skidive1

[skidive1]

BASE

(“Base: showing little or no honor…mean…ignoble…contemptible”.  Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary)

There is the thing called the Trump Base. Obviously (though, to them, many things are not obvious) the Base is not all the people who voted for Donald Trump, but it is the hard core. Without them Trump is even less than the bad joke that he is with them, so to get the joke it is worth talking just about them.

Get over the business about how there are lots of greedy billionaires, just wanting Trump to give them tax breaks.  Get past the college graduate business types who also have financial reasons for supporting, this slow-witted, lazy bankrupt Daddy-boy, but nevertheless still dream of an America where free enterprise & entrepreneurship are solid cornerstones of a society. Maybe they just figure that given his laziness Trump would run a Government too indolent to touch them. Debatable but inconsequential.

Those blocs provide a screen that the Trump Base can use to make it seem that they are part of a big movement where they can pretend that their role-model genuinely has the support of a great many people. Reject the dodge. Flush them out. Look at who they are – this sine qua non in the triumph of stupidity. They are the least educated in a society that affords almost everyone a chance to be educated.  Lack of education is their emblem, their hallmark, their defining characteristic.

Give the Base this much, they have demonstrated the sense to hide behind the cover that Liberals – in their always dangerous naivete – have given to them. They claim to be among the “forgotten”. And, of course, based on being “forgotten” you can always neutralize Liberal critics & get a nice huggy-cuddle from any bleeding-heart who happens by. Yes, the dumb-ass Democrats really did forget them. Except…that is irrelevant.

They could have gone beyond 8th grade….GED…high school diploma or whatever.. They just did not. Now they are left to whine & snarl about how “the elites look down on them“.  That snot is just the Liberal pity-me sympathy dodge turned against itself. Who looks down on the Base? They do…in the mirror.  Why? Because they know that they were not left behind. They stayed behind. They just simply lacked the wits to get into the aerospace, computer, mechanical revolution that propelled the rest of America ahead.

For 65 years with the exploding demands of technology begging for 10s-of-millions of people to get Associate Degrees in technology of every kind, they neglected to go to Community College, generation after generation. That meant, of course, that they did not go on to University either. So, lacking adequate job skills, they also tried to get through life without that most collegiate of all educational accomplishments – the development of critical thinking skills.

Now they are Toothless, Tattooed, Trailer-Tenant, Tow-Truckers for Trump, because he is like them. They look in the mirror & see him. (After all, there is nothing that such people as Trump like better than looking in the mirror.) There is the inarticulate, poorly-educated, vulgar, slow-witted, crude, nasty, resentful, crooked, sneaky little fat man who can incarnate the dream of being able to snarl at the “elites” but get away with it.

Why is he so uniquely that man?  Because…duh?... he inherited more than $600-million from his Daddy.

Did not have to work for it.

The only labor he was involved in was a characteristically passive part. He went through labor with his mother. That was only because he had to. He had not yet figured a way to pay someone to do it for him. An American dream…big money…no work.

Could let Daddy buy him an Ivy League Degree – without an Ivy League education – by majoring in real estate.

(Note to the Base who did not go to college:  Real estate is not exactly a legitimate undergraduate major. It is (maybe) something that you can specialize in at the graduate level after getting a real degree.)

Could afford to go bankrupt time-after-time-after-time & stick poor suckers with the debt.

(More Note to the base: When your pudgy hero got out of complete bankruptcy default it was by screwing people like you & he gets away with that because he knows that you are way too unsophisticated to figure it out. That is what those critical thinking skills are for. You know…the things that you do not have.)

Looks like the real estate major was worth it, though – time-share salesmen like Trump do develop a terrific sense for spotting suckers. It beats being an actual businessman if you do not have the talent to actually manage. Remember, the bankruptcies were his own projects…not part of the Daddy thing. Trump…the man who went bankrupt running a casino. What are the odds? Oops…too much arithmetic for a boy without a real education.

Could use the inheritance from Daddy to hire New York public relations people to make him seem like anything the suckers would swallow -- patriot, businessman, sophisticate.

(More Note to the base: People in Manhattan know how this works. Being actual sophisticates, they know Trump as a cheesy failure. Oh…maybe that is why he lost his own borough in a landslide…twice.)

What do you think, Base…?...time to wake up & get a clue…?...or do you just want to go back to  watching Nascar & Championship Wrestling (no fake media there, eh?) or, dwelling on the fact that you are not looked down on…you are just irrelevant…self-made, though.

M.Scott...May, 2021

[skidive1]

All You Need

Honest Abe Lincoln: “You cannot fool all of the people al of the time.”

Donnie The Slime-Weasel: “No need to...41% is plenty.”

M.Scott, October, 2020; mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

Trumpidemic

Covid, like any illness is a health issue. Covid pandemic,like any epidemic,is a management issue. Mismanagement on a nationwide level requires a new national manager.. Stop the mismanagement.

M.Scott, mscottdiver@comcast.net, September, 2020

[skidive1]

Failure

Donald Trump inherited a robust, soaring economy from Barack Obama.

Trump did not create that economy; he inherited it, just like he inherited a $600-million fortune from his Daddy.  

Barack Obama inherited the Great Recession of 2009 -- a dying economy created by his Republican predecessor. Under Obama the economy revived & improved in all major sectors. In almost all of them it improved at faster, higher rates than those same sectors under Trump.

Under Obama, the economy revived & improved – enormously -- in:

Monthly Job Gains…..Middle Class Income…..Manufacturing Output…..Median Home Sale Prices…..GDP Growth…..Consumer Confidence…..Business Investment

…and…

During the Obama Administration, the stock market erupted in growth; the Dow Jones industrial average grew more than 225%. Unemployment was reduced by more than 265%.

All those facts can be easily & quickly verified in widely published records from the National Association of Realtors, Bloomberg Business News, the Bureau of Labor Statistics & numerous other private & governmental agencies.

Barack Obama had to revive the dying economy that he inherited & he did that very successfully.  All Donald Trump had to do was maintain the success that he inherited from Barack Obama.

…but…

Once he had to manage an actual problem, namely the Covid pandemic, he could not do that, even by itself, let alone do that & continue the economic success that he inherited.

 While failing to manage the national public health crisis, he also presided over the resulting failure of 1000s of businesses & the loss of millions of jobs. That is complete, wholesale failure as a manager & executive.

When little Donald Trump inherited his $600-million fortune from his Daddy, all he had to do was keep it going. Instead, over the course of his career little Donald went into bankruptcy 4 times, cheating all his creditors, not to mention the people he cheated in 100s of lawsuits against him for his non-payment of debt. He is good at inheriting success from others. He is a failure at preserving it. He has failed in his marriages. He has failed in business. He has failed in elective office, and in all cases he always & at all times fails to tell the truth. Give him a chance & he will continue to fail.

M.Scott, August, 2020,  mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

Wartime Apparel

Soldiers in the American colonial army at Valley Forge, having worn out their boots, wrapped their feet in cloth during 1 of the coldest winters of the 18th century so that they could survive until spring to fight for liberty.

Union soldiers fought the Battle of Gettysburg in dark blue heavy wool uniforms in 87 degree heat under the July sun to preserve the Union.

Some American soldiers in the Vietnam War began smoking cigarettes because, during jungle fighting, leeches would crawl into their clothes & attach to their skin. The only good way to remove them at night after battle was to burn them off with the lighted end of a cigarette.

To help save the lives of their fellow citizens, Americans in 2020 are asked to wear a light cloth mask when they go shopping. Many of them regard this as an intolerable imposition on their personal comfort.

[skidive1]

Scary Thought

The people who warn me about “overthinking” are usually the people that I regard as being least in danger of doing too much thinking.

M.Scott, mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

Honestly

It is said that Honesty Is The Best Policy. We do not say that honesty is the most ethical policy, because that goes without saying. What needs to be said is that it is the BEST policy.

M.Scott, mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

What Do You Mean: Capitalism.

Capitalism is commonly used to mean an economic system that is bonded to a free society, promoting productivity & prosperity for the greatest possible number.

It is not...or, more precisely, does not…does not mean that…the word – capitalism -- does not mean that.

It implies all those things, at least in theory, but it means an economic system based on the investment & production of capital. That means money. Capital does not mean productivity. It does not mean employment, or earnings, or entrepreneurship, or even wealth.. It is closely connected to investment, but it  means money…currency...a system based on that..

It used to be true that a free society & widespread prosperity were so closely bound to capitalism as to be indistinguishable, because productivity & capital -- individually & together required freedom. It required at least some freedom to choose how to become productive & great freedom of choice about how to invest capital, which in turn promoted more freedom & prosperity.

The elements did not occur in a sequence of cause-&-effect steps, but rather like making a stew. The individual elements – the meat, the potatoes, carrots, onions celery, etc. -- can clearly be identified, but not separated���all go in together & get stirred together in no particular order to make a stew of: capital…money, wealth, investment, productivity, prosperity, profit, money…capital. Sometimes they get stirred in a circle, sometimes from the bottom up, sometimes just pushed back & forth. It does not matter which goes into the pot 1st or 3rd or last.

A chap named Karl Marx did not see things that way... He said that it was all about capital. He wrote a book called Capital. He said that capital was not about productivity which was human labor, unrelated to capital. Others disagreed, saying that capital would pay for labor & together they would make more capital, but they all agreed that (for better or worse) the system was based on capital.  

Then, another chap named John Maynard Keynes became enchanted by an idea about capital that often possesses people in many disparate activities. Whether it involves using analgesics or cosmetics or garlic or preaching – “if a little is good a lot is better”. Moreover, if “a lot” means close to 100% that is best of all. Keynes taught his idea to many others including a chap named John Kenneth Galbraith.

They kind of reasoned that if capital means money & the government manufactures money (&, in most places, it is the only organization that does) then the government can make more money & put it into circulation & before you know it, lots of people will have lots more money & that would be good, but especially good if there were ever a time when people could not get much money from anywhere else. That happened in the 1930s. Keynes told his ideas to the President of The United States of America, who liked the Keynes idea as a way to help people get money at that time when it was very difficult to get money anywhere else.

People who had always thought about capital & money as part of that stew of things that go together including wealth, productivity, profit, etc. said that just manufacturing money was not a good idea. They insisted on that for a long time, because they were used to the old stew, but the government continued to manufacture money. Before long, everyone got used to the idea of just having a big supply of money.

Now, almost everyone thinks that there should be a very big supply of money & they are completely comfortable with just having money whether it is part of the stew or not. That includes, in fact, mostly is supported by, the people who used to say that Karl Marx was wrong. They are people in business, banking & politics who call themselves capitalists & they certainly are.

Whenever something goes wrong with the system – banks failing, automobile companies failing, the health care system failing -- they agree that the government should manufacture more capital, but should do a lot of that even when things are not so bad. They still insist that it is – or, at least ought to be – part of the old stew. They still insist that Karl Marx was wrong. Now, they just do not need to care. They have money. That is capitalism.enough.

 M.Scott  mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

Just Think

Communication can & does have various purposes, but the principal purpose of communication is to convey that which is in the mind of the communicator. If the content of the mind is garbled, inchoate, ill-formed & muddled that will be the content of the communication.

M.Scott, mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

What Do You Know. Or Not.

For reasons largely beyond their control there are things that some people have been unable to learn.To that extent, that is ignorance..Then, there are things that some people have been unwilling to learn. That is stupidity.   

M.Scott --- mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

Cheating At Golf & Politics

June 21, 2019 at 5:26 p.m. EDT -- This observation of mine was originally published in the Washington Post.

Different articles on successive days in The Post — “Saving face” [Outlook, June 16] and “Life of Reilly moves into its third act ” [Sports, June 17] — had an important similarity, but an equally  important divergence, both around the subject of President Trump as liar  and cheat. Jonathan Greenberg, in “Saving face,” demonstrated  powerfully how Mr. Trump perpetrated the massive hoax that he was a  titanic business success. The Sports article reported that Rick Reilly’s  book “Commander in Cheat” reveals Mr. Trump as a shameless golf cheat.

Mr.  Reilly asserted that avid golfers will despise this dishonesty and act  on it to oppose Mr. Trump: “My Dad was a lifelong Republican, but I  don’t know if he’d vote for this guy knowing how he cheats at golf.”

Mr.  Greenberg showed journalists and financial analysts working diligently  on investigating Mr. Trump. However, he glossed over how their senior  executives abetted the fraud. Repeatedly, Mr. Greenberg cited  “bullying,” “intimidation” and “threatening.” Executives were portrayed  as helpless victims of those tactics — corrupting news stories, firing  people for honest reports. Mr. Greenberg said that with such tactics Mr.  Trump “compromised the truth-telling capacity of Forbes magazine, the  Wall Street Journal, TV broadcasters, Arthur Andersen and casino  analysts on Wall Street.” That’s it? He “bullied” them? Is that how  Attorney General John Mitchell compromised  the truth-telling capacity of The Post, by “intimidating” Ben Bradlee?  Maybe those executives will eschew spinelessness if some Sunday at their  country club they learn with shock that Mr. Trump cheats at golf.

Michael Scott, Arlington mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

Taking (Brain) Sides

Psychologists say that the familiar, popular concept of left-brain-right-brain thinking is simplistic to the point of being wrong. Maybe, but on a practical level it is highly useful as meaningful shorthand (for the 1-billion English-speaking peoples who are not psychologists) to understand something important; in fact very important. It might be the single most important truth in the modern world that there is a clearly perceptible & growing division between those 2 “brain-side” groups of people. Furthermore, It appears that fewer-&-fewer people (choose to) reside in the middle.      

 Basically the division denotes (yes, at the risk of being simplistic) abstract thinkers from those who rely on tangible, external phenomena to provide grounding for their approach to life & living.  Residing in the middle, &/or promoting respect for & appreciation of the contrasting approaches is highly desirable, but – this is the crux of the matter – that is not happening (if it ever was) & the opposite is.      

 This issue was most notably identified by C.P. Snow in the landmark work “The Two Cultures” however his approach was more grounded in sociology than psychology. It was essentially the old “town-versus-gown” issue where academia was remote from & hostile to the workaday world. Sociological divisions can be debated & resolved. Psychological matters are not as amenable to such an accessible approach. That is especially the case if the parties regard their positions as having an ethical, or otherwise value-based dimension, moreover where 1 is seen as an actual threat to the other.  

 Increasingly that seems to be the case in breadth & depth as seen in: *   Right-wing versus left-wing politics (lately, more-&-more visibly a world-wide phenomenon), which is its own issue, but also seems to intertwine with most of the other divisions, especially those of a religious nature.   *   Technology as process tool versus technology as self-justifying product. (This is exemplified in common experience by hearing the complaint “The computer is supposed to work for me, not the other way around”.)   *   Establishment society versus populism / insurgency…as seen sociologically & demographically, not politically or ideologically. In other words: how we live, not necessarily how we should live. Cliches, though they might be, this can be seen in: going to the symphony versus a NASCAR race, using or not using terms from foreign languages in daily speech, design in gold & glass versus dark wood & leather. As another clichéd phrase goes: “Style is a statement”. At least it is here. It says very significantly: “That is them; this is us; we are apart”.      *  Artists & academics seen (by themselves & others) as a culture separate from other cultures. That is the heart of the C.P.Snow idea, but changed by, at least, the sheer scale of modern living.     *  Liberal Arts & Sciences Degree (education) versus Occupational Degree (training).  

*  Metaphorical versus literal approaches to & interpretations of…almost everything…but most crucially in fundamentalist religion (irrespective of the particular religion). It is 1 thing to argue with people who deem God to be guiding them, but another thing, indeed, if they are not merely guided, but “know” exactly, literally, word-for-word, what God is saying.  

 It is tempting to think of most or all of the above in traditional political or ideological terms: Republican-Democrat / Tory-Labour…Conservative-Liberal…Statist-Libertarian…Socialist-Capitalist… Rich-Poor… …Advanced Culture-3rd World…etc…but those divisions are grounded in issues…often with ideological implications to be sure, often with grave & daunting, aspects. Additionally they have the complicating attribute that all those old partisan divisions are becoming less structured & defined. Nevertheless, the issues which fuel them are entirely debatable, as issues.

 On the other hand, while the above “brain-side” categories can imply issues, the key point is that they are – most significantly – ways of thinking, almost ways of being. That is not so malleable. People use their mode of reasoning (or sensing) to debate issues, not to be the thing that is debated. In fact, the fundamental approach to life that someone has is where the phrase is typically heard: “This is not debatable”.  

  These approaches can almost always be perceived in that (psychologist unapproved, but nonetheless useful) concept of right-left-brain. They can also be inferred from – if not directly understood – via another pop-psychology approach, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, specifically the parts that see traits which directly indicate how individuals gain knowledge & think....sensing, thinking, intuition, etc. That too is noticeably disdained by professional psychologists, but useful for those who understand human action on a less “professional” basis.    

  Certainly it is futile at present to debate a right-or-wrong or best-worst of the above divisions. Equally futile & frustrating is the blame-game aspect of the debate���”They started it” or “It is their fault”. On the other hand, that is the problem. As people divide along those lines, they become more hostile to “the other side”.  That is true of both “sides”. So, it is also futile, as stated earlier, to plead for understanding & appreciation of the other side.

 From an evolutionary standpoint, likes in those areas attract. People might find that opposites attract in stimulating areas such as a man likes mountain vacations & prospective spouse likes the seashore; he likes pizza versus her falafel but on fundamental issues it is likes that attract, not opposites.

 This means that through the advantages of modern life – easy communication, mobility, learning – humans will mate & breed more of their fundamentally like types. Attraction used to be for the most muscular man or the 1 with the keenest hand-eye ability to throw a spear, the woman with the best sense of smell or deft hand at weaving, or, in every era, for men & women, the 1 with the most money. Now, there is likely a vastly growing, basically in-bred population of abstract thinkers versus – literally versus – sensory thinkers.  

 That is a problem. Absent that utopian & increasingly elusive impulse for “understanding & mutual respect” it is likely that “brain-side” approaches to life will continue to further divide.  

 There might be solutions to all that, but, for now, the world is coming to a point which, in history, has provided the solution that always resolves conflict in the least desirable manner – revolution & warfare. There is an old saying in the legal profession: “All it takes to make a lawsuit is 2 people with diametrically opposing ideas who are both certain that they are right”.

M. Scott -- mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

What Was I Thinking

An education teaches you what to know, A good education teaches you  how to know.

mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

If You Must...Know

  There is a category of (rhetorical) things in a Question-&-Answer motif wherein the Answer part is:

“If you have to ask the question, you will not be able to understand the answer.”

 Often the Q part is posed a bit confrontationally, meaning, that the questioner does not want an answer anyway.  Deal with that in whatever way you like; depends on a lot of different things, but this is more in the realm of etiquette than rhetoric.

 Assume, however, that the Q is justified & stated honestly – not meant to be personally hostile or confrontational. Assume also that the conversants are reasonably intelligent & articulate. Then what?  

 It is not practical to try to solve the problem for every situation, but there is 1 such Q&A in particular that deserves special attention. It is the King in the category of “If you have to ask the Q you cannot understand the A”.  

 It is “What good is a Liberal Arts education?” It is quintuple-layered in its impenetrability.

1.       The answer actually is complex, multi-faceted & lengthy.

2.       The Q betrays a bias (not necessarily hostility, but nevertheless a bias) on the part of the questioner. The Q might truly be seeking information, but implicitly is challenging the idea that the Q can be answered adequately. What “good” is…strongly implies “not good” & changing the form of the Q will not mask the underlying bias.

3.       The ability to comprehend the A requires a capacity to deal with complexity which normally is acquired by receiving a type of education to which the questioner is more-or-less by definition hostile in the 1st place.

4.       The very disposition / personality that does not seek the type of education in #3 (above) is unlikely to be receptive, tolerant or understanding of the information that the A entails.

5.       Those asking this Q more often than not have a sense of what the answer might be & they do not think that it “ought” to be true…even if it is. Like with some atheists – even if there is God, they do not want there to be God & think that the idea of such a thing is “wrong” regardless of its truth.

 However, a disclaimer to start: Liberal Arts (here) is shorthand for various combinations of curricula in various universities – Liberal Arts…&…Letters…&…Sciences. Additionally, some occupation-oriented majors (journalism, architecture, education, etc.) in certain colleges require & entail a fundamentally liberal arts curriculum.

 A basic answer (the basic answer) to the Q is that – above all – it trains, teaches & disciplines the mind,  to continuously learn & understand a broad range of facts, concepts & ideas, grasp large amounts of information discretely analyze, then synthesize & correlate it all, thus to understand & deal with the complexities of personal life & the human condition.

 Then the questioner usually replies (not in so many words exactly) that this is merely an assertion, not an explanation. It does not explain why you need to study history, literature, fine art, mathematics, science, etc. (oh, especially philosophy) to do all that. So…back where you started…what good is it…”

 Somebody once said that even the worst of us has at least 1 redeeming quality…however bad a person might be, he can always serve as an example to others of what not to do. That is perhaps a key to answering the immediate question…what good is a liberal arts education.

Rather than a theoretical, categorical approach (which, of course, is the kind of Aristotelian form that a liberal arts education would indicate) a practical example might better serve the typical “what good is it…” questioner here, who is, by nature, a person who understands things much more easily with practical, real-world examples anyway.

 The desired practical example to demonstrate the above has lately become widely accessible. The value of a liberal education is easily seen by the alternative that you get in its absence.

 Few, if any, jobs in the world so clearly involve the type of intellectual rigor noted above as the job President of The United States of America. Every President in modern (post WWII) times until just recently had the kind of education described above.

 From alumni of little-known colleges (eg: Johnson, Reagan) to world-renowned schools (eg: Kennedy, Clinton) they all received broad-based educations, oriented to lifetime learning & intellectual rigor, not job training. That includes Eisenhower & Carter, whose colleges have a unique emphasis on intellectual discipline as job training. Those men were all not only liberally educated, but most of them went on to graduate degrees.

 Then comes Donald Trump who also (thanks to some, both, intellectual & job-skilled Russians) can make a claim to being President. Trump makes much of having gone to an Ivy League school. Well, yes, University of Pennsylvania is in that distinguished company. Its Wharton School of Business, which Trump attended, is famous…for its Graduate School. BUT.

 Trump attended the undergraduate school…distinctly not the MBA program. Moreover he did not major in even such broad business areas as management, marketing, finance or accounting; he actually majored in real estate. Real Estate. In other words, he was in a curriculum which is typically studied as a Certificate Program or Associate Degree in a community college.

 No doubt, it provided a truly excellent foundation for making money in a field whose entire focus is profit-&-loss. For a young man destined to inherit a $600-million real estate empire from his Daddy this is good. Training with the singular, highly knowable focus of making money in a singularly knowable field is certainly useful, but it is awfully narrow…challenging, sure, but narrow.  Regarding how broad the management focus should be in the regime of making money, Milton Friedman, finance adviser to several Presidents declared that a corporate chief has no responsibility other than to provide maximum profit to owners.

(Just incidentally…it seems more than a little surprising that such a person as Trump would – defying all probability – nonetheless fail to make money to the extent of 4-times declaring bankruptcy.)

Trump, having inherited a fortune, parlayed that “achievement” all the way into inheriting a robust economy from Barack Obama, which – due to its robustness – did not require much management skill. Lucky, because Management is an entirely separate major at Wharton. A problem surfaces, however, when management, such as it is, must be done not in a focused business operation, but with literally hundreds of other competing “top priorities” such as national security, global pandemic preparation, racial /social unrest.    

 While running a large business might keep someone frantically busy with many concerns – possibly even being an adequate test & training ground for the Presidency, it is not a guarantee of performance.  The only real assurance (still certainly no guarantee, but the only really good test) is whether there is a disciplined, energetic, capacious intellect at work. It must be insatiably curious to know, to learn. It must be grounded in trust of intellect, itself, to continuously use knowledge & disciplined thinking as the primary resource.

 Other things come into play. Good health is 1 actually; being a good person is probably helpful, but there is no substitute; as John Kennedy said, “You cannot beat brains”.

 Trump has often & loudly sneered at intellect & learning, proclaiming that he relies instead on instinct. It is actually his boast.  Well, a man standing on the seashore, gazing at the horizon has the instinct that the Earth is flat. Knowledge & intellect, in a person who respects & uses it, will overcome the error of that instinct.

 Ill-equipped to visualize an unseen pandemic through imagination (literature), to understand how China works (history), to know how microorganisms live (science), to – above all – think clearly, broadly, deeply about disparate things (philosophy), the instinctual real estate salesman could not cope with all those things that disrupted his focus on money. Eventually he lost any real, clear focus even on that.

 M. Scott -- mscottdiver@comcast.net

[skidive1]

What Did He Know & When

May 12,2020 Michael Scott -- mscottdiver@comcast.net

It is said that Honesty Is The Best Policy. We do not say that honesty is the most ethical policy, because that goes without saying. What needs to be said is that it is the BEST policy

Warnings of possible pandemic have been made for many years. Donald Trump said that the current crisis came “out of the blue” was “completely unexpected”. That is, of course, a lie, but even if we pretend (hallucinate) that Trump is (for once, uncharacteristically) telling the truth, then many grave questions arise.

While declaring that the pandemic was “unexpected” he simultaneously blames Barack Obama for depleting and mismanaging the federal stockpile of resources for epidemic crisis management…a stockpile which had been created because (obviously) some kind of an epidemic was anticipated. It does not matter that it was the coronavirus or Ebola or SARS, an epidemic was expected. So, assuming that the stockpile was depleted, that “the cupboard was bare” as Trump has (falsely) claimed, then the next questions are these:

n When did Trump first know of the (alleged) deficiency?  

n When (if ever) did he come to understand that this was a serious problem?  

n When, specifically, after learning all that, did he address the matter of fixing the problem?

n What specifically & in detail did he do to fix the problem…?…specifically, when?

Well, if – IF –he did not learn of it until late 2019 or early 2020, the question is why?

n Why did he – in his position – not know of something so utterly and completely crucial to national security as the maintenance of the epidemic management arsenal?

n Trump promised often and loudly to have “the best people” and “greatest people” in his cabinet, but for 2&½ years none was best and greatest enough to warn (him) of this deficiency…?…why?

n He claims to be a “genius” who “knows more than the generals” so why, then, was Trump not smart enough personally to anticipate such a crisis epidemic, himself?

On the other hand, if he knew of it in 2017, 2018 or early 2019:

n Why did he not address the problem at that time?  Why did he not then, immediately, order the CDC to publish requests for proposals from medical suppliers – Johnson & Johnson, 3M, Hill-Rom, etc. – to begin manufacturing the supplies to replenish the stockpile?  If done in those early years, the “bare cupboard” could easily have been restocked in time, so that there would not have been thousands upon thousands of first-line personnel pleading for resources.

n Why has Trump authorized budget and staffing reductions in such crisis-related places as the NSC Global Health Security team, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency, which manages research and production of disinfectants?

To paraphrase, as America has asked before: What did Trump know, and when did he know it?

Now, America also asks: Is this the type of management that we will seek in the upcoming election?

[skidive1]

No Psychiatrist Needed

(This was originally posted on my Linked-in page in APRIL 2016. I think that the key points are as relevant now as they were then...maybe even more so. Michael Scott...mscottdiver@comcast.net

   Following is an expansion of a Letter-To-The Editor that I sent to the Washington Post back in December, 2015 about Donald Trump. The Post has published some of my thoughts in the past, but since they did not choose to print this item, I offer it here & now.  Note that it was drafted months ago. At that time the Post might have thought it to be possibly overstated...now...maybe not so much.

   There is a significant population of billionaires in America. Most are not actors, athletes, musicians or the like. Most are quiet almost to the point of anonymity. A few are noted public figures, well-known & admired -- certainly for their sheer level of accomplishment in becoming wealthy -- but also for the qualities of talent & intellect in science, business, exploration & other fields, that are the source of their wealth. Among them are people who have gained further public notice for contributions to charity, education, human development.  Most of them have another trait for which they are known & respected -- humble self-effacement. In public interviews they display no false modesty about acknowledging the contribution of their own talent & energy to their position, but do so mostly just when asked directly to do so. Rarely, if ever, does that become something that anyone would see as boasting or bragging. Then they usually turn quickly away from that topic & back to their thoughts, projects & teams.  Such figures include -- to name only a very few -- Bill Marriott, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Mark Zuckerberg & the late Steve Jobs. Most were born into comfortable lives, but were not of legendary multi-generational family empires such as duPont or Rockefeller. They are people who know that they are good, talented, accomplished & do not need to be told so, do not even want to be told so, & spend little time saying so themselves. In stark contrast on this scale of humility among the mega-rich is DONALD TRUMP..

   There is a gravely serous problem in that regard & it is not merely his obvious rejection of the old standard of understated elegance in favor of overstated opulence.Since mid-2015 the pathetic insecurity and mirror-kissing vanity of this self-obsessed prima donna as revealed in his egregious, albeit linguistically clumsy, bombast has been seen largely as characteristic of a bizarrely expansive  personality. Many would say that he is more than bizarre, but not much more -- just tastelessly obnoxious -- but, indeed there is far more to it than that.The narcissistic exhibitionism of the man reveals a neediness for attention & a helpless insecurity so clear that it requires no psychoanalyst to see it.

   Common life experience -- across almost every culture & time really -- will show it to anyone.  This is obviously someone who is so painfully in need of constant, intensive reassurance that he must never -- never -- allow himself to be disdained or to be without lavish praise.  The only way to ensure that such sycophantic admiration will always, unfailingly & instantly be available to him is to be sure that it comes with him everywhere that he goes...necessarily, therefore, that can be provided by only 1 person...Trump, himself. That is something beyond tasteless...bizarre...obnoxious.

   It is dangerously intolerable, because he could become the President of the United States of America.His endless wallow in self-love reveals a personality so frail, so needy for reassurance, that, such a fragile ego might do anything -- anything -- to maintain his ego-satisfaction.

   As President, he will no longer be sparring with journalists or “firing” game show contestants, or threatening & slandering private citizen hecklers. No; he will daily be facing powerful brutes (Putin) dangerous megalomaniac psychopaths (Kim) or soulless war criminals (Assad) to whom his schoolyard name-calling & self-described magnificence means nothing. When confronted, dismissed or insulted by them what will he do...?...whine & snarl about an unfair rigged world system...?...threaten yet another war...?...fly into a mindless rage & "fire" the Supreme Court & the Senate?

   He has amply displayed -- in fact boasted about -- his immediate & unrestricted willingness to attack those who criticize him at the slightest provocation. He has boasted that he is prepared to "destroy" people who oppose him.  Undoubtedly the most obediently salivating claque among his supporters -- people of a class who conflate wealth with virtue, competence & intellect -- are certain that he will measure up to such challenges to his frail, needy insecurity. Other Americans are sure of the opposite.

   It is still a campaign & not yet an Administration, so now "merely" a political problem, Even just treating this in its current state merely as a political problem, the real political problem is that no Republican has displayed the intelligence, wit or vigor to assess the larger concern. If they cannot even perceive – much less expose -- the effete vulnerability of their opponent, then the problem is far deeper than winning votes.  It deepens their already strong identity as the party of the anti-intellectual...simply too dull-witted to understand all this as a problem, let alone too witless to know what to do about it.