Sunni or Later

Final Jeopardy Question:  So the president cannot be cornered.
Final Jeopardy Answer:  Why is the Oval Office an oval?

My observation this past week.  I hope the Ayatollah also has an oval office.  Too many times we’ve learned that a cornered animal is the most dangerous.  And history tells us, the resolution of a precarious situation is more likely when both parties come away with something.

Even when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were within a hair’s breadth of nuclear war, John Kennedy understood this.  While many believe the eventual agreement between JFK and Nikita Khrushchev was one-sided in favor of the American demands, the Soviet leader was given an opportunity to save face.  First, Kennedy assured Khrushchev the U.S. would not invade Cuba.  Second, the U.S. agreed to dismantle nuclear missiles in Turkey which were part of the NATO defense against Soviet aggression.  Some military historians suggest Kennedy would have removed these weapons without the Cuban crisis as they were obsolete and too costly to maintain.

This morning, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson raised what should be the critical question based on previous Trump approaches to foreign policy and his decision last night to call off a limited military strike in response to the downing of a U.S. drone.  Following the North Korea model of diplomacy:  Act I is belligerence.  Act II is an offer to meet.  What is Act III?

On their ESPN talk show Pardon the Interruption, Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon have a segment called “Who would you rather be?”  In this case, I believe the Iranians have the easiest path to solving the stand-off and giving Trump an opportunity to save face.

1. Demand the U.S. rejoin the nuclear agreement and lift any sanctions imposed following withdrawal from the pact.
2. In return, Iran agrees to engage in discussion with the U.S. to extend the terms of the nuclear agreement beyond the initial 15 years and possibly include missile testing in the expanded accord.
3. U.S cancels arm sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
4. In return Iran agrees to join multi-national talks among Arab nations to resolve civil wars in Syria, Yemen, etc.
5. Trump proposes bilateral trade talks (“See, I’m a great deal-maker.”) with Iran pending verification of Iranian commitments to non-proliferation and stabilization of Middle East conflicts.

I know, it takes rational people to think rationally.  But sometimes you can make a offer even irrational people cannot refuse.  Equally important, we may finally learn who in the White House is making Middle East policy.

An Undying Wish

When a friend of mine passed away 18 months ago, I honored his family’s request that in lieu of flowers, people should donate to a designated charity.  Which I did, accompanied by a letter which indicated:

1. I was making this donation in memory of my late friend at his family’s request.
2. This is not a charity which I regularly give to and do not plan to make additional donations in the future.
3. Please honor my friend by using this donation for your primary mission, not to raise additional funds.

As you may have guessed, that letter was a waste of time, energy and paper.  For the past year and a half, I have received solicitations from this organization, often on a weekly basis.  And while I’ve not tracked the cost of these appeals, I am pretty sure it has come close to if not exceeded my donation.

This is a nationally known service organization and one could assume it was not one of those fly-by-night efforts where the a third-party fundraising agent makes more money than the charity ever sees.  However, I decided to check its statistics on Charity Navigator, only to find, because its primary funding comes from a single source (a family trust), it is listed as a private foundation and is unrated.

Lesson learned?  While my friend is no longer with us, fundraising based on his passing has eternal life.

Fake Math

Our local paper occasionally carries an op-ed column by a Pittsburgh writer Phil Purcell.  Today, Purcell, an admitted English major in college, decided to tutor us about the national debt.  A long time proponent of the Trump tax cuts, he ‘splained that the rising deficit was due to spending.  After all, “The economy is doing well, causing tax revenues to swell.”  Yeah, at the same rate as Trump’s inauguration crowd.

For those Republican senators and congressmen suffering from amnesia, let me remind you that you bought into the hooey that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would generate $1.8 trillion in new revenue, more than covering the $1.5 trillion cost.  And don’t forget the cuts you made to domestic spending to ensure the tax cuts would be within the 10-year budget resolution deficit targets. How did that actually play out?

In FY 2018, the first year in which the tax cuts would impact federal revenues, that figure rose to $3.33 trillion from (drum roll) $3.32 trillion in FY 2017.  In other words, Republicans added $180 billion to the deficit (call it their investment to grow the economy) and got $10 billion back in revenues (call that the present value).  Now just imagine, at the beginning of any year, you or I invested $1,800 in a venture, and at the end of the year, we had $100 to show for it.  The last thing we would do is brag about our financial acumen.  In fact, we would never mention it to anyone.

Perhaps that’s why Republicans did not run on the tax cuts during the 2018 mid-terms and only the delusional will run on them in 2020.  When someone suggests imaginary invasions by brown people are an easier sell than cash gifts, it’s a good sign they know the electorate is not as stupid as they might hope.  Sadly, Phil Purcell has not come to that conclusion about his readership.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP