“I will say that the politics may or may not work out in the right way, but we’re a country of laws. You have to enforce the laws.” Andrew Yang

It seems to me that the Democrats are a little like the dog that caught the school bus; now what do they do? Putting aside, for a second, all the good reasons for Impeachment, there are lots of good reasons not to Impeach. Trump is, by reputation, an excellent street fighter, willing to escalate a disagreement to a wild Twitter attack that most politicians are not equipped to handle, the whole affair is too “inside the beltway” and too technical to be compelling to many, if not most, Americans are a couple. Pelosi’s assessment has been that the people are not really interested, they want the time spent on lawmaking – lawmaking which, in an increasingly toxic Washington, even without Impeachment, is almost impossible under Pelosi, Trump, and McConnel – and the Impeachment hearings, a Democratic action, will be blamed as a distraction. Perhaps, most importantly, Impeachment is a political act, a very Divisive Act. This impeachment is not going to be good for the country. Maybe it will be better than no impeachment, but it will not be good, it will not be healing.

I share those concerns. I was never a big fan of the Russian collusion story line. Yeah, Trump wanted the Russians to tap the Democrats’ computers and even asked for their help on National Television. And, sure, the Russians probably did help Trump – or tried to – but, so what? Don’t get me wrong, I do think that Trump may be a crook and he is surely a con-man but I don’t think the help he received rises to the level of an indictable crime. The problem with Trump is not just one thing, one crime he committed, it’s that he has committed hundreds of almost crimes, or sort of crimes, or should be crimes. He has slimed the Presidency more than criminalized it. He is, by nature, an autocrat who puts himself above the Government, and, in doing so, he is attacking us, us being Western Liberal Democracy. Our Courts, our liberal Constitution with its separation of powers, our liberal laws, and conventions, our professed ideals, are all under attack.

Trump was only a candidate when the Russian thing happened and, as much as I thought it was, at best, a worthless snipe hunt, the rules are and should be different for a sitting President. Even by the White House summary of the conversation, Trump seems to have strong-armed the Ukraine President. He refused to act in a way mandated by Congress, holding back the shipment of a much needed defensive weapons system to leverage a personal favor (or partisan political favor, if you prefer). And that’s according to the White House version which is undoubtedly a whitewashed version. The Administration knew this was illegal; they locked down the phone conversation records in as secret a file as they could, hiding it as deep as possible.  

By doing so, President Trump has given Congress no option other than Impeachment; the whole purpose of the House, the People’s Chamber, is to control or, at least, restrain the Executive’s actions. That is why the House is given the power of the purse, they control the money. I keep reading that the Impeachment Claus – The President…of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors – is unclear, but it’s unclear on purpose, to allow a broad interpretation. At the time the Constitution was written, the new United States were surrounded by tyrants. The Founders knew tyrants and they didn’t trust them; tyrannical rule is what they were revolting against and they wrote the Impeachment Clause as wide as possible; if the Executive became a Tyrant, acting in a way the people didn’t approve, the Founders said The President…of the United States, shall be removed.

An entire fox family wandered through and frolicked in our backyard. Well, that may be sort of hyperbole, but a couple of days ago, when I got a glimpse from the kitchen window of what I was sure was a fox and, looked out the door to get a better view, I saw fox three pups running and playing on the path to the compost thingy. They were adorable; I was so transfixed, I didn’t even get a picture. Precious Mae was not happy about it but everybody I’ve talked to in the neighborhood is thrilled.

The same afternoon I read a short news flash that a second Cougar had been spotted in Golden Gate Park, after my first reaction of How did that cougar get into Golden Gate park?, I started to wonder how our interactions with wild animals are changing. Because we are no longer killing wildlife, previously shy animals, like cougars, are adjusting and moving back in. In our area, they are being welcomed but not encouraged. I know that’s not universal – sheep farmers are not liking the increase in wolves, for example – but I suspect people feel similar in most places where nature has been thoroughly vanquished.

Still, how we adjust will be interesting, because there are real consequences to letting wild animals into our neighborhoods and, while I’m thrilled that it’s happening, I don’t think we’ve really thought this out. I once read that Racoons don’t become tame, they become brazen and I’m sure that is even more true for a large carnivore like a cougar. Lately, I’ve been listening to On The Media podcasts and one of them talked about how much the car industry influenced our National Thinking and the subtle but toxic belief that’s what’s good for people rich enough to own cars, almost always white, is better for the nation. That’s our default position. Our mindset has been that when we pay for public transportation we are subsidizing it but we never hear that about highways even though we spend much more subsidizing highways and the fuel cars use to drive on them. We take that mindset with us when we think about letting cougars in. When we think of potential problems, we think about them getting cats or small dogs, but we don’t think about it from the point of view of a poor person who can’t afford a car and often has to wait at a bus stop in the dark.

At the request of the Vice Premier of China, Liu He, and due to the fact that the People’s Republic of China will be celebrating their 70th Anniversary….on October 1st, we have agreed, as a gesture of good will, to move the increased Tariffs on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods (25% to 30%), from October 1st to October 15th. A pair of tweets from President Trump on the day he fired Bolten. (Or the day after Bolton quit if you prefer.)

When I first read the two Tweets – Tweet thread? – above, from President Trump, I was sort of dumbfounded. They? It just seems so wacky. How does the Chinese Vice Premier do that? email? Ask through the ambassador? Phone? “Good morning Mr. President. Say, since October 1st is our 70th, would you mind putting off increasing the tariffs for a couple of weeks? Thanks.” “Oh, sure. I had forgotten it was your birthday. How would two weeks work?” I can understand if the President put off the tariffs for a couple of weeks because China and the USA were working on a trade deal, but for a birthday? It seems to me that President Trump might have another strategy – besides keeping himself in the constant limelight – and that is to change the subject.

Whatever the reason, what most tickled me – in a slightly disturbing way – were some of the comments. Matthew J Show who bills himself as host of the MatthewJshow podcast, Tweets: Leadership when it counts! Well done President Trump! for example, or RD – which, apparently, stands for real defender – and is a Conservative / Sports Fan / Proudly Retweeted by POTUS says: Always a gentleman and a master negotiator our president is (RD is also a fan of Yoda’s syntax, I guess), or Adas whose tag says Adas has been professionally diagnosed with winning personality disorder™ – I love the trademark, BTW – and wears a green MAGA hat in her photo, Tweets: Shows the CCP who’s the BOSS in this relationship. President Trump is very NICE and he’ll let them take some time off! Back to losing after Oct 15th! One of the problems with Tweeting and texting for that matter is that it is hard to detect sarcasm and when I first read Adas’s Tweet, especially, I thought that this must be sarcastic, but when I went to her home page, I see that she Tweets things like how much Sweeden doesn’t like its healthcare system or The American flag has always been the international symbol of FREEDOM. Now, the US President is one too! so I don’t think she is being sarcastic.

That brings me back to my question, Can These People Be Real? Who are they? Was anybody ever that head over heels in love with Obama or is this a new phenomenon? And the answers are Yes, They are outwardly normal people, and Probably, but there does seem to be something in the Trumpian universe that promotes sycophantry. Maybe sycophantry comes naturally to the kind of people who like authoritarian leaders. Contrary to what we are taught from childhood on, everybody does not want our democracy. Some people just seem to like having a Dear Leader who holds unlimited power and is way above them. Somebody who is infallible and, if nothing else, authoritarians have to be infallible. I, personly, like my leaders to be common people who rose to power, that is why I like Ulysses S. Grant over Robert E. Lee – it does help that Grant was a much better, more innovative, tactician and strategist than Lee – and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez over George Bush, but that is just my preference. So, yeah, they are real but, the good news is that there are not as many of them as they would have you think, which reminds me of one of my favorite Grant stories.

After the second night at Goliad, Benjamin and I started to make the remainder of the journey alone. We reached Corpus Christi just in time to avoid “absence without leave.” We met no one not even an Indian–during the remainder of our journey, except at San Patricio. A new settlement had been started there in our absence of three weeks, induced possibly by the fact that there were houses already built, while the proximity of troops gave protection against the Indians. On the evening of the first day out from Goliad, we heard the most unearthly howling of wolves, directly in our front. The prairie grass was tall and we could not see the beasts, but the sound indicated that they were near. To my ear it appeared that there must have been enough of them to devour our party, horses and all, at a single meal. The part of Ohio that I hailed from was not thickly settled, but wolves had been driven out long before I left. Benjamin was from Indiana, still less populated, where the wolf yet roamed over the prairies. He understood the nature of the animal and the capacity of a few to make believe there was an unlimited number of them. He kept on towards the noise, unmoved. I followed in his trail, lacking moral courage to turn back and join our sick companion. I have no doubt that if Benjamin had proposed returning to Goliad, I would not only have “seconded the motion” but have suggested that it was very hard-hearted in us to leave Augur sick there in the first place; but Benjamin did not propose turning back. When he did speak it was to ask: “Grant, how many wolves do you think there are in that pack?” Knowing where he was from,and suspecting that he thought I would over-estimate the number, I determined to show my acquaintance with the animal by putting the estimate below what possibly could be correct, and answered: “Oh, about twenty,” very indifferently, and rode on.

In a minute we were close upon them, and before they saw us. There were just TWO of them. Seated upon their haunches, with their mouths close together, they had made all the noise we had been hearing for the past ten minutes. I have often thought of this incident since when I have heard the noise of a few disappointed politicians who had deserted their associates. There are always more of them before they are counted.

…he’s not misguided, he’s mean. On purpose. Karen Amy on Facebook

Sometime about ten years ago, at about ten at night, Michele and I were leaving San Francisco on our way home. We had just turned on to Fourth Street when a homeless guy walked across the street in front of us, walking at the slowest speed possible, seemingly with no purpose but to stop us. As we sat in the car watching him, Michele said: “Poor guy, he must really feel powerless; he’s not helping himself, all he is doing is making us wait…I guess that’s the point, that’s the only power he has.” I often get the same feeling when President Trump does something like change lightbulb standards back to incandescent (during the CNN special on the environment). It’s stupid and hurts the environment with no upside for him.

When Trump ran for office, he ran against both the Republican and Democratic Establishments and he pitched several policy positions rough ideas that I agreed with. Get out of Afganistan and Syria and use the money on infrastructure, acknowledge that North Korea exists, don’t sign the Pacific Trade Treaty, rationalize our relationship with China, or streighten out the immigration mess, for starters, but, he hasn’t done any of that. Instead, his Administration has governed – for lack of a better word – in a much more orthodox, if extream, Conservative Republican manner. But, using “his Administration has governed” and “orthodox” together in a sentence gives the wrong impression because Donald Trump’s way of governing is not orthodox. From announcing, even establishing, new policies at events that are nothing more than interactive, partisan rallies to making international diplomacy almost entirely personal, to Tweets like China just enacted a major stimulus plan. With all the Tariffs THEY are paying to the USA, Billions and Billions of Dollars, they need it! In the meantime, our Federal Reserve sits back and does NOTHING!, President Trump has become the constant center of everybody’s attention – including his – while spreading chaos. He is the most powerful man in the world and he often acts as if he has no power.

“It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit.” President Donald Trump

There are times when President Trump says something and my first thought is that it is a misprint, the quote above is one of those times. Don’t get me wrong, I can understand Isreal wanting to keep Representatives Omar and Talib away from the West Bank. Their trip would have included the – I hate to use this word but can’t think of any other – mainstream press and given world-wide exposure to the deplorable conditions that Isreal imposes on the Palestinian people. I can even understand why Trump wouldn’t want them to go to Israel and the West Bank (although it does just seemed like unnecessary assholery by the President). But, I can’t understand why that is not a much weaker position than saying Yeah, come on over and look around because a) we are proud of what we are doing and/or b) if you don’t like it, tough shit because we can do whatever we like.