has converted words into action.  One example is the South Bend “Community Resident Card” program.  Buttigieg worked with local businesses and La Casas de Amistad, a Latino outreach center, to create a government supported, but privately run program by which undocumented residents were issued ID cards honored for local services and as valid identification to open bank accounts and pick up prescriptions.

Which brings me to the title of today’s post.  The first Democratic candidates debate is scheduled for June 26-27.  And, based on the new Iowa poll, the pundits are already suggesting this may be the last chance for those below the top five contenders to “break through.”  Any candidate who is pinning his/her hopes on that might as well close down their campaigns now.  The numbers for Warren and Buttigieg tell us this is both wishful thinking and bullshit.

What do Warren and Buttigieg have in common?  They have both sought venues where they can explain their positions to voters.  And the fact they have both benefited even when they have taken opposite positions proves the point.  One example is Buttigieg’s decision to participate in a Fox News town hall and Warren’s adamant refusal to do the same.  Buttigieg wanted to talk to people who might not otherwise hear his message.  Warren did not want to normalize an organization which she believes is controlled by executives “who are running a hate for profit scam.”  While one can argue with either position, you have to appreciate Warren and Buttigieg have a well thought out rationale and shared it with their supporters.  Their June numbers suggest neither had few if any defections.

So here is the reason relying on debates to give us a better idea of who the candidates are is a “circus for profit scam.”  First, the most memorable moments in most debates are not enlightening about any issue or policy.  They are more likely to be gaffes or suggest that the candidates are not as “fast on their feet” as we had hoped.  Rick Perry’s “Ooops.”  Gerald Ford’s misstatement in 1976 Poland was not under Soviet control.  Mike Dukakis’ being caught off guard by Bernie Shaw’s personalizing capital punishment.  In fact, debate prep often focuses on getting through 90 seconds without destroying your candidacy.

More importantly, debates have nothing to do with governance.  I would argue, among his many instances of executive malpractice, one of the most obvious is Donald Trump does not understand the difference between campaigning and governing.  He thinks he makes policy by tweeting 280 character sound bites. Is that what we want from our next president?

You don’t need three degrees in political science, 13 years in state government or staffing several campaigns to recognize the answer is a resounding “NO!”  One example, the Cuban missile crisis, when we came the closest to nuclear war since the advent of the atomic age, is all you need to understand why.  John Kennedy huddled with his advisors and generals for days to first analyze the situation and then choose a course of action.  He then went on television to explain to the American people his decision to blockade Cuba and what was at stake.  No “fire and fury” or “Nikita Rocketman.” Now that is what I call an actual MAGA moment in presidential history.

Why do we want candidates to debate when presidents never have to?  It is not in their job description.  I’d much prefer seeing how they would do what presidents actual need to do.  Instead of a debate, why not have the networks agree to a series of “presidential moments.”   Candidates would be given a topic–e.g. immigration, income inequality or infrastructure–two weeks before the actual event.  They would have 10 minutes of air time to make a live presentation in which they would address the nation and:

  • Lay out the issue.
  • Tell viewers what they propose to do.
  • Explain why they chose that course of action.

They could select the venue–sitting at a desk, from a podium, as a fireside chat or at a campaign rally.  Some will argue it is all staged.  But have we not learned by now everything a president does is staged.  Do you think those advance staff, speechwriters, camera operators, White House photographers, lighting specialists, etc. are just part of a federal job creation program?   Isn’t it much more important to learn how, given the time, a future commander-in-chief would make policy or a momentous decision?

There is a reason they are called 30-second sound BITES.  That’s exactly what they do.  BITE.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Non-Reality Shows

There is nothing more mis-labeled than reality shows.  Just ask comedian Dana Gould who describes them as follows.

You will never experience less reality than when you are watching a reality show. You’re watching people who aren’t actors, put into situations created by people who aren’t writers and they’re second guessing how they think you would like to see them behave if this were a real situation, which it’s not. And you are passively observing this; watching an amateur production of nothing. It’s like a photo of a drawing of a hologram.

Welcome to Washington, D.C., where America is subjected on a daily basis to Gould-style reality programming which eclipses anything Mark Burnett, producer of Survivor, The Voice and of course The Apprentice, ever pitched to television executives.

Since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives last January, the airwaves have been saturated with hype for the Congress’ latest contribution to the reality show genre The Impeachment.  (NOTE:  If it airs on NBC, the name may be changed to Law and Order: Special Counsel’s Unit.)  To understand why this spectacle will be up for an Emmy in the reality show category, versus drama, limited series or even comedy, we need to parse Gould’s take on this unique brand of entertainment.

  • The House of Representatives will become a grand jury without actually being a grand jury.
  • Members of the House Judiciary Committee will act as prosecutors when they are not.
  • Throughout the proceedings, Democrats and Republicans will both behave the way they think their constituents want them to behave.
  • And finally, the ultimate goal is to maintain ratings to ensure the program is renewed.  Except in the political arena, it is known as re-election.

How do I know this?  Let me share a personal experience.  In 2003, I was asked to join a television production team to create a reality show called Risk It All, designed to introduce viewers to the rewards and challenges of entrepreneurship.  Each season,  six contestants would have to give up their “day jobs” to start a new business venture.  We eventually got to pitch the show to an ABC programming executive.  Her first concern?  How could we guarantee there would be constant conflict and enough salacious (her word) moments?  In other words,  damn the facts, just make sure it has soft-core SEX and staged VIOLENCE.  If you want to educate people, pitch it to The Learning Channel or PBS.  Although Risk It All never made it to a living room near you, I do take some perverse joy knowing we were on the right track, especially when Shark Tank premiered six years later on (drum roll) ABC.

That is why I have no doubt The Impeachment will eventually be picked up by multiple news channels and broadcast networks.  There will be no lack of conflict.  In the promo for episode one, the announcer will hype a potential “must see” moment when Judiciary Chairman Gerald Nadler (D-NY) and former Ohio State assistant wrestling coach Jim Jordan (R-OH) take off the gloves and hit the mats.  And talk about salacious.  Not only do we have porn stars and Playboy playmates, we have FBI agents engaged in illicit love affairs.

Check your local listings for days and times.

POSTSCRIPT/Sorry Nancy

As much as Nancy Pelosi might prefer “prison” over “impeachment,” Donald Trump is never going to jail.  You cannot honestly believe the team that brought us Matt Whitaker and William Barr has not figured out how to stack the deck to avoid Trump’s incarceration.  There are four scenarios in which prison could be in his future.  Here’s why none will ever come true.

  • The impeachment hearings force Trump to resign a la Richard Nixon.  Mike Pence pulls a  Gerald Ford and issues a blanket pardon covering known and and yet unknown federal crimes.
  • Trump is impeached and convicted.  Same ending.  Pence pardons him to put an end to “our long national nightmare.” [Maybe Pence is impeached for plagiarism.]
  • Trump wins in 2020 and is saved when the five year statute of limitations for obstruction of justice expires.
  • Trump loses in 2020, which triggers the fail-safe option.  Since the courts would reject any self-pardon before leaving office, Trump resigns on January 18, 2021.  Pence become Prez-for-a-Day at noon on January 19, issues the pardon, then transfers power to the new president 24 hours later.

Justice may not be served, but I can live with any of these outcomes.  Why?  Because Trump becomes the two thing he fears most.  Unloved and broke.  From reporting in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal,  the Trump brand is taking a beating.  The one exception is the Trump DC hotel where those who curry favor with this administration bow down at the altar of the Trump Organization.  But those same lobbyists and foreign governments will not want to cross a Democratic president by patronizing Trump properties.  And no more hosting dignitaries at Mar-a-Lago on the taxpayers’ dime.  The decade during which Trump lost a trillion dollars will make the MAGA king believe those were the “good old days” to which he so much wanted to return.  What’s more, no future generation will ever have to attend Donald J. Trump High School.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP