In the 1991 movie Other People’s Money,  Lawrence “The Liquidator” Garfield, played by Danny DeVito, selects a struggling family-run business in a small Rhode Island town as his next target.  I was reminded of this semi-successful film (Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 our of five stars) as I read a series of news articles this morning which claim Comrade Trump is “on pace to surpass eight years of Obama’s travel spending in one year.”  (Source: CNN)  Not to mention His Orangeness’ frequent trips to Mar-a-Lago/Winter White House/Southern White House have cost the residents of Palm Beach an estimated $1.7 million to date.  Not to mention the New York Police Department estimates they spend $500,000/day on security for Melania and Baron Trump.

Trump’s willingness to appropriate “other people’s money” to sustain his extravagant lifestyle is only one way his modus operandi mirrors the plot of the film of the same name.  While Garfield argues his offer is in the best interest of the community, the ensuing debate fractures both the owner’s family and the citizenry, many of whom work at and own equity in the business.  Does this, Garfield’s speech to the local shareholders, sound familiar?

This company is dead. I didn’t kill it. Don’t blame me. It was dead when I got here. It’s too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered, and a miracle occurred, and the yen did this, and the dollar did that, and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead…Who cares? I’ll tell you. Me. I’m not your best friend. I’m your only friend.

All you have to do is substitute the word “America” for “this company” and you have Trump’s sales pitch in a nutshell.

What I will never understand is why the media think this is news.  It is just one more chapter in the updated version of the The Art of the Deal. Trump has used his “charitable foundation,”  which was funded with donations mostly from business associates who wanted to curry his favor, to cover his legal expenses and penalties.*  He sold worthless stock in his casinos to suckers who ended up holding the bag when the ventures went bankrupt.  And he is leveraged to the hilt in order to plaster his name on buildings he does not own.

But there is a hero in the movie.  Andrew Jorgenson, played by Gregory Peck, who manages the New England Wire & Cable company, the town’s primary employer.  Listen to Jorgenson’s rebuttal to Garfield’s justification of his takeover bid

The robber barons of old at least left something tangible in their wake- a coal mine, a railroad, banks. This man leaves nothing. He creates nothing. He builds nothing. He runs nothing. And in his wake lies nothing but a blizzard of paper to cover the pain…God save this country if that is truly the wave of the future. We will then have become a nation that makes nothing but hamburgers, creates nothing but lawyers, and sells nothing but tax shelters. And if we are at that point in this country, where we kill something because at the moment it’s worth more dead than alive, well, take a look around. Look at your neighbor. Look at your neighbor. You won’t kill him, will you? No. It’s called murder, and it’s illegal. Well, this, too, is murder, on a mass scale. Only on Wall Street, they call it maximizing shareholder value, and they call it legal. And they substitute dollar bills where a conscience should be.

Keep in mind this was 1991–before the Dotcom Bubble and before the sub-prime housing debacle.  In hindsight, Jorgenson represents the closest thing we have to a modern-day Nostradamus.  Too bad we didn’t listen to him.

*Kudos to Washington Post reporter David Farenholdt, who yesterday was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his exposés on the misuse of Trump Foundation resources and his failure to follow-up on promised charitable donations.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Today’s edition of the Washington Post (Sunday, April 9, 2019) included an interview with King Adbullah II of Jordan, conducted by senior associate editor Lally Weymouth.  Midway through the exchange, the topic turned to Russia’s support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Q. Do you want to see the U.S. engage with Russia over Syria?

A. I’ll tell you why that works: From the Russian point of view, they play what I describe as a three-dimensional chess game. To them, Crimea is important, Syria is important, Ukraine, and we see them in Libya. The Americans and Europeans must deal with the Russians on all these issues simultaneously.

Q. Once you understand these issues together, what do you do?

A. Then you horse-trade. For the Russians I think the most important thing is Crimea. If you come to an understanding on Crimea, I think you will see much more flexibility on Syria, and I think Ukraine then becomes the least problematic.

It is hard to discern whether King Abdullah’s comments were a slip of the tongue or a deliberate signal to the Russians.  If only Putin would abandon Assad, international disfavor, including crippling economic sanctions, could magically evaporate into thin air.  Either way, the Jordanian monarch provided a more believable scenario than any so far proffered by the White House, Congress or the news media.  Especially if the untimely re-introduction of chemical weapons into the Syrian civil war provided the excuse Moscow needed to throw Assad under the bus.

So, the game is afoot. But I, for one, feel uncomfortable imagining an individual who cannot distinguish between facts and lies representing the United States in an exercise which requires such logic and concentration.  Referencing the use of three-dimensional chess as a frequent prop in the original Star Trek series, the website “Fandom” found the game challenging for even the most mentally acute players.

Commander Spock was an exceptional chess player; his game was consistently logical. However, he often had a difficult time predicting or effectively responding to the unexpected moves made by his frequent opponents, Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy.

I can just hear William Shatner paraphrasing Senator Lloyd Benson during the 1988 vice-presidential debate.

Comrade Trump, I served with Mr. Spock, I knew Mr. Spock. Mr. Spock was a friend of mine. Comrade, you’re no Mr. Spock.

There is one more significant difference between His Orangeness and the USS Enterprise’s first officer.  Spock sat across from his opponent, unlike the current White House occupant who so often seems to be on the same side of the table as his BFF Vladimir Putin.

Stay tuned.  As the tagline for one of my favorite movies Now You See Me suggests, “Come in close, because the more you think you see, the easier it’ll be to fool you.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

One of the fundamental tenets of counter-intuitive thinking requires individuals to make sure they are asking the right questions before seeking the right answers.  Sadly, this is something the corporate news media did not understand concerning their coverage of Thursday night’s  U.S. missile attack on Al Shayrat Airfield.  Over the past 36 hours, print and broadcast news have focused on four questions.

• Was this an appropriate response to the use of chemical weapons against the residents of Idlib Province, Syria?
• Should Trump have sought Congressional authorization before launching the attack?
• What are the political implications?
• What next for the U.S. in Syria?

All of these questions have one thing in common.  The answers are a matter of opinion.  In other words, the media were more interested in stimulating debate among their talking heads than getting to the bottom of what happened and why?

Here are the questions I believe we should be asking.

Why now?

In September 2013, the United States and Russian brokered a deal by which Syria agreed to turn over all of its chemical weapons and facilities to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international watchdog created as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.  Whether the transfer was complete is a matter for debate. Regardless, Syria had ceased using sarin gas for more than three years until Tuesday’s attack.

To answer this question, one need merely look at what had changed since September 2013.  The most obvious answer is U.S. policy toward the Assad regime.  Until January 20, 2017, the Obama administration believed the Syrian civil war would not end as long as Assad remained in power.  On March 30, 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reversed this policy, stating,  “I think the…longer term status of president Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.”  Four days later Syria launches the chemical weapons attack.  It seems Assad took Tillerson’s statement to heart and wanted to ensure only those who supported the dictator would still be alive when the Syrian people determined his long-term status.

Who had the most to lose from the chemical weapons attack?

This is the question I find most puzzling.  The 2013 agreement on chemical weapons did not stop Assad’s massacre or dislocation of his own people.  The international community turned a blind eye to his use of massive air power and barrel bombs on towns controlled by rebel forces.  The ONLY thing that would get the world’s attention was the re-introduction of chemical weapons into the conflict.  Why would Assad take that chance?

I have not used this blog to peddle conspiracy theories and I will not start now.  But Assad’s actions make absolutely no sense without a quid pro quo.  What could Assad possibly get in return for such irrational behavior?

Why would Comrade Trump call Vladimir Putin prior to the attack?

Again, I will leave this one to the conspiracy theorists.  But it does raise more questions.  What was Russia’s role in the chemical attack?  Was U.S. intelligence aware of a Russian presence at Al Shayrat Airfield?  If the attack was meant as a signal the use of chemical weapons was “crossing a red line,” why would the Trump administration make sure the Russians did not get the message the same that it was delivered to the Syrians?

Why is Russia so vigorously defending Assad?

While I understand Russia views Syria as its foothold in the Middle East, Assad’s use of chemical weapons puts Putin in an awkward position.  After all, Putin took credit for the September 2013 deal which deferred military action against Assad.  The use of sarin gas in Idlib Province is a political embarrassment for Putin.  At a time when he is trying to convince European leaders he is an ally against terrorism, Assad has exposed him as a “paper tiger,” unable to enforce agreements with his current geopolitical partners.

My favorite Judge Judy line is, “If it doesn’t make sense, it probably isn’t true.”  And if anything ever didn’t make sense, this is it.  It’s time the news media stops speculating what will happen next and focuses on the reasons behind what has already happened.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Everyone deserves a second chance.  Even MSNBC. Last night, in the wake of Comrade Trump’s major defeat on a flagship issue, I ventured back to MSNBC to see how the network was covering this event.  At that moment, Greta van Susteren was interviewing CNBC political analyst John Harwood. At the 38 minute 31 second mark in the show’s transcript, the following exchange takes place.

Van Susteren: I thought he was rather humble.

Harwood: Well, he’s been humbled.

Van Susteren: I was surprised by that.  I thought he looked quite presidential taking that defeat.

Harwood:  But he deflected blame on the Democrats.

Van Susteren: There was that.

As Maya Angelou reminds us, “When people show you who they are, believe them.”  In a single moment, Susteren demonstrated both her innate willingness to put a positive spin on Trump’s political defeat, revealing how tough it is to cure Fox News syndrome even after you leave the infection zone, and her complete lack of understanding what it means to be presidential.

The best evidence His Orangeness knew he was behind the eight ball were his personally initiated calls to two entities he had previously labelled “enemies of the people,” the Washington Post and the New York Times.”  The message was clear.  This is not my fault.  The Democrats are to blame.  In the Times call, he also expressed his frustration with the House Freedom Caucus ( i.e. members elected with Tea Party support).

This is just the latest of many instances during the first 64 days, Comrade Trump has shifted blame or responsibility to anyone other than himself.  The Muslim ban.  Flynn firing.  Sessions lying during his confirmation hearing.

We all need to pay attention as these are only the opening acts.  The main event is, and should continue to be, Trump campaign and White House ties to Russia. The blame game has already started.  Obama’s deep state.  Leakers.  And yesterday a new conspiracy theory from the originators of the Lee Harvey Oswald/Rafael Cruz bro-mance.  The new issue of the National Enquirer includes the following headline.  “Trump Catches Russia’s White House Spy!”  And it turns out to be none other than (drum roll) former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

As former Navy intelligence officer Malcolm Nance warned us, “The target is getting buggy.”  The National Enquirer was a consistent mouthpiece for the Trump campaign, not surprising considering the long-time friendship between Trump and the tabloid’s CEO Dylan Howard.  Occam’s razor (the best explanation is the simplest) leads one to the conclusion the most likely reason the White House is willing to put this on Flynn is they would rather admit they hired a Russian spy as national security adviser (so much for extreme vetting) than take responsibility for what might emerge from the FBI investigation and congressional inquiries.

House and Senate Democrats proclaimed the TrumpCare defeat as “a great day for America.”  In reality, the true winner was none other than Harry S. Truman.  If you think Barack Obama looks more presidential in the rear view mirror, look again.  Truman is in clear focus.  Greta, when Trump puts a sign on his desk that says, “The Ruble Stops Here” then you can spin it as presidential.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP