header 1
header 2
header 3

Message Forum - GENERAL

Welcome to the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

02/05/25 08:26 PM #18010    

 

Jack Mallory

A couple of related memes, both of which ring true to me. And Tammy passes the Smeby rule for the right to have an opinion! Doesn't she, John? 
 



But Trump fails the test, no?
 

 


02/06/25 10:13 AM #18011    

 

Jay Shackford

The Madness of Donald Trump

To Benjamin Netanyaha’s delight, Trump proposes the wholesale

ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the creation of the new “Riviera”

By David Remnick, Editor of The New Yorker

February 5, 2025

More than five hundred years ago, Machiavelli, the philosopher of political practice and modern republicanism, suggested, in “Discourses on Livy,” that “at times it is a very wise thing to simulate madness.” Richard Nixon, according to his chief of staff H. R. Haldeman, apparently arrived at a similar conclusion, saying, “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button’—and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.”

On Tuesday, President Trump appeared alongside the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in the East Room at the White House, and declared that the two million Palestinians in Gaza should be forced out of the Strip. The United States would “take over” Gaza and “own” it. The Palestinians, after having suffered tens of thousands of deaths and the destruction of countless homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and other infrastructure, would, it appears, have nothing to say about any of this and would be sent . . . elsewhere. Egypt. Jordan. Whatever. It hardly seemed to matter to Trump that such a policy represents ethnic cleansing. Morality is of no interest when there is a real-estate deal to be made.

“We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal, and I don’t want to be cute, I don’t want to be a wise guy, but the Riviera of the Middle East—this could be something that could be so—this could be so magnificent,” Trump said. (The Riviera: “A sunny place for shady people,” as W. Somerset Maugham put it.) “We’ll make sure that it’s done world-class,” Trump went on, building on the real-estate pitch. As he’d noted earlier in the day, “It doesn’t have to be one area, but you take certain areas and you build really good-quality housing, like a beautiful town, like someplace where they can live and not die, because Gaza is a guarantee that they’re going to end up dying.”

Netanyahu expressed confidence that the plan would “usher in the peace with Saudi Arabia and with others.” The Saudis issued an official statement rejecting Trump’s proposal, but the newly minted yes-men performed on cue: Secretary of State Marco Rubio tweeted that “the United States stands ready to lead and Make Gaza Beautiful Again.”

As Trump spoke, Netanyahu could not resist a smile so broad that it must have ached after a while. He could not have imagined a greater gift from the American President or the provision of greater political cover back home. His gratitude was boundless, and he knew well enough to slather on the grease of flattery. “I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: you are the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House,” Netanyahu said to Trump, for the cameras. “I believe, Mr. President, that your willingness to puncture conventional thinking, thinking that has failed time and time again, your willingness to think outside the box with fresh ideas, will help us achieve all of these goals.”

Netanyahu’s cheerleaders in the Israeli press, such as Amit Segal, of Channel 12, hailed the news, and Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of the leaders of the annexationist wing of Israeli politics, tweeted, “Donald, this looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” Amos Harel, the well-respected reporter and analyst for Haaretz, the liberal daily, told me, “The right wing here is euphoric. There is no way to figure this out. Maybe Trump is more delusional than I thought. He has more energy than Biden, but . . . wow.”

This is not the first time that the Trump family, which has made substantial financial investments in the region in recent years, has envisioned Gaza for its resort potential. Last February, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner said in an interview at Harvard University that “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable. . . . It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.” Kushner has retreated from White House politics, remaining for now in Miami, but he views himself as a grand strategist of the Middle East. At Harvard, he said that “proactively recognizing” a Palestinian state would be a “super-bad idea.”

After watching Trump and Netanyahu, I spoke with Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist at Al-Azhar University, in Gaza, who has been teaching this year at Northwestern University. “I’m depressed, man,” he told me. “I don’t even know what will happen, but I do know that the Palestinians are against this and would rather live in tents and in the rubble of their destroyed homes than leave. And we all know that the neighboring countries, Egypt and Jordan, have said no to this idea.” King Abdullah II, of Jordan, and President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, of Egypt, both see an increased Palestinian population in their countries as a demographic and political threat to their regimes. Also, although both countries have long-standing peace treaties with Israel, it is unclear how Trump’s proposal and Netanyahu’s pleasure in its pronouncement might affect those arrangements.

Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat and analyst of the Middle East, told me that his “head was exploding” as he watched Trump. “In twenty-seven years of working for Democrats and Republicans, I’ve never heard a press conference like this,” he said.

Miller, of course, is aware that Trump’s intention, always, is to shock, to play the madman, and thus frighten his rivals and alter the terms of the debate. Maybe, just maybe, it will all dissipate, Miller suggested. Trump habitually says outrageous things, watches how they land, and, often enough, distances himself from his own provocations. (Will he seize Greenland? The Panama Canal? Make Canada the fifty-first state?) Perhaps Trump thinks he’ll be able to prop up Netanyahu at home and so deeply alarm other Middle Eastern leaders that he will be able to both muscle Iran into a deal that ends its nuclear ambitions and complete a broader regional settlement with Saudi coöperation. Or perhaps Trump’s latest performance is of a piece with the strategy of “flooding the zone” with so much chaos and deceptive rhetoric, and with so many mind-altering proposals and appointments, that, while the establishment’s collective head explodes on an hourly basis, he achieves at least some of his fondest ambitions.

And yet it seems inevitable that there will be a price for all the madness. Miller cautioned that, although Trump may back away from his proposal of ethnic cleansing and Riviera creation, such a performance sends a particularly dangerous message: “It is a nod to Putin that he can keep the territory he’s taken in Ukraine, and to Xi, who might now have more confidence about establishing a blockade of Taiwan in preparation for an invasion. It all reflects the mind-set of an unserious man.”

Nixon considered himself to be a profound thinker on global strategy. And yet it’s important to recall that, though he might have convinced himself that his act would bring the North Vietnamese leadership to heel, that misbegotten war ended in American defeat. Similarly, Putin’s veiled nuclear threats during his war on Ukraine, and Trump’s threats of “fire and fury” against North Korea, in 2017, hardly proved decisive, much less constructive. The President’s decision to deploy, yet again, a display of chaotic bravado—an enactment of the Madman Theory, if that’s what it is—will do nothing to bring a lasting peace to the Middle East, and brings disgrace to the United States. ♦︎

David Remnick has been the editor of The New Yorker since 1998 and a staff writer since 1992. He is the author of seven books; the most recent is “Holding the Note,” a collection of his profiles of musicians.

 

02/06/25 11:09 AM #18012    

 

Jack Mallory

Yeah, Nixon's Madman theory. Won us the war in Vietnam, unless my memory fails me? I'm sure the Felon's lunacy will work just as well in Gaza as Nixon's did in Vietnam. Surely Hamas will be as easy to whup as the VC/NVA?


02/07/25 10:07 AM #18013    

 

Jack Mallory

Trump doesn't want to see this photo used in teaching history, I'm sure. Central figure is the problem, of course--only there because of DEI policies. Well, and we don't want the athlete on the right to make any nationality ashamed of their history. Probably just waving to his mom. 



02/07/25 01:32 PM #18014    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Hi dear Alumni friends,

Thanks Jay for posting that article by Bill Kristol..Trump cares nothing for the Palestinians and plans to do ethnic cleansing and throw them out of Gaza so he can build a beautiful riviera. I don't think it will come to fruition..Trump is so uninformed. The Arab countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia won't go for this and we will lose our standing at all in the middle east. Of course Netanyahu and his right wing governement think its a great plan as they care nothing for even handedness.

To NORI, you were congratulating Trumps first couple of weeks saying job accomplished but you left out that Trump is doing illegal things. Only Congress has the power of the purse and can decide on appropriations, not Trump and Musk. Musk isn't allowed to go into our personal finances to mess around with that. This is dangerous. Trying to freeze funds already appropriated by Congress Nori is illegal and guess who suffers from that...the poor that get meals on wheels or headstart and so many others that depend on us.  Getting rid of USAID, is taking a big risk as they help keep of safe. Cancelling government experts like the head of FAA's air trafic controll didn't work out so well and what happens when we have no food safety experts or hardly any FBI to help us be safe from terrorism. The Trump administration is full of sycophants to Trump and they are going after anyone who prosecuted Trump or the Jan 6 insurrectionists...the insurrectionists were convicted by a jury of their peers in our justice system and many were deemed dangerous. You said how Trump is rounding up criminal re: immigrants but you fail to mention Nori, that Trump released hundreds of violent criminals that were the Jan 6 gang...We are in real

trouble now with this authoritarian governement. Only the courts are helping us now to stop Trump and Musk. Here is an article to read about all the abuses so far...Love, Joanie

https://time.com/7212753/trump-elon-musk-federal-laws-legal-analysis/


02/07/25 03:11 PM #18015    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Time Magazine got it right with this cover...

I meant to say more about the loss of USAID then their work against terrorism...the previous link I sent goes into the many wonderful things they do and why they are essential too to our national security...of course they are humanitarians. Trump cares nothing about being a humanitarian. Love, Joanie

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/07/media/time-magazine-elon-musk-cover-trump/index.html


02/07/25 05:00 PM #18016    

 

Jack Mallory

Lest we forget the nature of the man occupying the White House. I wrote this exactly five years ago, after the man later to become a felon had fired an honest American Army officer from his post in the NSC. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified before Congress about Trump's attempts to bribe or blackmail the Ukrainian government into a spurious investigation of Joe Biden.

 

 

Reflecting on the President's firing of Lt. Col. Vindman and his brother:

Colonel Vindman came before Congress to offer honest testimony under oath, doing what he thought was the honorable thing for the country that he served and had shed blood for. He worked in the White House; he must have known the risk to his career that his honesty exposed him to. Perhaps he didn't understand how low his Commander in Chief would sink for revenge, attacking his brother as well as himself.

Honor is not a concept much discussed in the civilian world, I think. I see nothing to suggest that it is a concept that has been part of Donald Trump's world, regardless of his boy's school "military training." It was certainly not a word that I had much reflected on myself, prior to military service. But it was a concept introduced in basic training and further emphasized and expanded in Officer Candidate School.

According to the U.S. Army, "Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do." 

Acting honorably is the way you live your life, not for profit, or promotion, or applause, but because it's the right thing to do. Acting honorably is a requirement for trust, and in the military trust in the word and behavior of others is essential because your lives depend on the verity of their words and the dependability of their behavior.

Again, this does not seem to have been a value that has guided Donald Trump's life. This is quite clear when we look at the wording of the definition. "Respect:"  the Access Hollywood tape. "Loyalty:" to what, other than profit? "Selfless service:" self seems to be the very center of his being. "Integrity:" in a man for whom dishonesty is a first language. "Duty" and "Personal courage:" a man who took five draft deferments for a condition which in no way hampered his athleticism. In deferring his own duty to his country, he obligated others to serve, perhaps die, in his place. 

Writing this dredged up memories of the Code of Conduct, the description of the behaviors expected of every member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Aside from being made gender neutral, it seems unchanged since I leaned it in 1966. 

Please read these six brief articles of expected behavior among military personnel:

Article I:

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II:

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III:

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV:

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V:

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI:

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Now, imagine the likelihood that Donald John Trump would or could abide by this code. Who would YOU rather have at your back in combat, one of the Vindmans or Trump? Who would YOU trust to do the right thing, the honorable thing, for this country?


02/09/25 10:39 AM #18017    

 

Jay Shackford

Muskrats and Dinosaurs

 

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist, The New York Times, reporting from Washington

 

Tom Stoppard wrote in “The Real Thing,” his enticing play about infidelity: “To marry one actress is unfortunate. To marry two is simply asking for it.”

Here’s a political corollary: To elect one Emperor of Chaos is unfortunate. To let two run the government is simply asking for it.

Presidents Trump and Musk have merged their cult followings, attention addictions, conspiratorial mind-sets, disinformation artistry, disdain for the Constitution, talent for apocalyptic marketing and jumping-from-thing-to-thing styles.

With a pitiless and mindless velocity, they are running roughshod over the government — and the globe.

 

Queasy D.C. denizens are waiting anxiously to see if judges can save the country from the scofflaws running it.

The two unchecked and unbalanced billionaires are entwined in a heady and earth-shattering relationship.

“I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man,” Musk posted on X on Friday.

He may simply be offering affection to ward off any jealousy Trump felt when he saw Time’s new cover illustration: Musk in the Oval behind the Resolute Desk.

Elon Musk is brainy but he’s not your usual presidential brain trust.

Although everyone in Washington, including some in Trump’s inner circle, expect the two pathological narcissists to barrel into each other, they both seem to be getting what they want from the relationship.

Trump loves to be admired by the elites, and he adores money. Musk has gotten the keys to the American kingdom so he can attack “the woke mind virus,” which Musk says “killed” his “son,” who transitioned as a teenager. Both men are driven by revenge to smash up the government.

 

The president and the tech lord even have progeny, little Elons: the lost boys of DOGE, a gang of Gen-Zers in jeans with backpacks and bags of Doritos bursting into federal agencies to gut them and force bureaucrats to justify their existence.

Their backgrounds and work are shrouded in secrecy, even as they access the government’s most sensitive information.

“Muskrats,” as the bureaucrats they call “dinosaurs” named them, are rifling the government’s computers. A 19-year-old with the internet pseudonym “Big Balls” lost an earlier internship for leaking company secrets; a 25-year-old was ousted over racist posts. He wrote on X, “I was racist before it was cool,” and “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity,” and “Normalize Indian hate.” Even though he is married to an Indian American, Vice President JD Vance rescued the “kid,” as he called him, and helped him get his job back.

It’s not that we don’t need to rein in spending, including what is spent on risibly P.C. programs. But the disdain for Congress and the rule of law, and the glee at erasing so many jobs and programs, as if there is no human cost, is reprehensible. We are, after all, only carbon-based beings.

The lost boys of DOGE fit in well with the “Mean Girls” attitude of Trump’s Washington. On Friday, the DOGE X account posted before-and-after pictures of the U.S. Agency for International Development entrance; they had stripped it of all identification. Their post even trolled Kamala Harris, using her viral phrase: “Unburdened by what has been.”

 

The Silicon Valley digerati don’t care about the old world in Washington, D.C., churning out meddlesome regulations, laws and taxes. They are cocky about creating a new world, shaped by a new species, A.I.

Donald and Elon are emotional time bombs, lashing out in the crudest and cruelest ways. Trump’s amoral, puerile, wrecking-ball style is now squared by Musk’s.

It’s rich that the world’s richest man is rooting around trying to wipe out vast numbers of government workers, saying, “Sorry, you can’t have your $85,000 a year job and your health insurance.”

“They don’t care if the government delivers food or comes in and rescues your town from a flood or teaches poor kids in the inner city because they don’t have to live through any of those things themselves,” said the Trump biographer Tim O’Brien. “They’re rich and powerful, so they’re insulated from consequences of their actions.”

Trump cares about being popular and Musk doesn’t. So their relationship will probably remain strong until Elon cuts so many benefits from the Trump faithful that they tell Trump they no longer love him.

 

And the bromance may not end with a bang. It could very well end with a bot.

When Trump turns 80, as a birthday present, Elon and the lost boys could create an A.I.-fueled Trump bot, a real-time video head trained on his news conferences and everything he has ever tweeted.

Jaron Lanier, the father of virtual reality, slyly says that Trump would be “an unusually easy person to plausibly fake.”

“Gradually it’ll be normalized,” Lanier told me. “People will get used to it more and more, and then it’ll actually start to be treated as the president. If you look at it on your phone or your computer, it would look just like him. The underlying software could be presented as a hologram onstage. It might even run in the next election. And they’ll go to the Supreme Court and say, ‘We know that the president can only have two terms, but this isn’t really the president. This is the Trump bot and A.I.s are people, too.’ Essentially allowing a continuation of the same administration into a third term.”

All Hail President Trump Bot, engineered by Elon Musk.


02/09/25 01:11 PM #18018    

 

Jack Mallory

8" of snow last night, about 30 minutes of car clearing and shoveling for Deb and I.


 

Then the snow plow came, cleared the street very nicely but left, as always, another foot of snow piled up at the base of the driveway.

Ahhh, New England Zen: the duality of life, the Yin and Yang, the enmeshed nature of good and evil. Humans labor to clear their driveways, to prepare their reentry to the external world; they wait expectantly for the snow plow to finalize that connection. It arrives, to great relief, rejoicing. BUT, their relief is short-lived, their rejoicing premature, the promise of joy through externalities is a false promise. For their hard work has been undone; they must clear their minds, their driveways yet again--the plow has both connected them and simultaneously cut them off. Yes, the road is clear, but the inner road, the driveway, has been blocked, and they must do the personal work to shovel their way to greater insight in order to achieve that oneness with others that they desire. 

Sometimes I suspect I lived in Santa Cruz too long  

 

One of my lifetime BCC besties, Kat Harting, turned me on to a wonderful Billy Collins poem:

Shoveling Snow With the Buddha

In the usual iconography of the temple or the local Wok
you would never see him doing such a thing,

tossing the dry snow over a mountain
of his bare, round shoulder,
his hair tied in a knot,
a model of concentration.

Sitting is more his speed, if that is the word
for what he does, or does not do.

Even the season is wrong for him.
In all his manifestations, is it not warm or slightly humid?
Is this not implied by his serene expression,
that smile so wide it wraps itself around the waist of the universe?

But here we are, working our way down the driveway,
one shovelful at a time.
We toss the light powder into the clear air.
We feel the cold mist on our faces.
And with every heave we disappear
and become lost to each other
in these sudden clouds of our own making,
these fountain-bursts of snow.

This is so much better than a sermon in church,
I say out loud, but Buddha keeps on shoveling.
This is the true religion, the religion of snow,
and sunlight and winter geese barking in the sky,
I say, but he is too busy to hear me.

He has thrown himself into shoveling snow
as if it were the purpose of existence,
as if the sign of a perfect life were a clear driveway
you could back the car down easily
and drive off into the vanities of the world
with a broken heater fan and a song on the radio.

All morning long we work side by side,
me with my commentary
and he inside his generous pocket of silence,
until the hour is nearly noon
and the snow is piled high all around us;
then, I hear him speak.

After this, he asks,
can we go inside and play cards?

Certainly, I reply, and I will heat some milk
and bring cups of hot chocolate to the table
while you shuffle the deck.
and our boots stand dripping by the door.

Aaah, says the Buddha, lifting his eyes
and leaning for a moment on his shovel
before he drives the thin blade again
deep into the glittering white snow.

*********
Later on today:


02/09/25 03:04 PM #18019    

 

Jay Shackford

Elon Musk’s Revolutionary Terror 

and the “Big Balls” Takeover

By Susan Glasser/The New Yorker

Nearly twenty years ago, the Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote a classic account of the shambolic American takeover of the Iraqi government, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” Most memorably, he described what a Times reviewer called “the lethal combination of official arrogance and ineptitude” that plagued the foreign occupiers from Washington who, after the 2003 U.S. invasion, moved into the Green Zone—the walled-off compound that had once belonged to Saddam Hussein. Young conservatives were favored, heedless of experience. Some job seekers were asked their views of Roe v. Wade. Others were hired after sending their résumés to the right-wing Heritage Foundation back in D.C. While Baghdad spiralled into out-of-control violence, the G.O.P. ideologues who reported for duty in the desert worked to privatize Iraqi government agencies, revamp the tax code, and launch an anti-smoking campaign. A clueless twenty-four-year-old found himself in charge of opening an Iraqi stock exchange. It didn’t work out well.

I was reminded of this gloomy chapter in American history while reading accounts this week of Elon Musk and his small army of anonymous intern-hackers, who have been deployed on Donald Trump’s behalf inside an array of agencies to take control of computer payment systems and government H.R. functions. A nineteen-year-old high school graduate who now has access to sensitive government information is known online as “Big Balls.” A former intern at Musk’s SpaceX, who dropped out of the University of Nebraska, is now working out of the General Services Administration. Scenes of low comedy and spy-movie drama have been reported throughout the federal government—an unclassified e-mail listing all recent C.I.A. employees was sent to the White House to comply with a Musk decree; workers at nasa were ordered to “drop everything” in order to scrub the space program’s Web sites of offending references to banned phrases such as “diversity,” “Indigenous People,” and “women in leadership.” Musk and his command team at the Department of Government Efficiency, a made-up agency with no legal power that Trump established by executive order on his first day back in office, have been sleeping at the Office of Personnel Management.

In its short existence, Musk’s small occupying force has gained access to the entire U.S. Treasury federal payments system—to what end, no one yet knows—and has seemingly orchestrated the dismantling of U.S.A.I.D., the decades-old federal agency in charge of distributing American foreign aid around the world. Upcoming targets reportedly include everything from the Department of Education to the government weather-forecasting service and the U.S. aviation system. Federal employees were given a deadline of Thursday at midnight to accept Musk’s offer of a government-wide deferred-resignation “buyout.” A federal judge has delayed the move, which was expected to yield more than forty thousand takers—well short of the five per cent or more of the federal workforce that Musk hoped to purge, but still an enormous upheaval whose repercussions will echo for years.

In a series of posts on X, the social-media site that Musk owns, the world’s wealthiest man bragged of feeding U.S.A.I.D. to “the wood chipper,” claimed the agency was a “criminal” enterprise, and crowed about “dismantling the radical-left shadow government.” This seemed like a far cry from his initial mandate of serving as an “outside volunteer” to advise Trump on possible budget cuts. Let the record show that, at 3:59 a.m. on day sixteen of the Trump restoration, as Democrats sputtered ineffectually about an unelected billionaire’s illegal power grab, Musk openly proclaimed his project as nothing less than “the revolution of the people.”

A day later, I spoke with a Republican who worked closely with the architects of America’s botched Iraq invasion. I asked whether he had been surprised by anything so far in a Trump Administration designed to shock. Yes, he replied—Musk’s sneaky takeover of the apparatus of the vast U.S. executive branch was something entirely new in the annals of global coups. “Elon figured out that the personnel, information-technology backbone of the government was essentially the twenty-first-century equivalent of the nineteen-fifties television tower in the Third World,” he observed, and “that you could take over the government essentially with a handful of people if you could access all that.” My friend, incidentally, chose to speak on background despite his years of public criticism of Trump, noting that a think tank with which he is affiliated receives government contracts. Fear, in this revolution, as in all revolutions, is perhaps the most effective weapon of all.

Two decades ago, Bush’s Republican Party chose to topple the far-off regime of Saddam Hussein. It’s worth taking a second to reflect that, only a short political lifetime later, the government that Trump’s G.O.P. has chosen to go after is our own.

Trump and Musk have pushed out a steady stream of propaganda and lies to justify their claims for why a revolution wholly outside established laws, procedures, and norms is now necessary. According to a Thursday morning post on Trump’s own Truth Social network, U.S.A.I.D.—which, as far as I can tell, Trump never mentioned on the 2024 campaign trail—is one of several agencies where “BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLLEN,” including as a “PAYOFF” to the “FAKE NEWS MEDIA” for promoting Democrats. This conspiracy, he warned, might be “THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL.” In the run-up to the all-out assault on U.S.A.I.D., Trump’s White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, spread the absurd tale, via Musk’s team, of fifty million dollars that the agency supposedly earmarked for condoms to be sent to the Gaza Strip. By the time Trump later repeated the story, he had elevated the nonexistent bequest of condoms to a hundred million dollars. Think of this as the information-war equivalent of covering fire from the artillery before the ground assault begins. Days later, the U.S.A.I.D. Web site, with the report proving that there were no condoms for Gaza, had been taken offline. By midweek, that Web site was back up but stripped of all content except a curt message informing readers that “all USAID direct hire personnel” were being placed on “administrative leave globally,” effective at midnight on Friday. In the end, the Trump Administration apparently plans to keep only about two hundred of the agency’s more than ten thousand staff.

We don’t yet know to what extent this brazen ploy will succeed, of course. Congressional Democrats and others have mobilized to defend various embattled agencies; lawsuits have been filed; protests have been convened. But for now, the politics may even be working for Trump and Musk. The Democratic strategist David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff for Barack Obama, have both warned that they fear their party is falling into a trap in defending U.S.A.I.D. “My heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head tells me: ‘Man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight,’ ” Axelrod told Politico’s Rachael Bade. “When you talk about cuts, the first thing people say is: Cut foreign aid.”

It’s also true that, if cutting the federal government is what this is all about, then Trump and Musk would not be bothering with tiny U.S.A.I.D., whose estimated budget of some forty billion dollars is less than one per cent of the federal government’s. The point is not a policy fight; it’s an execution. They are killing one agency to terrify a thousand others. Congress should be one of the main aggrieved parties here, given that it passed the laws authorizing U.S.A.I.D. and other departments under attack and appropriating the funding for them, but this is the Republican-controlled Congress in the age of Trump. Speaker Mike Johnson, on Wednesday, dismissed the furor over Musk’s power play as “gross overreaction in the media.” Perhaps the most perfect distillation of where elected Republican officials are at right now came from the North Carolina senator Thom Tillis. Asked about what Musk is doing on Trump’s behalf, he replied, “That runs afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense.” But, he added, “nobody should bellyache about that.”

The message here is loud and clear: the revolution will not be stopped on Capitol Hill. And indeed, on Tuesday, two of Trump’s most controversial nominees, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Tulsi Gabbard for director of National Intelligence, were voted out of Senate committees after key Republican senators abandoned their objections to them. On Thursday evening, despite an all-night Democratic filibuster against the nomination of Russell Vought to be Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Senate was expected to go ahead and confirm him. Vought is an intellectual architect of the attack on the federal government who helped write the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda for the new Administration, and he has made little secret of the pain he is hoping to inflict. “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said at a conference in 2023, a tape of which was later obtained by ProPublica. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work. . . . We want to put them in trauma.”

Earlier this week, I spoke with one of Vought’s millions of targets, a career prosecutor who’s spent decades in the Justice Department’s environment division. The purge of her corner of the bureaucracy hadn’t yet made headlines, but it had arrived nonetheless. “They’ve already come,” she told me. Four of the division’s eight section chiefs had been removed and reassigned to a task force on combatting so-called sanctuary cities. Multiple employees whose roles involved “diversity” had been placed on administrative leave. The division’s “law and policy” section attorneys were told their entire office would be eliminated. And all that was before the incoming Attorney General, Pam Bondi, was confirmed by the Senate. “It’s just basically like we’re in a black hole, where our leadership has been eliminated but no political leadership has come in,” she said.

If trauma is the goal, Trump and his minions have already succeeded. But my source also offered up an eloquent rebuttal to the mindless cutting, an approach that she compared to an elementary-school principal deciding that, rather than trim the budget a few per cent, she’d just go ahead and eliminate the entire third grade. Should we get rid of air-traffic controllers and fema and E.P.A. testing for lead in your kids’ water, too? She asked. Frankly, her defense of the federal government was better than just about anything I’ve heard from the beleaguered Democrats. The revolution, however, will get the last laugh: after more than thirty years of public service, she already planned to retire later this year. Congrats, Elon Musk. 


02/10/25 02:48 PM #18020    

 

Jay Shackford

This Is How Democrats

Can Counter Elon Musk 

 

By Jennifer Pahlka

Ms. Pahlka is the author of “Recoding America: Why Government Is Failing in the Digital Age, and How We Can Do Better” and served as U.S. deputy technology officer under President Barack Obama. This guest op-ed appeared in the Feb. 7, 2025 New York Times. 

 

If anyone on the left should be rooting for Elon Musk, it’s me.

In 2011, the nonprofit I founded started bringing mostly young programmers and designers into government offices. We needed access to data systems to do our jobs, but many public servants were fearful that our teams might “move fast and break things” — so sometimes nothing moved at all.

Later, I helped found the U.S. Digital Service in the White House under President Barack Obama. The tech talent that came in was a little older and more experienced, but the dynamic was the same. Over time, I became frustrated with the layers of process and procedure that encrust so much of government operations, and the ways they can backfire, work against the public interest and erode trust in our institutions.

I’ve called for deproceduralization, a kind of deregulation not of the private sector but of government itself — from the Pentagon to the Agriculture Department to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — so that it can move faster, be bolder and get stuff done. I’ve come by my impatience honestly.

Now Mr. Musk is accused of many of the things I was criticized for: importing tech talent, impatience with the status quo and a desire for disruption. He has even taken the U.S. Digital Service as his vehicle, renaming it the U.S. DOGE Service, after his “department of government efficiency.”

 

But my goal — the goal of many Democrats and Republicans alike — has been to revitalize government. Mr. Musk seems to be trying to destroy it. The events of the past week suggest a fundamentally different motivation.

Democrats must take care at this moment not to confuse tactics with goals. They shouldn’t define themselves simply as Mr. Musk’s operational opposite, leaving themselves defenders of a broken status quo. Their goal must be a muscular, lean, effective administrative state that works for Americans.

Mr. Musk’s recklessness will not get us there, but neither will the excessive caution and addiction to procedure that Democrats exhibited under President Joe Biden’s leadership.

By the measure of laws passed and dollars appropriated, the Biden administration can claim historic achievements. But voters measured tangible results. A $42 billion program for broadband internet, authorized under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, had not connected a single household by December. A $7.5 billion investment in electric vehicle charging stations has reportedly produced just 47 stations across 15 states. More than half of the $1.6 trillion appropriated under Mr. Biden’s four signature bills remains unspent and vulnerable to clawback by the Trump administration. These outcomes put at risk not just Mr. Biden’s legacy but also American competitiveness, climate goals and public safety. And they are typical results of our overburdened system for putting policy into effect.

Mr. Musk would pin this glacial pace on lazy bureaucrats. In fact, most of the public servants charged with carrying out these policies have been working tirelessly and creatively, but the obstacles they face are daunting.

 

Imagine you’re a federal employee diving in to help deploy funding under the CHIPS and Science Act and are drafting a simple web form to allow companies to express their initial interest. Imagine you are then told that in addition to extensive reviews by lawyers and dozens of other stakeholders in your agency and across the federal government, your form is subject to review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a process that typically takes at least nine months.

In addition to preparing robust documentation, you must post your plans to the Federal Register, demonstrate you have adequately addressed the comments from the public, revise the form, post it again, and again address comments from the public. The procedures to hire a contractor to put your form online are equally onerous, as are a dozen other steps in the process.

You’d been eager to engage with the companies and understand what kinds of projects might be possible, but you soon realize all your energy will go to navigating the bureaucracy for months on end. The companies will have to wait.

At the same time, your team is trying to staff up. You’ve read the excellent Merit System Principles that supposedly govern human resources practices, but you quickly learn that hiring takes many months and you have little control over either the process or the outcome. More waiting.

Polling released last week highlights how fed up the public is with a government that waits. Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark described speaking in a focus group with voters who switched from Mr. Biden to Donald Trump (including those who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 but supported Mr. Trump last November) who said that at least the new president is “doing something” that “they can see.”

 

For now, at least, they will take action they dislike — and even fear — over the molasses of the status quo.

The examples above highlight the culpability of both Democrats and Republicans for this unacceptable slowness. The intense process of getting a web form approved is required by a law from 1980 (the Paperwork Reduction Act), written when information was gathered on paper, that Congress has not bothered to update for the modern era (aside from extensive revisions in 1995 that made it more cumbersome, not less).

Republicans could well champion these much-needed reforms while they enjoy a governing trifecta. But Democrats, as institutionalists, tend to see the value in any kind of safeguard that checks for possible harms before action, and may well resist, especially as havoc from Mr. Musk’s initiative creates a frightening sense of there being zero backstops.

This would be the wrong response. In fact, Democrats should make repealing the Paperwork Reduction Act and other barriers like it — such as reforming the current hiring process — a cornerstone of their own deproceduralization agenda, and get off the defensive.

Mr. Musk’s initiative appears to be one of the most effective waves of the flood-the-zone strategy. Democrats cannot stop feeling overwhelmed, but we can control our own responses to it.

 

Anyone who cares about the core principles our government is built on will need to protect civil servants who defend the law. But a defensive crouch, one that draws on our most self-defeating instincts, is the wrong response. If you’re mad about what Mr. Musk’s initiative is doing to the institution of government, it’s time to go on the offense to reform it.


02/10/25 08:08 PM #18021    

 

Jack Mallory

Look hoo's back!


********

And hooever thought a good Republican president would end up known as Turn 'em Loose Trump?

From the NYT


02/11/25 06:57 AM #18022    

 

Jack Mallory

The First Felon is imposing a 25% tariff on aluminum imports. When he put a 10% tax on aluminum in 2018 it raised the cost of production in the beverage industry by HALF A BILLION DOLLARS!

BEER DRINKERS OF AMERICA—take action now! OUT OF THE BARS, INTO THE STREETS! Put down those beers, turn off the ball game and get off the couch! Fight for your right to a cheap, truly American buzz! 

How we gonna MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN without low cost booze?!?! Put your beer belly on the front lines for freedom! 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/business/economy/tariffs-steel-aluminum-manufacturing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


02/11/25 06:59 AM #18023    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Yay for so many of the judges, even including past Trump appointed judges that are standing up for the rule of law. Love to all, Joanie

Great owl shot Jack and I heard of how Trump is going around pardoning criminals and then appointing them to high positions such as ambassadors or head of education...

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/10/judge-trump-ethics-watchdog-unfired-00203503


02/13/25 07:06 AM #18024    

 

Jack Mallory

Donate $250 million+ to the Felon's campaign, get $400 million worth of orders in return. Musk's idea of governmental efficiency! Yesterday he was complaining about the high price of coffee cups and soap dispensers at the Pentagon. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/us/politics/trump-tesla-musk-cybertruck.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
 


02/15/25 06:01 AM #18025    

 

Jack Mallory

HEY PRESIDENT TRUSK, OR MUMP, OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS:

GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO, GULF OF MEXICO.

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, including the freedoms of speech and the press, while you were faking bone spurs to avoid swearing that oath. Blocking news media from doing their job because you don’t like what they say reveals either your disdain for or ignorance of that Constitution. Glad I saved all my Impeach the President paraphernalia from your first term. I love recycling!


02/15/25 11:14 AM #18026    

 

Jay Shackford

Who Will Stand Up

To Trump at High Noon

 

By Maureen Dowd/The New York Times

Opinion Columnist, reporting from Washington/February 15, 2025

 

When I was a teenager, my older brother took me to see “Shane.”

I wasn’t that into westerns, and the movie just seemed to be about a little boy running after Alan Ladd in the wilderness of the Tetons, screaming “Sha-a-a-a-ne, come back!”

I came across the movie on Turner Classic Movies the other night, and this time I understood why the George Stevens film is considered one of best of all time. (The A.F.I. ranks “Shane, come back!” as one of the 50 top movie lines of all time.)

The parable on good and bad involves a fight between cattle ranchers and homesteaders. Ladd’s Shane is on the side of the honest homesteaders — including an alluring married woman, played by Jean Arthur. Arriving in creamy fringed buckskin, he is an enigmatic golden gunslinger who goes to work as a farmhand. Jack Palance plays the malevolent hired gun imported by the brutal cattle ranchers to drive out the homesteaders. Palance is dressed in a black hat and black vest. In case you don’t get the idea, a dog skulks away as Palance enters a saloon.

It’s so easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, the right thing to do versus the wrong. Law and order wasn’t a cliché or a passé principle that could be kicked aside if it interfered with baser ambitions.

 

The 1953 film is also a meditation on American masculinity in the wake of World War II. A real man doesn’t babble or whine or brag or take advantage. He stands up for the right thing and protects those who can’t protect themselves from bullies.

I loved seeing all those sentimental, corny ideals that America was built on, even if those ideals have often been betrayed.

So it’s disorienting to have the men running America, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, relish bullying people who can’t fight back and blurring lines between good and bad.

They should be working for us, but we suspect they’re working for themselves.

After Elon met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India on Thursday, Trump admitted that he wasn’t sure if Musk was there as a representative of the U.S. government or as an American C.E.O. “I don’t know,” he said. “They met, and I assume he wants to do business in India.”

Trump and Musk see government workers as losers for devoting themselves to public service rather than chasing dollars.

 

Axios called their aggressive approach “masculine maximalism.”

“Trump and Musk view masculinity quite similarly: tough-guy language, macho actions, irreverent, crude — and often unmoved by emotionalism, empathy or restraint.”

The two are freezing programs, firing federal workers en masse, ripping apart the government and decimating agencies with no precision, transparency or decency.

Republicans are cowering, and Democrats are frozen like the townsfolk in westerns when the bad guys take over.

Trump’s glowering mug shot even hangs outside the Oval, like an Old West “Wanted: dead or alive” poster. And Musk, giving a news conference with his son X Æ A-Xii on his shoulders, mirrored Palance with his black outfit, including a Dark MAGA hat.

It’s bizarre to have the White House accusing judges who pause Trump’s depredations for a constitutional review of provoking a constitutional crisis.

 

Trump and Elon are turning our values upside down. The president demands fealty, even if he is asking his followers and pawns to do something illicit or transgressive. Loyalty outweighs legality.

He immediately purged federal prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6-related cases. He ordered a McCarthyesque probe of thousands of F.B.I. agents who investigated a bloody sack of the U.S. Capitol that endangered police officers and lawmakers. So now the agents are the scofflaws, and the scofflaw is the dispenser of “justice”?

Trump is even making it easier for American companies to bribe foreign governments — something that’s not exactly an American ideal.

Danielle Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose office was prosecuting the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, resigned on Thursday before she could be fired, after Trump’s Justice Department ordered her to drop the case against the mayor. Trump seemed willing to let Adams, his latest sycophant, off the hook if he cooperated with the administration’s deportation efforts. On Thursday, Adams granted immigration officers access to the city’s jail.

On “Fox & Friends” on Friday, Adams sat with Tom Homan, Trump’s monomaniacal border czar, who didn’t mince words.

“If he doesn’t come through, I’ll be back in New York City,” Homan said. “And we won’t be sitting on the couch. I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’”

Sassoon is a conservative legal star with Harvard and Yale degrees who clerked for Antonin Scalia and is a contributor to the Federalist Society — and is, by the way, going through all this mishegoss with a baby due in mid-March.

She is the heroine of the story, and Adams is the miscreant. But Trump and his former lawyer, now the acting No. 2 at Justice, Emil Bove III, are trying to brand her as incompetent and insubordinate and Adams as politically persecuted (like Trump).

Six more Justice Department officials quit after Sassoon, including the lead prosecutor on the Adams case, a former Brett Kavanaugh clerk named Hagan Scotten. Scotten wrote to Bove: “If no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”

R.F.K. Jr., our new secretary of health and human services — as hard as that is to believe — is hailed by Trump as a health savior, when he’s a dire threat to America’s children with his dismissal of vaccines.

 

Most of the world sees Volodymyr Zelensky as a hero and Vladimir Putin as a villain. I feel queasy when I hear President Trump talking dotingly about Putin, a K.G.B.-trained thug. I’m sure that dogs skulk away from Putin as he walks by.

But Putin has made it his business to seduce the president, so the easily flattered Trump sees Zelensky as the inevitable loser in his bid to keep Ukraine intact. As the Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, put it, Zelensky needs to get with it and understand “hard power realities,” like the reality that he’s not getting all of his territory back.

On Ukraine joining NATO, Trump sounds like a Putin spokesman, asserting that “Russia would never accept” that.

In a speech in Brussels on Thursday, Hegseth, said, “We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can’t shoot values. You can’t shoot flags. And you can’t shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power.”

But if we lose our values and abandon what those before us have fought for, are we the same America? Our heroes preserved the Union and liberated Europe from the Nazis. We’re supposed to be the shining city on the hill. It feels as if we’re turning our country into a crass, commercial product, making it cruel, as we maximize profits.

 

I hope, as President Trump and Elon Musk exercise their “masculine maximalism,” they remember the words of John Wayne in the 1972 western, “The Cowboys”: “A big mouth don’t make a big man.”


02/15/25 11:19 AM #18027    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Thanks Jack and Jay for your posts as always!!!

Oh, Jack, somehow I missed seeing those amazing snow scene shots you posted. They are beautiful and in the first one I love the way the snow forms mimic the forms in the horizon. Love, Joanie


02/15/25 02:23 PM #18028    

 

Jack Mallory

Under the heading, "BCC is a Small World:"
 

Contacted several days ago by a sociologist who studies resistance against the military and government on the part of soldiers and veterans. She's writing a book on the topic in different situations around the world, wanted to do a Zoom interview with me. I checked her out--sociologist, Notre Dame faculty, author of a lot of books and papers.  Ok, no problem.

Early in our conversation I said something about coming back to Bethesda from Vietnam. She brightened up, asked if that was where I was from. When I said yes, she said, "Oh, I went to Bethesda Chevy Chase High School, are you familiar with it?" 

Class of 1990, so a youngster. (Isn't everybody?) but that added a nice degree of familiarity to the rest of our two hour conversation! She's just starting the research so who knows when the book might ever be published, but she has a big grant to fund the work. Provisional title seems to be Understanding Rebellion in the Military During Wartime, by Dana Moss. 

BCC--always there in the background! 


02/17/25 10:26 AM #18029    

 

Jack Mallory

Totalitarians bookend our generation's lives. 
 

Dick Nixon: 

"Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal."

 

 

Donald Trump:

 

"He who saves his country does not violate any law."

 

********

And Trump's shame spans the decades, from bone spurs until today. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/world/asia/trump-usaid-vietnam-agent-orange.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
 


02/18/25 02:24 PM #18030    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack, Trump is really testing how far he can go to set up a fascist government. Thank you for your posts. He is opposite what a President is supposed to be,. someone who defends the Constitution and makes sure the laws are carried out faithfully. He is not someone who tries to do good for our people. He is a destroyer and ironically the so called weaponization of government that he and his MAGA friends say is the government they inherited is just the opposite. They are the weaponsization of government putting in loyalists and desregarding longstanding laws and prioritizing billionaires by taking away from the middle class and poor. How cruel that government workers are just told they are fired. Well because the dems are not in power now, we just have the courts and have to pray they continue to stand up but so much damage is already done and will continue to be done by this horrid man domestically and internationally. He is cozying up to Putin and talking about Ukraine without even Ukraine at the table. Its a travesty. But on a brighter note, I hope that as the great Martin Luther King said, "the Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Toward Justice." We can only hope. Love to all, Joanie


02/18/25 05:39 PM #18031    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

REDSKINS! REDSKINS! REDSKINS! REDSKINS! REDSKINS! 


I so hear ya, Jack! Isn't is funny how we old farts hate change????

 


02/18/25 07:24 PM #18032    

 

Jack Mallory

Don't know about you as an old fart, Nori. This old fart thinks censoring the press because the felon who is President doesn't like how they report the news is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Were the Redskins some kind of sports team?


02/19/25 02:21 PM #18033    

 

Jay Shackford

Why Trump’s Bullying

is Going to Backfire

 

 

By Thomas L. Friedman

Opinion Columnist/The New York Times

Feb. 18, 2025

 

You say you got a real solution.
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan.

— “Revolution 1,” the Beatles

The scariest thing about what President Trump is doing with his tariffs-for-all strategy, I believe, is that he has no clue what he is doing — or how the world economy operates, for that matter. He’s just making it all up as he goes along — and we are all along for the ride.

I am not against using tariffs to counter unfair trade practices. I supported Trump and President Joe Biden’s tariffs on China. And if all of this is just Trump bluffing to get other countries to give us the same access that we give them, I am OK with it. But Trump has never been clear: Some days he says his tariffs are to raise revenue, other days to force everyone to invest in America, other days to keep out fentanyl.

So, which is it? As the Beatles sang, I’d love to see the plan. As in: Here’s how we think the global economy operates today. Therefore, to strengthen America, here is where we think we need to cut spending, impose tariffs and invest — and that is why we are doing X, Y and Z.

That would be real leadership. Instead, Trump is threatening to impose tariffs on rivals and allies alike, without any satisfactory explanation of why one is being tariffed and the other not, and regardless of how such tariffs might hurt U.S. industry and consumers. It’s a total mess. As the Ford Motor chief executive Jim Farley courageously (compared to other chief executives) pointed out, “Let’s be real honest: Long term, a 25 percent tariff across the Mexico and Canada borders would blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we’ve never seen.”

 

So, either Trump wants to blow that hole, or he’s bluffing, or he is clueless. If it is the latter, Trump is going to get a crash course in the hard realities of the global economy as it really is — not how he imagines it.

My favorite tutor in these matters is the Oxford University economist Eric Beinhocker, who got my attention when we were talking the other day with the following simple statement: “No country in the world alone can make an iPhone.”

 

Think about that sentence for a moment: There is no single country or company on earth that has all the knowledge or parts or manufacturing prowess or raw materials that go into that device in your pocket called an iPhone. Apple says it assembles its iPhone and computers and watches with the help of “thousands of businesses and millions of people in more than 50 countries and regions” who contribute “their skills, talents and efforts to help build, deliver, repair and recycle our products.”

We are talking about a massive network ecosystem that is needed to make that phone so cool, so smart and so cheap. And that is Beinhocker’s point: The big difference between the era we are in now, as opposed to the one Trump thinks he’s living in, is that today it’s no longer “the economy, stupid.” That was the Bill Clinton era. Today, “it’s the ecosystems, stupid.”

Ecosystems? Listen a bit to Beinhocker, who is also the executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School. In the real world, he argues, “There is no such thing as the American economy anymore that you can identify in any real, tangible way. There’s just this accounting fiction that we call U.S. G.D.P.” To be sure, he says, “There are American interests in the economy. There are American workers. There are American consumers. There are firms based in America. But there is no American economy in that isolated sense.”

 

The old days, he added, “where you made wine and I made cheese, and you had everything you needed to make wine and I had everything I needed to make cheese and so we traded with each other — which made us both better off, as Adam Smith taught — those days are long gone.” Except in Trump’s head.

Instead, there is a global web of commercial, manufacturing, services and trading “ecosystems,” explains Beinhocker. “There is an automobile ecosystem. There’s an A.I. ecosystem. There’s a smartphone ecosystem. There’s a drug development ecosystem. There is the chip-making ecosystem.” And the people, parts and knowledge that make up those ecosystems all move back and forth across many economies.

As NPR noted in a recent story about the auto industry, “carmakers have built a vast, complicated supply chain that spans North America, with parts crossing back and forth across borders throughout the auto manufacturing process. … Some parts cross borders multiple times — like, say, a wire that is manufactured in the U.S., sent to Mexico to be bundled into a group of wires, and then back to the U.S. for installation into a bigger piece of a car, like a seat.”

Trump just waves off all of this. He told reporters that the U.S. is not reliant on Canada. “We don’t need them to make our cars,” he said.

Actually, we do. And thank goodness for that. It not only enables us to make cars cheaper, but also better. All that a Model T did was get you from point to point faster than a horse, but today’s cars offer you heating and cooling and entertainment from the internet and satellites. They will navigate for you and even drive for you — and they’re much safer. When we can combine more complex knowledge and complex parts to solve complex problems, our quality of life soars.

 

But here’s the catch. You cannot make complex stuff alone anymore. It’s too complex.

In a 2021 essay on the website of the Yale School of Public Health, Swati Gupta, head of emerging infectious diseases at I.A.V.I., a nonprofit scientific research organization, explained how mRNA vaccines for Covid-19 were developed in record time:

“Vaccines traditionally take 10-20 years to develop, and research and testing costs can easily mount into the billions of dollars. So the natural question in light of the Covid-19 pandemic is: How were the currently available vaccines developed so quickly? … There was unprecedented global collaboration through coordinated partnerships among governments, industry, donor organizations, nonprofits and academia. … It’s the only way we could have achieved what has been seen in the past year, as no one group could have done this alone.”

Ditto today for the most advanced microchips. They are now made by a global ecosystem: AMD, Qualcomm, Intel, Apple and Nvidia excel at the design of chips. Synopsys and Cadence create sophisticated computer-aided design tools and software on which chip makers actually draw up their newest ideas. Applied Materials creates and modifies the materials to forge the billions of transistors and connecting wires in the chip. ASML, a Dutch company, provides the lithography tools in partnership with, among others, Carl Zeiss SMT, a German company specializing in optical lenses, which draws the stencils on the silicon wafers from those designs. Lam Research, KLA and firms from South Korea to Japan and Taiwan also play key roles in this coalition.

The more we push the boundaries of physics and materials science to cram more transistors onto a chip, the less any one company or country can excel at all the parts of the design and manufacturing process. You need the whole global ecosystem.

On Christmas Day 2021, I got up at 7:20 a.m. to watch the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope to peer deep into space. According to NASA, “Thousands of skilled scientists, engineers and technicians” from 309 universities, national labs and companies, primarily in the U.S., Canada and Europe, “contributed to the design, build, test, integration, launch, commissioning and operations of Webb.”

Adam Smith famously identified the division of labor, and that is surely important — you can make more pins with fewer workers if you divide up the labor correctly. “That was great,” Beinhocker notes. “But the more powerful engine is the division of knowledge. That is what is required to make more complex things than pins. You have to harness a division of knowledge, a division of expertise.”

 

If you stand back and look at the big sweep of economic history, Beinhocker explains, “it is really a story of scaling up our networks of cooperation to harness and share knowledge to make more complex products and services that give us higher and higher standards of living. And if you are not part of these ecosystems, your country will not thrive.”

And trust is the essential ingredient that makes these ecosystems work and grow, Beinhocker adds. Trust acts as both glue and grease. It glues together bonds of cooperation, while at the same time it greases the flows of people, products, capital and ideas from one country to the next. Remove trust and the ecosystems start to collapse.

Trust, though, is built by good rules and healthy relationships, and Trump is trampling on both. The result: If he goes down this road, Trump will make America and the world poorer. Mr. President, do your homework.


02/20/25 12:06 AM #18034    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

     For those who may worry that Trump's cabinet is short on diversity: Tulsi Gabbard (of Samoan descent) is the 2nd woman to hold the position of head of National Intelligence; Kash Patel is the first Indian to head the FBI; Marco Rubio (son of immigrants) is first Latino Sec of State; Susie Wiles is first female Chief of Staff; Rick Grinnell (the envoy who recently returned 6 American hostages from Venezuela) is openly gay; Scott Bessent, also openly gay, is our new Treasury Secretary; Kristi Noem is 2nd female to be Sec of Homeland Security. 
Seems odd choices for a racist, homophobic, chauvinistic bigot. 
As for "diversity, equity & inclusion" (important cultural elements of society, certainly), IMO, holding managerial positions of leadership, none surpass nor should surpass MERIT. When President Biden announced he would choose a Black woman to join his ticket, I would have been insulted to be chosen, as his proclamation indicated it was my gender & skin color that earned the recognition. With minority groups leaning closer to Republican policies, identity politics has become less an issue, indicating that possibly DEI should be put behind us now, much like the earlier race-based affirmative action legislation of previous decades. 
      In an interesting development post Trump's threat of taking over Greenland, Denmark's Prime Minister announced plans to bolster its military to the tune of $7B which will raise its defense spending to over 3% of gross domestic product now through 2026. Who knew? Apparently Trump did. 
      
    


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

agape